|
By:
what about bookmaker rules
|
|
By:
So what's going on, is it void? Or Lancs win?
|
|
By:
lancs win lost fewest wickets
|
|
By:
betfair prob void thou which is wrong really as lancs have won
|
|
By:
Could have done with a void since I'm red on both, oh well.
|
|
By:
They're probably deciding right now at BF HQ on what to do.
|
|
By:
all bets void
|
|
By:
Settled as a void.
|
|
By:
hello
|
|
By:
Nice one. Sorry for anyone who lost out.
|
|
By:
how can you only tie when you require 6 off 6
![]() |
|
By:
Why the hell was it void, stopped watching when I had nice green...
|
|
By:
Proper choke job from Lancs. they're lucky it didn't cost them.
|
|
By:
I think Betfair interpretation was that match was tied but Lancashire won tie breaking rule, bit like super over. Bit of a choker if you greened
but I was always trading to those rules. should have been lancs easy. Croft managed to balls up a walkover. |
|
By:
Lancs win yet the bets are void
![]() ![]() |
|
By:
should not pay out on tie as it was not a tie as Lancs lost less wickets
|
|
By:
Waste of 3.5 hours for anyone who bothered
|
|
By:
betfair should follow rules of tournament
|
|
By:
DISGRACE FROM BETFAIR!
|
|
By:
wtf stan james settle has dead heat so you end up losing money if you on lancs
|
|
By:
I had a £100 bet on lancs at 11/10 at one of there shops and I end up losing money fooking con
|
|
By:
If void then hope betfair closed super-over market with 5 balls to go as it was not
possible to have one |
|
By:
What about if they both lost same amount of wickets and tied on runs scored? Would there have been a super over then?
|
|
By:
dead heat at bet365 too
|
|
By:
then will be most 6, then most 4, etc
|
|
By:
What about if they both lost same amount of wickets and tied on runs scored? Would there have been a super over then?
could not happen with i think 5 balls to go so on the layers of super over could win SUppose its like backing 0-0 when score already 1-0 |
|
By:
What im really trying to say is you were backing a 1000/1 shot at
odds of probably around 6/1-10/1 good work laying if you can get it |
|
By:
From the market rules:
"For the avoidance of doubt, if scores are tied at the completion of both innings then any tie breaker that may be used to determine a winner including, but not limited to, bowl outs, Super Overs, one-over eliminators, losing fewer wickets, run rates, coin toss, higher group position does not count for the purposes of this market." |
|
By:
Forgot this bit for the Match Odds market:
"If scores (including a derived target score using the Duckworth Lewis method) are deemed tied at the completion of both innings then all bets on the Match Odds market will be void." |
|
By:
"Please note there is a separate Tied Match market available for this game."
|
|
By:
Just woke up to this ffs
![]() |
|
By:
this is the biggest nonsense in betting
The match has not been tied so anyone betting on a tied match should not have won Will the match end with the scores tied The amount of runs scored were level but Lancs won by losing fewer wickets so the scores were not tied I did not have a bet on the game and being a lanky fan I'm very pleased with the outcome but I have been stung on this ruling in the past When there is an outright result maybe they should have 2 markets - who will win the outright game (this eliminates the game being tied) and who will win the match (for those who don't mind trading for 3 hours and the game being voided !). Obviously in a group game where points are shared then a tie is the correct result |
|
By:
I rarely bet on this 20/20 stuff but had £100 on Lancs at 1.13 and thought I had blown it when Buttler got himself out. Was quite relieved to get away unscathed. I was always sure a tie would be a void bet and that was a tie.
|
|
By:
We all watch a lot of IPL and the call of Thai goes out all the time when there is a close game. I'd be peed off too but there seems to be a lot of whingeing going on about this adjudication.
|