Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 129 comments are related to the topic:
B E T 365 refusal to pay punter
B E T 365 refusal to pay punter
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 129
|
By:
Cheers for that
|
|
By:
Whats your take on the whole thing Mr Jabba, are you in my corner where you think there was a rort pulled, or in the corner of majority on here?
|
|
By:
Something suss but surely they have to pay
|
|
By:
I think they will eventually, unless they know something we don't
|
|
By:
Just saw the latest Ad for b e t 365
Has Samuel standing there saying "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and Rort my brothers at B e t 365!" (Sorry couldn't help myself) |
|
By:
If it can be proven the punter was involved in a conspiracy, where he knew two greyhounds, including the favourite, would finish down the track, then he is in a lot of trouble.
Either way, he knew what he was doing, and took advantage of slackness in Bet365's betting conditions. |
|
By:
8ball
 ... but is he the shepherd ... or is he the weak  |
|
By:
A rort has definitely been pulled here. As mentioned above he obviously knew the even money fav, which was having its first start was a cripple. Then he has just put a few thousand extra in the pool to boost his dividend.
Maybe he should have taken the 25k, because if he has played a part in that, he could be in a lot of strife. In saying all that, they still should be made to pay |
|
By:
Mr KCS, If its proven they received a benefit by deception, not only should they not get paid, they should also lose their stake and criminal charges also be laid
|
|
By:
this was a rort and its not the first time it's happened at Ipswich.
I've been doing form on Ipswich greys for 6 years and I'm sure It's happened on at least four other occasions. On each occasion a first starter would start a hot fav,finish down the track,and most importantly,never be heard of again. The greyhound in question,Finished Forcer(3 years,4 months)is from a very average litter and is not included on the Greyhound Data. From my review Finished Forcer was average away ,shifted slightly,small check and ran 5.85 first sec(5 len off the leader)and pulled up down the back straight Another first starter Octane Moment was average away,small check,looked very timid first turn shifted off the track and tailed off I didn't take notice then on.. |
|
By:
Burgess
If I were to enter two dogs in a race with limited ability , and they finished down the track it is not a rort. It,s not a law that says I must back them. What I cannot understand is why Finished Force started favourite. Maybe tote manipulation yes but not illegal. Corps bookies manipulate the totes with your bets to get the best advantage for them and also kickbacks. 365 accepted the bet on a sh@tty Ipswich dog meeting probably thinking they had another mug. They got burnt. All clear was given, pay up and be careful what meeting you accept bets on in future especially exotic bets. |
|
By:
they took a bet lost. changed the rules on the sly after they lost. have to be made to pay.
|
|
By:
Which brings my attention to the next point of issue.
Submitting a change of rule and backdating them without notifying ALL the customers is in serious breach of company law. I hope officials take this matter seriously (if they are fair dinkum) and issue a heavy fine or revoke their license. |
|
By:
Truthful
The reason 99% of these corporates are licenced in the NT, is because it's " Cowboy Country ". I would be extremely surprised if any action is taken in that jurisdiction. If they have broken Commonwealth laws, well that is a different matter. |
|
By:
Weather its a rort or not is irrelevant to whether Bet365 have to pay out or not. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Did the tabs pay out the punters on the race? If it is found to be a rort, will the OFFICIAL result of the race be amended? Bet365 of any other bookmaker CAN NOT pay out on what they think the result should have been, the only thing they can payout on is the official result, and unless that gets amended, there really is no argument here. The only argument is whether it was in fact a rort. |
|
By:
The 2 are not mutually exclusive, i disagree. You burn your house down, insurance pays out, then they discover it was arson, do you think you keep the payout?
Also you err when you mention anything about what the result should've been, that has nothing to do with anything and no one is suggesting that, unless of course 365 have not paid out any winning bets at all on said race and i very much doubt that they haven't. The bottom line of your post is what they're trying to establish. Mr Truthful says 365 have backdated a rule, if so they need to be held accountable for that, because pulling a rort to stop a rort is no justification for pulling said rort, i think i have said rort enough |
|
By:
Yes but whether it was a rort has no bearing on whether they are legally required to pay out or not.
|
|
By:
If its proven there was a rort and winning punter was involved in said rort, no way are they entitled to payout
|
|
By:
Why not? So your saying they aren't required to payout on the official result of the race, regadless of how that result came about?
What about if the pool was manipulated but their was no dogs slowed down? |
|
By:
Not to the rorter. if he's proven to have rorted.
Just came across this interesting article http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/superracing/k-greyhound-punt-case-takes-twist-as-stewards-step-in/story-fn67v0c5-1226462014042 |
|
By:
Others came across that article at least 8 hours earlier on this thread.
|
|
By:
Punters story not ringing true. Think Xenephon will be doing a runner
|
|
By:
I think you guys bare missing the point.
Under rules of racing a race is run and when the all clear is given totes and bookies pay out. Simple as that. Does this mean that if 365 have the right not to pay ,all the tote punters that bet on this race have rights for their money refunded. Fat chance. The result stands as the judges decision is final. If there was any wrong doing, the guilty party should be punished, but not before being paid. Similarly does this mean when a horse tests positive a week after the race has been run and settled, then placings ammended, do punters who backed the second horse , and are now on the winner get paid. Do punters that backed the original winner keep their money after placings ammended. You know the answer. |
|
By:
spot on truthful ... that's the only way this can be played out ... payment on correct weight
any subsequent findings that allow 365 to take a perpetrator of a perceived rort to court ... for civil damages ... will happen outside of the official result |
|
By:
yes you are 100 % correct truthful.
Spy I don't understand why you think Bet365 have the right to make their own rules of racing. |
|
By:
Bet365 pay 70k Punter charged with conspiracy to defraud Govt takes money as proceeds of crime Nobody wins
|
|
By:
Spy
If 365 were operating on track, and the all clear was given, and they refused to pay the punter, what do you think the stewards would say? You cannot make rules to suit yourself. Racing rules should be followed by all, as this is the best method and has worked very well for over 100 years |
|
By:
spy...insurance companies make their own determination on payouts.
In racing a third party, the stewards make the determination. It was made....the all clear. Payout and then use the legal system to get your money back. |
|
By:
Mr Spy, I believe your use of the term rort is very much misplaced in this case. Is it a rort when corporate bookies double or triple back the wagers of smart players into tote pools? Is it a rort when corporates bet back portions of large bets into small pools to minimise dividends? Is it a rort if you see 2 dogs trial that clearly have no ability and decide to have 1000 on each of them to bring up them up short on the totes(while never cancelling the bets)? Is it a rort if said punter had calcultaed the correct amount to have on the winning ticket to ensure a maximum dividend from the selected tote? And finally,what if the punter had cultivated a losing account with a corporate with a string of prior losing bets, is he entitled to a refund for those?
|
|
By:
You could have said hello to me jfc. Hello to you jfc, and if someone did post that link up on this thread i missed it, please accept my apology
|
|
By:
You make some valid points Mr Robl, but betting back isn't illegal. Why i'm with the stand 365 are taking is this, the harder they make it for rorts to happen makes it beneficial to punters betting off the stick
|
|
By:
No it is not illegal to bet back, but isn't that what this punter essentially did? Corporates manipulate dividends on every race, every day. Why can a punter not manipulate dividends? And anyone 'betting off the stick' on this race, doing the form for themselves, could have seen these avearge trials and bet around them accordingly, could they not? In reality, he was creating value for any genuine form student. What if you saw a Gai horse trial no good and go to goullburn 1st up and open up 1.80, would you bet around it/lay it? I know an astute trial watcher like yourself would understand that. Now what of you saw the opening tote pool only had 1200 in it, and you had 500 on it so all the lemmings on track and in the corporate world go up shorter? Is this illegal? Is this a 'rort'as you reapeatedly call it? Or is it merely outsmarting the opposition? And make no mistake, the corporates are the opposition in this war they have launched on punters
|
|
By:
Greyhounds in false names. Unable to complete course. Sounds like a rort to me
|
|
By:
No mention of dogs in false names. I can name you 200 dogs that are unable to complete course. No rort for mine, only tote manipulation.
Thats why we have stewards and the integrity dept of racing to police anymalpractice. In the meantime all clear is up ....PAY |
|
By:
Truthful
Are you able to act as my personal translator? Apparently the last 5 posts of mine saying exactly what you just said were not understood by anyone  |
|
By:
Cannot understand anyone defending these UK corporates.
All they do is take advantage of the poor inflicted mug, and bar any one with an ounce of ability. And make their own rules. Fk them |
|
By:
Mr Target, maybe its because its Dark and no one can see it is why they missed it in your 5 posts
|
|
By:
No one is defending the corps.
In fact, any corp who lets a punter invest $5k into a pick 4 at an Ipswich dog meeting, deserves anything that comes his way. But saying that, I'm prepared to wait and see, the outcome of the investigation by Qld stewards, before I give the punter, a high five, for a successful betting coup. |
|
By:
100% well said Mr Iron
|
|
By:
I think you may be right Mr Spy
 |