Anyone know how Hills have settled the 9th Eviction?

Flipped a button, nap

Book being checked

"call back in the spring"

my bet with them on jj has been settled as a loser. but i am just off the phone with them to ask for a ruling. I have been told they will get back to me. The person i talked to kept saying that jj was not 9th evictee. I told him the clear assumption of the market was that it had been priced up as most % votes and he agreed with me but he did not have any authority to change the settlement. From what i was told they will not be paying out on jj but hopefully someone more senior will look at it differently once they have the full facts of what happened.

^^^^^^
SEETHING

Its a complete disgrace if the bookies don't follow the % votes. i mean why else would anyone in their right mind vote steve as 9th evictee unless they had some insider info on the format of tonites show

betfair - void

i placed my bet at 8.45 tonight with billies when jj was 2/11. As someone said on another thread established eviction procedures were changed tonight which no one could have foreseen.

My main point though is that bb obviously decided prior to my bet being placed that this was going to be the case and jj would be the last person evicted tonight.

Basically, this meant i placed a bet which beaten as soon as i clicked the button. This can not be fair.

How can it be fair to place a bet that can not possibly win at the time you place it with a major land based bookie.

I will be complaining to Hills. Small bet in the shops but it is the principle.

Bollocks they change thing all the time. That has to be taken into account when placing bets on game shows

betfair have just voided the bets i had on 9th evictee- right decision

But if you place a bet with a land based bookie after it has already been decided that the person you have backed can NOT POSSIBLY win how can this be fair in a betting sense.

Can someone show another instance where such a bet that can not win at the point it is made is still considered as a lost bet. I mean it has zero chance of winning.

People were stupid enough to back Keeley to be evicted when she was in hospital with a broken ankle.

The bets stood.

double standards imo

keeley had not a zero chance of winning as was the case tonight with jj.

I think bets should have stood. But BF are their own worst enemy for not specifying 9th out in the rules

Paddy Power are not refunding the 6-4 I had on John James 'next eviction'. I must be a mug for not reading the small print. Betfair have voided - ironically I had Steve as a green on that market. Kind of sums up my night

aww JR

All on the phones crying to the bookies, all very JJ1 like behaviour if you ask me (which you didn't).

Most of you will have seen in advance loopholes like this in the past and taken advantage but when one goes against you its tears at bedtime, like I said very JJ1 like behaviour.

The markets were 9th eviction with no mention of percentages and the 9th person evicted was Steve.

HF - I thought Betfair were right to void and it has cost me some profit. I thought next eviction was based on highest percentages. It was my mistake. Wasn't aware of high st bookies' smallprint.

The only people with smallprint were betfair.

The bookies were just betting on 9th eviction.

Simples.

Here's BF's small print again HF


Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your e-mail.

The percentages do not come in to consideration with regards to this market. Regardless if the first person evicted Friday has the least/most voting percentage. The top of the rules located to the right state 'Who will be the NINETH housemate to be evicted from Big Brother 11?'

The market will be settled on whoever is the 9th person evicted from Big Brother 2010. Jo was evicted last week, therefore being the 8th evictee. I would therefore state that the first person evicted this Friday night would be considered the 9th evictee. Please also take in to considering the remainder of the rules located to the right.

This market will be suspended at 11.59pm on Sunday 15th August 2010. The market will then be re-opened with unmatched bets cancelled once an official announcement has been made in relation to the nomination process.

This market will be turned in-play at the start of any scheduled eviction show with unmatched bets cancelled. The market will then be suspended when voting lines close. Customers are entirely responsible for their positions at all times.

Any departure other than by public vote will not count as an eviction for the purpose of this market. If there is an announcement of any change to the established eviction procedure or any ambiguity as to who is voted off, then Betfair reserves the right to void this market at its absolute discretion. Subsequent events would NOT affect the result of this market.

If there is no eviction during a scheduled eviction show, the market will be reopened at the end of the show with unmatched bets cancelled and the time delay removed. If for any reason a scheduled eviction show is cancelled or postponed, then this market will remain open and all bets will be settled once the relevant eviction has been

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further enquiries.

Kind regards,

Kelvin Starr

Betfair Helpdesk

irishchicky Joined: 20 Aug 10
Replies: 7 21 Aug 10 00:07   


Its a complete disgrace if the bookies don't follow the % votes. i mean why else would anyone in their right mind vote steve as 9th evictee unless they had some insider info on the format of tonites show 

I did last week before JJ proper lost the plot, boring Steve value at 10s

Fair enough George, based on that email then Betfair should settle the market.

The problem is that that email does conflict slightly with the blurb that they actually put on the market itself.  It seems like another case of betfair shhoting themselves in the foot.

My main point to be honest though was that the high street bookies put up ninth eviction and Steve was the ninth person evicted.  I even heard that horrible shouty woman say it live on telly last night.

The amount of times we have spotted loopholes like this in markets and taken advantage on here is beyond counting and yet as soon as one goes against us then some start crying foul which I think is just plain silly.

I'm still waiting for an explanation from them HF

Just doing it for amusement value, Steve was a loser for me

The update is that Hills are indeed paying out on Steve but "man on the phones" implies they may void John James bets.  If you bet on John James at Hills (or anywhere else), ask them for a void, I suspect there's a good chance they void on Monday, particularly in response to customer feedback

Can someone get my £5.84 back from PP for me pls?

I can't be arsed

Corals initially settled John as a loser, now have paid out on him as a winner. Hope Hills also see sense.

Hills wording on their site was "Bets will be settled on the first evictee of Friday night's show".  No chance of getting John James bets void for me

Just been on to billies. Here are the point i made.

They are keeping to their line that their rules are the first person evicted on friday nights show. I told them that rule and the way they priced the market was based on the underlying rule that the person with the highest % of the vote would be evicted next. I said the exact wording of their rule was a nonesense if it did not take into account % of the vote. Under their exact wording it would be possible for someone not even up for nomination to be phsically evicted next from the house on friday. If someone broke a serious rule big brother could evict them from the house.

My main point was that it was obvious big brother had meddled with normal procedures and had decided prior to my bet being placed that John James could never have been the ninth evictee. Under these circumstances jj backers could never have won. Their bet was a loser from the moment it was placed as the outcome had already been pre decided.

They said if i can get confirmation this was the case they will look on the bet again. Its pretty obvious now that Big Brother had decided in advance that they would change normal eviction procedures and decided that John James was not going to be the first out but kept to the last.

How can i get confirmation of this. Despite it being obvious to anyone who watching big brother i need something more definate.

You can't because you are wrong. The voting was still live after they planned the show. How can you claim the outcome was 'pre-decided' ?

I am saying that from the point of view of jj backers only that it was pre decided that he was never going to come out first. The fact that votes were still live is irrelevant to this argument. Also the voting had jj as the clear winner throughout.

Clear favourite, not winner.

The bookies might argue that the risk of him not being out first was priced in, and he would have been a lot shorter if it was based on %

Do you seriously think that bb had not decided events in advance or indeed multiple scenarios. And do you not think after watching the show last night that John james's fate on the night had been decided in advance. And his fate was that he was not going to be out ninth.

Charlie, if your bet on John James  has not already been settled as a winner expect it to be soon.. Mine has just been resettled as a winner.

paddletoe - are you saying Wills are settlng JJ as a winner? I have a bet at a shop, not online...

My bet was online. Resettled half an hour ago as a winner. Thats all i can tell you. You might want to wait till Monday if you have a shop bet as they might not have a resettlement message up on their system yet.

PP doing anything?

Just cutting peoples limits again.

On the online settlement page Steve has still declared as the winner at 9/1.Maybe they will pay out on both. It is possible that my resettlement was a goodwill gesture but if that was the case i would hope and expect that same line to be taken with all JJ bets.

It is possible that Steve bets may be resettled as a loser. I dont know yet. I know i did a bet on the election debates and was paid out on a winner based on early polls but the following day this was changed and my bet was declared a loser. I had taken money from my sports account to my poker account in the meantime and so had a minus balance in my sports account.

I put money back into my sports account to pay back the bet.

Paddies have now paid out on John

This just keeps getting better, all my losses being erased.

n1 jack

Not much to cut from £5.84 on a 2.5 shot fig

GB's in the money!

  Drinks are on me

I'd rather they just banned me. It would save me logging in

P.Power and WH both paid out on JJ with me too. Skybet voided. Coral paid out on JJ. Betfred paid out on Steve
Anyone managed to get their Skybet JJ bets upgraded from void to win yet?

Youre doing some panicing over £7.01 George