Bookmakers 9th eviction rulings

Paddies paid out on Steve

Had a bet on John with hill will check in morning, I wouldnt expect them to settle as a winner but should void.

Paddies settled john james as a loser, a bit surprising.

slybet have not settled my jj1 bet

If theyve settled steve as a winner and left john open gives a bit of hope doug/

The real question for bookies is can they accept a bet which has 0% chance of winning. Pretty clear that anyone who backed jj today placed a bet that could NEVER have won as big brother had already decide to change normal eviction procedures for what they considered more dramtic tv.

The same way bookies rightly refuse to pay out a bet that has already won when its placed and rightly so they cant take money from a bet where the outcome has already been decided and someone has backed something which was a loser from the first second it was placed.

No different from betting on the next Doctor Who, Booker prize, Mercury prize  PT etc etc

I think it is gb when you do a bet that has 0% of winning at the point you place it. Anyone who backed tonight were betting on a race that had already been run earlier today when bb and them only knew the outcome.

That was my point too with P.Power paddletoe but they said the bet with them was 'next eviction' - as simple as that. I didn't read smallprint but had assumed it was a given next eviction is based on highest eviction percentage.

Exactly like the markets I have noted PT

there may be some example when the result is known but betting is still possible but in those instances its clearly understood by bookies and punters that result is a sealed one.

Give me one other example of a bet where your selection has zero chance of winning at the point you place it other than within the confines of above.

I would argue that whatever example you come up with i can argue that the punter still has at least 0.001% chance. Here we had zero chance of winning. The result had already been decided.

Makes you wonder about the odd money on Mario to be the nineth evictee at the beginning of the week.

Yep, as I pointed out at the time ghat, and warned of this happening

Coral have paid out on John James 9th eviction. To be honest, I didn't check wording with any bookies I bet with - I assumed it was highest eviction percentage.

Boyles paid on steve John James a loser

slybet have now settled johnjames as void

what was corals wording and did anyone else pay out?

Paddle, why did your bet have zero chance of winning? Do you know when BB producers decided the order?

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

pt your statements are factually incorrect, clearly John James stood 'a chance' of being the 9th evictee, even if it was reverse order or random order.

Cider, it was pretty obvious evictions were not done in a random order and it had been decided in advance that John James was going to be kept to the last.

That's supposition at the end of the day, although everyone knows that was what happened, there is a chance that the voting could have been different to what Big Brother anticipated. iirc JJ1 was still backable to be evicted, are you saying that those bets should be voided as there was 0% chance of JJ1 surviving ?

Cider if you accept that everyone knows that is what happened there is no scenario possible that jj could have came ninth. My whole argument is that it was decided by big brother he was not coming out first. That has to be the starting point in any argument. That jj could possibly have avoded eviction by not getting enough votes is irrelevant when weighed against what bb had pre decided.

There is a difference between balance of probabilities and fact.

Two questions.

Do you think it is factual to say bb decided in advance that JJ for the sake of more dramatic tv would not be coming out ninth.

If this was the case and can be proven as factual do you not think that JJ backers have a fair case because under those circumstances their bet was a loser from the start as the race had already been run.

Cowell decided that he would save the twins instead of Lucie for dramatic tv. Perhaps I should have my Lucie bets voided.

Thats different with respect. When it comes to x factor it is well known and accepted that the judges have such powers. Its factored into any bets.

However, bb dramatically and for the first time changed eviction procedures. This was not factored into bookies prices let alone punters. Bookies despite their ruling of the ninth housemate to be evicted had set thier prices on the underlying basis of highest % going out next under well established procedures.

I have been told that ninth evictee means ninths evictee and no other factors are considered but there are many others factors which need to be considered.

Under bookies strict rules of paying out on the ninth person evicted from the show, they would be paying out if a person not even up for nomination was evicted by big brother for a serious breaking of the rules. That person would physically be the ninth person evicted from the house. Other words could be used instead of evicted but you can not say also they were not evicted. Would bookies settle bets if this was the case?

No, I actually laid and took advantage, but the sing-off is decided before the event. Cowell decided he would get rid of Lucie and he calls the shots, but the betting was still live. 1-10 backers were 'stung'

bb are always meddling with procedures and there was plenty of speculation on here as to exactly how 4 evictees would leave the house.

I believe the books are entitled to keep the cash if their market was 9th evictee and I also believe bf should have settled the market on here.

This is specials betting which notoriously comes with a wealth warning and anyone betting high stakes and/or long-odds needs to ensure they have the rules watertight.

*long odds-on

Ah well, not the end of the world. Wont be kicking the cat over all this. I think it was very unfair due to the factors i pointed out but then again i have a vested interest. We will see what happens.

Hills resettled John James as a winner. Hopefully others will do the same.

I bet on John James with Skybet and they paid out on Steve as winner while voiding John James as they said that would be the only fair way to settle it. However on the bet description it says this:

"Class/Sport Event Type Event Market Date Selection Notes
TV and Film Specials Big Brother Big Brother 9th Eviction To Be Evicted 20/08/2010 22:00 John James @ 1/5 Who will be the first of the 4 to be evicted this Friday? if not a clear first out the market will be void.Public vote only counts."

I bet on the basis that it was indeed the public vote only counting, not who exited the house first and any random eviction order wouldn't affect that.

Sky argued that "The "Public vote only counts" bit is because people walking or being kicked out outside the set vote eviction times does not count on our markets. The first of the four to be evicted was, chronologically, the first person they sent out. They were all up for the public vote."

Do I have an argument worth pursuing there?

I bet John James with Skybet also, and it has been voided. I wasn't aware of the wording, but reading that it looks clearer than a lot of other bookies' eviction rules.
'Public vote only counts.' John James got the highest eviction percentage so I'd say yes, you do have an argument.

1st in the public vote was clearly JJ. But they just say no, so what can we do?
Other than not bet with slybet in future cos they are so mean.

I take it skybet voided all other three runners while paying out on Steve. I find this a very strange decision as their final settlement is based on a goodwill voiding of the three other runners while declaring Steve as the winner. Strange in the sense that they are taking the shine off their goodwill gesture by not paying out also on John James when he was such a short price and the difference between voiding him and treating him as a goodwill winner would be very little.

May have been a short price, but the vast majority of the money will have gone on him.

If they stated 'public vote' get onto IBAS

some people are never happy

you want them to pay out on 2 winners and void on the losers?

would you lile a cuddly toy too?

If they say public vote and you'd bet on JJ would you not be slightly interested A1?

I would look at the picture George

I cant see how they could have been much fairer in how they have setled.

I doubt they make that much money on these type of markets and i would hate to see them just throw in the towel and say they're not worth it.

bigger picture even

It's their own f-up that should not have happened A1

They should have paid out on JJ.  The mistake of the numbskull they employed to settle it need not have a bearing on future markets

Skybet have now paid out on John James

yes that was a nice email this morning, so its just SJ , Fred and boils i think who stuck with Steve.