Forums

Australian

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
SHAPESHIFTER
29 Aug 12 14:47
Joined:
Date Joined: 04 Apr 03
| Topic/replies: 3,194 | Blogger: SHAPESHIFTER's blog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qneLWoG2MY4&feature=youtu.be
Pause Switch to Standard View B E T 365 refusal to pay punter
Show More
Loading...
Report spyvspy27 August 30, 2012 5:06 AM BST
They must have some legal right, otherwise they would themselves be breaking a law. I am sure they will eventually pay out, but i think they're trying to send a message to any rorters to go elsewhere.

But against them is if its outside the punters normal betting patterns, they should've done something prior to the off, ie not accept or only partially accept the bet, they did neither and yes they would've held onto the funds had bet lost
Report Lets Elope August 30, 2012 5:10 AM BST
so just becaue somedoes something different to what they normally do which may not have been working that is immediately suspicious, do you guys actually have any comprehensiion of how stupid you're sounding.

I'm absolutely staggered that supposedly intelligent people, can in reality be this dumb.
Report Joel August 30, 2012 5:12 AM BST
Are the police dumb?
Report Joel August 30, 2012 5:12 AM BST
oops i am reading the wrong thread. Carry on.
Report Castiron August 30, 2012 5:15 AM BST
The way I read this, is the punter knew exactly what he was doing. He obviously saw a loophole in their conditions and took advantage of it.

How much was in the pick 4 pool. A lot less than the 14K, I would guess, unless it was a jackpot race.

If it wasn't a jackpot pick 4, I  would say someone got it for a small percentage and 14k is what it would have paid for a dollar unit.

Also how many of the other corps, would let someone invest $5k on a pick4 at an Ipswich dog meeting. None, alarm bells would be ringing.

Good luck to the guy, Bet365 deserve no sympathy.
Report Pounf August 30, 2012 7:18 PM BST
The latest twist is superb. It appears the place where the 2 dogs that were tailed off are kennelled is the registered property of a guy called Brunker. The same name as the punter with the bet. This may be a popular name of course....

I hate politicians more than I hate bookies, and I would love that opportunist Xenophobe to have egg on his face. This has the makings of a film !!!
Report Bernborough August 30, 2012 11:52 PM BST
How good is Xenophan, going in to bat for blokes who set up a races, hope they go all the way with this http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/match-fixers-face-10-years-in-jail-under-new-laws-...
Report Jibba Jabba August 31, 2012 12:22 AM BST
Tattsbet declare dividends  for a 25cent unit so only had to be 4k in pool for 14k dividend.If same thing happened today punter would lose 1k
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 12:24 AM BST
How would punter lose 1k Mr Jabba?
Report Jibba Jabba August 31, 2012 12:27 AM BST
Think they changed terms to say max pay is size of pool
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 12:28 AM BST
Cheers for that
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 12:30 AM BST
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?
Report Jibba Jabba August 31, 2012 12:32 AM BST
Something suss but surely they have to pay
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 12:34 AM BST
I think they will eventually, unless they know something we don't
Report eight ball August 31, 2012 12:39 AM BST
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)
Report Castiron August 31, 2012 12:46 AM BST
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.
Report Thebas August 31, 2012 12:48 AM BST
8ball Laugh

... but is he the shepherd ... or is he the weak   Wink
Report KCS August 31, 2012 12:57 AM BST
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
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 1:45 AM BST
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
Report burgess August 31, 2012 1:52 AM BST
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..
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 2:25 AM BST
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.
Report manikato August 31, 2012 2:36 AM BST
they took a bet lost. changed the rules on the sly after they lost. have to be made to pay.
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 3:18 AM BST
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.
Report Castiron August 31, 2012 3:26 AM BST
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.
Report Dark....Target August 31, 2012 3:28 AM BST
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.
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 3:41 AM BST
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 Laugh
Report Dark....Target August 31, 2012 3:43 AM BST
Yes but whether it was a rort has no bearing on whether they are legally required to pay out or not.
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 3:49 AM BST
If its proven there was a rort and winning punter was involved in said rort, no way are they entitled to payout
Report Dark....Target August 31, 2012 3:51 AM BST
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?
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 3:53 AM BST
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
Report jfc August 31, 2012 3:58 AM BST
Others came across that article at least 8 hours earlier on this thread.
Report Jibba Jabba August 31, 2012 4:04 AM BST
Punters story not ringing true. Think Xenephon will be doing a runner
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 4:15 AM BST
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.
Report Thebas August 31, 2012 4:20 AM BST
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
Report whoopi August 31, 2012 4:22 AM BST
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.
Report Jibba Jabba August 31, 2012 4:30 AM BST
Bet365 pay 70k Punter charged with conspiracy to defraud Govt takes money as proceeds of crime Nobody wins
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 4:32 AM BST
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
Report whoopi August 31, 2012 4:34 AM BST
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.
Report robl_lover August 31, 2012 5:10 AM BST
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?
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 5:22 AM BST
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
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 5:26 AM BST
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
Report robl_lover August 31, 2012 5:47 AM BST
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
Report Jibba Jabba August 31, 2012 5:57 AM BST
Greyhounds in false names. Unable to complete course. Sounds like a rort to me
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 6:07 AM BST
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
Report Dark....Target August 31, 2012 6:11 AM BST
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 Confused
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 6:16 AM BST
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
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 6:24 AM BST
Mr Target, maybe its because its Dark and no one can see it is why they missed it in your 5 posts Laugh
Report Castiron August 31, 2012 6:24 AM BST
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.
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 6:25 AM BST
100% well said Mr Iron
Report Dark....Target August 31, 2012 6:29 AM BST
I think you may be right Mr Spy Cry
Report logroller August 31, 2012 6:35 AM BST
i understand where spy and cast r comming from, but they have to pay and then start criminal procedings, after all he is innocent until proven guilty, even though we all can see the writing on the wall
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 6:41 AM BST
They must be within their legal rights to withhold payment while investigating, as if they weren't, surely said punter would be well within his rights to take the matter to the police.

The outcome will be interesting, as will be what happens about 365 changing the rules and backdating them
Report Joel August 31, 2012 6:43 AM BST
What happens if the TAB doesn't pay because they suspect a race is dodgy Mr Spy?
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 6:49 AM BST
SPY
How do you assume they are within their legal right to withhold any money.
Unitab paid their commitments.
NSW and VIC paid their commitments.
365 welshed on their bet. Not very honorable.
As we have said for the last 55 posts, if there was any wrong doing by the punter civil action should occur.
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 6:50 AM BST
Tab don't give a fk, they got their cut
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 6:52 AM BST
Mr Truthful as i just answered Mr joel, Tab could care less, they get same take out regardless of how result eventuated.

I assume they're within legal rights, otherwise why haven't charges been laid against them if they aren't?
Report whoopi August 31, 2012 6:52 AM BST
and if it was a fixed odds TAB race spy?
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 6:53 AM BST
Can't answer that Mr Cushion i'm sorry
Report veronica August 31, 2012 6:57 AM BST
how did the bloke who had the bet and owns the 2 favourites stop them so effectively
Report logroller August 31, 2012 7:00 AM BST
r u serious Veronica, dogs r the easiest to nobble, have u not heard of the dog whisperer
Report Truthful August 31, 2012 7:01 AM BST
who is going to lay charges against 365.
They have their own rules and can do as they please.
You already know they illegally changed their rules and subitted them to the NT gaming commission, and backdated this wich is highly illegal without informing every customer.
Banks advise every customer re changes to credit card or banking rules and don't backdate them.
I'm waiting on the gaming commission to take action against these pr@cks for their illegal activity, but not holding my breath.
At least betting with a fair dinkum bookie on track stewards would resolve it immediately
Report veronica August 31, 2012 7:02 AM BST
i think hes still a genius as he got them not to chase so were not nobbled did he get then trifecta as well
Report veronica August 31, 2012 7:03 AM BST
they should arrest the guy and induct him into the hall of fame with jim cruisin cassidy
Report veronica August 31, 2012 7:04 AM BST
crusin was the one he all but jumped off at rosehill for victa
Report spyvspy27 August 31, 2012 7:06 AM BST
Think it was Cruising Ms Veronica, but i get your drift
Report veronica August 31, 2012 7:12 AM BST
yes was a beauty so loyal to victa
Report Thebas August 31, 2012 7:23 AM BST
jim's defence consisted of betting his daughter ... and telling the stewards how they usually hook one


http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19880621&id=ADopAAAAIBAJ&sjid...
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 8:58 AM BST
If you say pay out as soon as the result ok is given at the track no matter what, you are giving dopers, scammers, ringers etc the green light. There has to be as much integrity as possible in a sport riddled with dodgyness. Pool rigging is fine, but not running dogs honestly is not.
Report whoopi August 31, 2012 9:22 AM BST
pounf...Have they changed the rules of racing?
Correct weight = pay.
So you want the bookies to be the stewards?
Fantastic idea.Laugh
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 9:24 AM BST
So drugging dogs is fine in order to get a coup is it.
Report whoopi August 31, 2012 9:29 AM BST
all clear = payout...end of story.
Do you want payouts to depend on the results on drug tests on horses as well?
Stewards run racing....not bookies.
If I back a horse that loses and later fails a drug test I don't get my money back.
The correct thing for them to do is pay the punter, then pursue it legally if they wish.
Report davez August 31, 2012 9:37 AM BST
These 'bookmakers(sic)' just need to be held to the same standards as on-course Bookmakers, & that comes down to a failure in the body handing out the licences, so until the NT Gaming Commission (or whatever it is) realise they have created a monster & that they need to tighten up their regulation of these 'bookmakers(sic)', these issues will just keep occurring.
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 10:41 AM BST
99.999999% of time theres nothing untoward, and no need to wait. But money is the root of everything in these instances, and large sums of money mean people will break the rules. You of course are happy with that. Stopping dogs is fair in your world. If no malpractice has taken place the bookie pays. But they are never going to just pay up £100,000 or whatever without looking at it. I suppose you would if it were you.
Report whoopi August 31, 2012 10:51 AM BST
IT'S NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE!!!!!!!!
WE HAVE STEWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And we bet in fckn $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 11:02 AM BST
Dont get me wrong, I love seeing the bookies get whipped, and Barney Curley is a legend over here. I`m just playing devils advocate in an interesting debate.
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 11:06 AM BST
So I could come over there, stand on the home straight and shoot every dog in front of mine, till mine leads. People will stoop to all sorts of thing to win when theres large sums of money involved. The stewards dont have all the facts, and an official body is currently investigating.  If they judge no malpractice then the bookie pays. Otherwise its a cheats charter and how can you bet on anything with any confidence.

I dont understand why the currency is relevant.
Report BJT August 31, 2012 11:26 AM BST
The race has been declared as all clear.  Simple as that.  If somebody started shooting all the dogs in the home straight, it wouldn't be, it would be called off.  Yeah?  Really?
Race has been declared, bookies pay.  Simple as that.
Sure they don't like being made look stupid, but this is making them look much stupider than if they just copped it on the chin, paid up, and then changed their rules and waiting for an investigation into the race.

There is no reason to conclude that anything untoward has happened.  Even if the dogs are on his property, all that means is he knows they were well underpriced.  It is not illegal for stables to bet on their horses, for people viewing private trials to lay horses, people watching training on their brothers property laying dogs.  Just because things add up, doesn't mean anything untoward is going on.  There are so many scenarios that are legit they combat the arguments that it wasn't.

But the reality is, all that is needed to be known here, is the race was declared as a race, and official results were posted.  Bookies are required to payout on official results.  Simple as that.
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 11:31 AM BST
Whats the difference between shooting dogs on the home straight and drugging all bar the one Ive backed ?
Report BJT August 31, 2012 11:35 AM BST
Nothing.  It is exactly the same.  Crazy
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 11:43 AM BST
There is a difference...the stewards wouldnt know.
Report BJT August 31, 2012 11:44 AM BST
You are right.  That is possibly the only difference.  Can't imagine there would be any others....  Crazy
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 11:51 AM BST
Theoretically, if all you have to do is get past the local stewards to win huge sums, people will do it. The fact of the matter is there are probably plenty of strokes that go on, but because the sums involved are relatively small and not headline making, nobody bothers. I know I am being far fetched, but its an interesting debate.
Report Bernborough August 31, 2012 12:03 PM BST
Cant wait for his to play out, someone is going to jail
Report BJT August 31, 2012 12:10 PM BST
Yep, local stewards only.  No need to worry about anybody higher than them.  Crazy

Lets be honest here, we live in a world of racing where it is a rule of racing that your horse must be prepared and raced in a way to give it the best possible chance to win the race, yet it is accepted practise to run a horse on a campaign targetting a race.

But the reality of this race, is if the 4 got up, he quite possibly could have still lost money.  The reason it paid so much was because the top 2 across the line were the longest priced dogs.  Now if he has also manipulated the tote pools, he has played a very risky game.

Now common sense says nobody in their right mind would not be betting 5k on a multiple where the win pool holds around the same amount unless they were really rich, stupid, both, or suspect.

But the fact remains, they must payout, and then seek damages after the event.  It isn't about getting away with it if you get past the stewards, it is about a temporary gain, for potential loss, jail time, and fines, not to mention livelihood of any licensed parties involved.

What you are saying is that to profit from an armed robbery, all you have to do is get past the 16 yo Indian working at the local Night Owl.  It is ridiculous.
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 12:16 PM BST
No that is what you are saying. I am saying that the inquiry taking place because of the huge amount and all the circumstances will sort it one way or the other, ie like the Police catching the armed robber. You were saying once the local stewards say all is good (the 16yo Indian) then everybody pays.
Report BJT August 31, 2012 12:51 PM BST
Yes.  AFTER EVERYBODY PAYS ffs...  WTF?

I really don't think you know what you are saying tbh...
Report Solvalla August 31, 2012 1:40 PM BST
This is just about the most ridiculous thing I have seen.

Wonder if the bloke had a good bet on Smoking Aces or knew any former NSW Harness stewards.

Dressed like a bloke who could afford to drop $5k on a lowly Ipswich dishlicker race too. Wish I could. Some grubs have all the luck.
Report Live_in_Hope August 31, 2012 1:42 PM BST
have they established if he was related to the trainer of the fav?
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 2:08 PM BST
BJT - you seem confused, are you saying that the local stewards are the final word or not. I am saying that in the vast vast majority of cases they are, but when strokes are pulled involving huge sums are involved they may not be, as an inquiry in to the goings on will almost inevitably take place at the behest of the bookie in the end of the sting. If no foul play, then bookies pay. But to remove that will open pandoras box to the fixers.
Report BJT August 31, 2012 3:11 PM BST
Time to upgrade your computer to something above the 386sx, then you may see the smilies indicating that I was making fun of you for being a ****.
Report Pounf August 31, 2012 6:54 PM BST
Whether I am a **** or not, is irrelevant.
Report not4fun September 1, 2012 12:22 AM BST
fight!!!

Report Truthful September 1, 2012 12:23 AM BST
What's all this fuss about 365. We all know they bet back through the totes, but obviously someone there completely stuffed up and either backed it back on the wrong tote , forgot to back it back at all, or just took the client as a complete mug and took the risk (unlikely).
If they have been stung it's by their own incompetence , and now they cry how hard they have been done by and refuse to pay.
Report Pounf September 1, 2012 1:44 PM BST
Glad you got a photo of me before I put a load of weight on...
Report Jack Morris September 30, 2012 11:14 AM BST
phucking imposters
Report AdelaidePhil October 1, 2012 12:41 PM BST
So what is the end result? Have 365 paid up? Is there a year long stewards enquiry going on still? Has Nick X quietly disassociated himself from the winning punter?
Report tyre kicker October 1, 2012 2:10 PM BST
Free tickets to The Avengers
Report Barney The Bot Slayer October 4, 2012 4:04 AM BST
how is this case progressing, any ideas?

I hope he gets the lot  and  the bags of cr@p lose their brief
Report Live_in_Hope October 4, 2012 11:53 AM BST
i settled for half
Report Barney The Bot Slayer October 4, 2012 1:17 PM BST
well done !!Excited
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com