Competition rules

This is official pro 40 rules for 2012

Agree completely, Betfair have made an arse of this and need to correct it pronto

They won't correct it because they have voided before, albeit in a different competition, when the wickets lost rule has been used.

Apparently their justification is they class the wickets lost rule as being covered in their rules as "super over, bowl-out or similar"

Does anyone think it's similar? I don't, and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise, but I am genuinely interested as to whether others believe it is similar.

No I don't - will be asking them to explain why formally as well via a letter

The match could only be a tie if both teams lost 7 wickets. In the High Jump eg if 2 athletes record the same height it is only a tie if they are level on countback. Betfair need to grow a pair and admit they are wrong. Im sick of hearing about their customer service yet they continue to act as judge and jury. They have made an error and should correct it and not hide behind spurious rules. It should not be compared to super over etc as no additional cricket was played because Hants had WON !!

The 'or similar' seems to be the key.

It could mean anything.

I've no idea why they don't make it crystal clear.

Unless they adhere to their own rules, it is time to bring them in front of said judge.

If anyone is writing a formal letter to Betfair then is it worth posting it so others can use it to 'petition'?

Won't make any difference. They have to pander to the Indian market. Which is an illegal market. Which is nice.

The whole thing rather stinks!

UK Registered Customers
Betting Disputes - IBAS
If you have a betting or account transaction dispute, which you believe that Betfair has not satisfactorily resolved, you can approach IBAS (The Independent Betting Adjudication Service). IBAS is a third party organisation offering independent adjudication in relation to betting and gaming disputes.
You may submit an IBAS adjudication form here or contact IBAS at adjudication@ibas-uk.co.uk

Are you contacting IBAS Nigel?

I want betfair to clarify that second line in the tie rules - it makes no sense to me how they've decided that something else has taken place - it appears to me that "nothing else took place"

be better off voicing your complaints to the bookies of bombay, dubai and lahore than betfair/IBAS.

that bad is it?

Lix, you're a reasonable sounding chap who knows his cricket.

Regardless of what betfair have done in the past, regardless of the rules in India: Under betfair rules as they are written, combined with the official competition rules as they are written - how should they settle in this situation.

HANTS WON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it was a tie. thats why there is a tie market.

stop moaning. we get great prices on here cos of the indian market.

could still lay the no tie at 1.06-1.10 going into the last two overs....

None of that makes sense Lix!

A tie occurs only occurs in this market when the same number of run are scored and wickets are lost.
What has the indian market got to do with anything?

Betfair liquidity would be considerably poorer if it was different rules to the Indian market.

Must say, I've never seen the rules of any illegal Indian bookies advertised...

liquidity of betfair has got absolutely nothing to do with a market being settled correctly.

nigel- a tie has nothing to do with wkts.

Will this match be Tied?

If the official result of this match is a Tie then this market will be settled as Yes. Any other official result other than Match Abandoned or No Result and the market will be settled as No. For the avoidance of doubt, if a match finishes in a Tie, then any Bowl Outs, Super Overs or similar which may take place do not count for the purposes of this market. At the scheduled start all unmatched bets will be cancelled and this market turned IP. This market will not be actively managed therefore, it is the responsibility of all users to manage their own positions

Betfair told me that it states in their rules that 'wickets lost' does not count. It is NOT in their rules.

Tie: "the finish of a contest in which the score is tied and the winner is undecided"

Well, that doesn't work here.

And you can't just assume a tie is as being match finishing when scores are level, as it contravenes the test match tie law.

How many people who watch cricket but don't bet on cricket would call this match a tie?

Essentially, people who just casually state "of course this was a tie today", are just doing so because they are used to betfair settling matches as ties in certain situations.

I'm not even bothered about them voiding but I seem to be seething!

scores were level but it was not a tie - sounds simple enough to me

There should not even be a tie market as it was an impossible result - in group games you can get ties

I backed hants to win on the match winner market and they won the match !

No it wasnt an impossible result. If the match was rained off it could have been tied.

Scores level, no tie, like can happen in test matches toffee. Just in a two runner market instead of a three (two teams + draw).

how ? It would have been match abandoned and they would have had a bowl out which would have had a different market

S&A. Tie possible if D/l was required, as super over could then come into play as wickets rule doesn't play.

i may be wrong but i dont think you can get a tie in d/l as if your d/l target is 185, you lose if you get 184 as 185 is your winning target

I think that they closed the market within 2 minutes of the match finishing without even thinking about the fact that is was not tied, and now they don't want to reverse the payouts.

Anyone know how purple settled?

the problem is that on the draw market betfair ask "will the match be tied" to which the answer must be no in this case

Maybe they should ask "will the scores be level" which is a totally different thing and i will be taking it up with them in the morning and then taking it to IBAS because it seems very black and white in this instance

Yes, but even that would be wrong because in cricket the scores are determined by both runs and wickets.

I shall be doing the same, when I have received a reply to my email.

If the official result is a Tied Match in any Test, County or Limited Overs Match then all bets on Match Odds markets will be void. Please note there is a separate Tied Match market available for this game. For the avoidance of doubt, if a match finishes in a Tie, then any Bowl Outs, Super Overs or similar which may take place do not count for the purposes of this market.

Interesting that the first bit is in bold, highlighted by betfair. It's clearly the defining factor in market settlement. Anyone wanting to take it up with betfair should therefore firstly get confirmation from the ECB of the official result.

The avoidance of doubt bit is actually irrelevant as it is dependent on the match finishing in a tie.

Notwithstanding the previous sentence I wrote, to say they are voiding it as the wickets lost rule is "similar" is ridiculous. The avoidance of doubt section concerns something "taking place". Their words. Wickets lost is not an event taking place.

The official result may turn out to be a tie but it has not, as yet, been stated as such "officially". Also, any request to the ECB to confirm the result can also easily be presented as a loaded question should betfair go that route to try and justify their decision.

"Competition rules apply". I posted them at the start of this thread.

I know this discussion will be boring most people to death as it has happened before but I still believe the voiding is unjustified according to their rules UNLESS the ECB officially record the match as a tie. Does anyone know how the result was officially recorded in that 20-20 match which had the same situation with the wickets rule?

Official results is here :

http://www.ecb.co.uk/scorecard/34373

I think they are going to be ok with the Win market because they can could say they voided for fairness.

Where they are are going to struggle is in the tied market as officially per the ECB the game was tied and their T&C DO NOT clearly state any different.

was not tied you mean.

sorry - yes!

they would then have the problem of voiding one market and people laying the result on the other market to ensure a profit who would challenge that. If they reverse it they have to do both.

Yeah, they need to void both IMHO.

The fact that they had "several calls" and had to consider it themselves indicates that:

1) They weren't sure
2) This situation can't have happened before otherwise they'd have changed the rules

I dont think they had to consider it, just their customer service team liasing with their markets team.

Havent read every single post on this thread. dont know what exactly all the comotion is about. this was a tie staight forward. the cb40 rules however appear to be a tad harsh , runs are the main thing how you get and how much of your resources you use to get them is irrelevant imho

How was it a tie, piechucker?

The 2010 20-20 final had the same situation. The official result on the ECB website is "Hampshire won
losing fewer wickets". No mention of a tie.

The same result is on their website for today's match.

Now, the really interesting bit for those wishing to take it up with betfair is in 2011 on 20-20 finals day when the semis both went to super overs.

The ECB results for these matches are "MATCH TIED"

This is effectively stating that the official match result in matches where a winner is required (not group matches) is only a tie if some sort of extra cricket is required to separate the teams. If a result is obtained from events within the normal overs it cannot be a tie.

I would suggest that's fairly indisputable from the evidence I just presented.

Looks good.  I think my line of questioning to them is suitable - i.e. ECB records results as not a tie and no other event happened therefore it's not a tie.

What surprised me was that in the 20-20 matches i mentioned the super overs didn't even get a mention in the official records!

Betfair have settled this correctly ffs. why do you think there's a tie market if a tie is impossible? Pretty much common sense that if the scores are level then the match odds market would be settled as tied.

we've all had matches where we've had greens lost because the match has been tied. learn your lesson, cover yourself on the tie market at 1.0x when you've got a big green in the future and don't blame anyone else

cnman playing devil's advocate, but is wrong.

cnman is right.

All BF have to do in future is change the wording of the Tie Market (for one dayers) to 'Scores Level Yes or No'

Although I was green on a 'Yes' and would not want to see the settlement overturned, I can't see how BF can call it a Tie with their own wording/rules being as they are.

It's the use of the word 'Tie' that is so misleading. And of course, in First Class cricket, the definition of a tie is totally different to a one dayer.

Bf never listen to punters, they do what is best for them. Don't expect any rational debate with them.

Cnman - there could have been a tie if D/L was involved so your argument is wrong. And the argument about betfair offering a market meaning something is nonsense anyway.

Basically, it's only betfair addicts who automatically pipe up with "of course it's a tie". We're not talking about what the result is "in betfair land", we're talking about the official result - which is what betfair state they settle the market on.

All OFFICIAL RESULTS in similar situations state that X won by losing less wickets. There is no mention whatsoever of a tie in these official results. See 20-20 final in 2010, or Benson and Bedges final in 1987.

BUT, there are examples of matches played under the same rules which DO have the OFFICIAL RESULT as being a tie. This means that the ECB do recognise a tie as an official result, but the circumstances of today's game do not meet the conditions. The games down as ties were both D/L affected in the 2011 20-20 semi finals when a super over was required. So, there is a clear differentiation by the ECB

I don't quite understand why it is so difficult for people to grasp this. Maybe step back in time, before betfair existed, before any debates over ties took place, before any cricket betting rules existed anyway. And then ask yourself how you would have answered someone had they asked you what the result of today's match was. Would you have simply said "it was a tie". I know I wouldn't.

Essentially, the existence of Betfair and its rules has brainwashed people into misinterpreting things and subconsciously believing betfair dictate official results. The mind is a powerful thing.

Great post, silver

Yep.  They need to make the rules more explicit.

sadly it suits all bookies to make rules that are open to interpretation so they can go with the way that is best for them

Tonyf,

Why is this best for Betfair? By voiding the markets they have lost any commission on the market they would have earned by settling. Or have i missed something?

They make plenty on people saving the tie when it doesn't happen

It would be interesting to know who has profitted most from this

They won't lose any sleep over my losses that's for sure

Regardless of the money though, it is a sense of injustice that is hard to bear, with no real opportunity to discuss with anyone in power what is wrong with the status quo.

It's best for betfair  because otherwise liquidity would drop massively as the players in the illegal Indian market wouldn't bet here. Nice to see a publicly listed UK company bowing down to pressure from those who operate in a market which is illegal in another country.

Anyway, most regular punters know that and they accept it.

I accept it too and knew the market would be voided. However, it needs highlighting that, as their rules currently stand, it is the wrong course of action to take. And I also think it's important to those who just state "of course it's a tie", that they're actually wrong. And to explain why they are wrong. Because they are wrong UNLESS the official result is indeed a TIE. And there seems to be no evidence of that, with what appears to be an official result stating Hants won by fewer wickets without even mentioning the word TIE. And history shows what the ECB deem to be a tie in a knock-out match, and what they don't as I have explained in a previous post

Furthermore, in cricket law, scores being level at the end of regular play is clearly not the definition of a tie. It is circumstance and competition dependent. And all these cricket regulars are aware of that due to laws in test matches.

I have seen someone elsewhere put in a fairly concise way. "The official match result of a Hampshire win was decided within the allotted overs".

So how was it officially a tie then gents? Betfair don't govern cricket, their decision is irrelevant to the basis of the argument.

Their rules need changing as the ECB sure aren't going to change theirs to suit the illegal Indian market. And the basis of betfair's decision is wrong. However, a precedent has been set and I agree with the principle that it would be unfair to not settle as a tie. But that does not make it right.

NB My argument is worthless if the official result is a tie. If I have missed an official result from the governing body stating tie, either yesterday or in the past (e.g. B and H 1987 or 20-20 final 2010), then feel free to point me in the direction of it.

I'm still waiting for an email from Betfair but I concur with much of what silverback has posted. 

Unless the rules state explicitly "A tie shall occur where scores are level after the original overs have been bowled or reduced through D/L" then it's ambiguous and wrong and needs changing.

The further point here is if there's any doubt at all then you void the market.

BF have a duty of care to ensure their rules are clear.

As I said earlier, a tie in a limited overs game is completely different from a tie in a first class game. If we had a Test Match where the scores were level but the chasing side not bowled out, there would be meltdown on here with people expecting it to be a tie.

I feel that BF like many, don't understand the game well enough and are misleading people with the use of the word 'tie'.

The above scenario is a draw and what we had yesterday was a win for Hants.

BF could easily clarify their rules accordingly to make it crystal.

As for the match odds void business, I'm still none the wiser why that happens. I've heard it said 'it's what the Indian bookmakers want' but I can't work out the maths of that.