Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 Feb 19
12:51
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Jan 03
I have a friend who placed a bet on the world cup 2014. He has kept the slip safely until this last month, he was in need of cash.
I know this part sounds odd and fishy, but I assure you there is nothing dodgy about his bet.
He made many bets during the World Cup that year, mostly on longshots but this one won.
He backed a group tricast Costa Rica/ Uruguay/ Italy @ 700/1 !
This is an unusual circumstance, hence I understand the bookmaker wanting to confirm it was his bet. This has been resolved and they are happy he was the bettor.
Obviously I should not name the bookmaker involved but they are on every High Street in the UK.
They have told him that they will pay, but they have now said the odds were wrong and they will only honour 150/1
This is probably going to end up with IBAS. I have asked Oddschecker but they have not got the data. I have researched internet sites and found a few pointers which suggest this major bookmaker is 'mistaken' with their 150/1, as they were offering 80/1 as a straight forecast in the group Uruguay/ Costa Rica, bearing in mind Costa Rica were offered at 50/1 generally to win the group. He still has losing slips which relate to other combinations in the group at similar prices. The bets all have 'P.T.L' written on them by the staff at the shop which means they have been given 'Permission To Lay'
My question is does anybody know a way I could find the historic price data on such an obscure bet?
I intend to get their offer in writing and head for IBAS and maybe the press, it is a substantial payout.
I know this part sounds odd and fishy, but I assure you there is nothing dodgy about his bet.
He made many bets during the World Cup that year, mostly on longshots but this one won.
He backed a group tricast Costa Rica/ Uruguay/ Italy @ 700/1 !
This is an unusual circumstance, hence I understand the bookmaker wanting to confirm it was his bet. This has been resolved and they are happy he was the bettor.
Obviously I should not name the bookmaker involved but they are on every High Street in the UK.
They have told him that they will pay, but they have now said the odds were wrong and they will only honour 150/1
This is probably going to end up with IBAS. I have asked Oddschecker but they have not got the data. I have researched internet sites and found a few pointers which suggest this major bookmaker is 'mistaken' with their 150/1, as they were offering 80/1 as a straight forecast in the group Uruguay/ Costa Rica, bearing in mind Costa Rica were offered at 50/1 generally to win the group. He still has losing slips which relate to other combinations in the group at similar prices. The bets all have 'P.T.L' written on them by the staff at the shop which means they have been given 'Permission To Lay'
My question is does anybody know a way I could find the historic price data on such an obscure bet?
I intend to get their offer in writing and head for IBAS and maybe the press, it is a substantial payout.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 109
|
By:
taking costa rica at 50/1 , , then any random 2nd at 2/1 then evens for 3rd
then its around 300/1 there must be some historical data on their system and perhaps you can ask them to explain how they have come to the new price, and other prices on offer for all the combinations ( see if they match whats written on losing slips) the difference between 150/1, 300/1 and 700/1 sounds huge to a backer but as a % of probability there isnt that much difference, theres a guy on horseracing forum who takes up punters gripes with bookies and seems to have a good deal of sucess good luck to your mate. |
|
By:
the difference between 150/1, 300/1 and 700/1 sounds huge to a backer
but as a % of probability there isnt that much difference, You could say the same about the difference between 150/1 and 1000000/1 |
|
By:
indeed jml
i ran a competition on here for that world cup sadly i didnt have group prices but england v italy i had priced up as 2/1 each of 3 and eng v uraguay i had eng at 11/10 ish ....odds are still on betfair forum! so the tricast has got to be greater than 300/1 for the 4 teams to finish in more or less reverse expected order, assuming the 50/1 costa rica was correct |
|
By:
odds were recorded here ..
http://community.betfair.com/backgammon/go/thread/view/121225/30279645/deludes-world-cup-comp they were general odds rounded to near 100% markets |
|
By:
Thanks Donny,
England Uruguay and Italy were all similarly priced at around 25/1 to win the cup. Your 2/1, 1/1 example shows 150/1 was not possible, given the 50/1 quote I found for Costa Ricas group win I found on an old web page. The 80/1 quote which is from the bookmaker concerned also points to much higher than 150/1 for the tricast. 700/1 seems slightly big to me but as you point out percentage wise not such a huge difference. The guy I'm helping loves a bit of maths and value and he put the bets on for that reason, however improbable it seemed. He felt the odds were too big too. At the end of the day they laid the bet and PTL was written on it so I feel we will get a happy ending. I am very surprised that they are trying their luck like this. |
|
By:
fwiw I backed the Uruguay Costa Rica dual forecast at 66/1 on the machines they have in betting shops. The odds were miles out on all combinations with Costa Rica top 2, although the value was better with Costa Rica finishing 2nd. It prolly was 700/1 as I have vague recollections of feeling I could easily have won a lot more
|
|
By:
https://www.theweek.co.uk/football/world-cup-2014/58919/world-cup-odds-the-intelligent-punters-guide
GROUP D A very tough group, with three of the teams priced at 33-1 or shorter to win the tournament and three of the teams ranked in the top ten by Fifa. England could hardly have been handed a more difficult assignment. Interestingly most bookies make England only third favourites to win the group, but most think they’ve a better chance than Uruguay of qualifying. ITALY: Best odds: 25-1. To win group: 13-8. To qualify: 4-9. Only Brazil have won more World Cups than the Azzurri and Cesar Prandelli’s team's positive showing in the 2012 Euros where they reached the final - and their good performance in last year’s Confederations Cup, when they finished third having lost on penalties to Spain in the semi-finals - suggests that they can go a long way in this competition without being quite good enough to win it. URUGUAY: Best odds: 28-1. To win group: 2-1. To qualify: 8-13. Fourth-placed in 2010, it has to be said that they weren’t at all convincing in qualifying, showing particular weakness at the back. While their attack is strong, their chances of going a long way in the tournament will be reduced if Luis Suarez, who scored nearly half of their goals in qualifying, doesn’t recover from a knee injury in time. Their record in World Cups which have been held in the Americas is good, with two wins (including a victory in Brazil in 1950) and a semi-final in 1970 to their name. ENGLAND: Best odds: 28-1. To win group: 11-5. To qualify: 8-13. Roy Hodgson got Switzerland out of the group stage in 1994 and under his management England topped their group in the 2012 Euros. So while it will be a tough ask to qualify, with the experienced Roy at the helm it’s not Mission Impossible. Getting something out of the first match against Italy looks a must: a defeat in that game really would leave the Three Lions with an uphill battle, with Uruguay coming up next. In their last four World Cups England have exited at the quarter-final stage twice and the last 16 twice, and given the obstacles they face, the 28-1 odds on winning the tournament don't look too generous. COSTA RICA: Best odds: 4,000-1. To win group: 50-1. To qualify: 10-1. All their wins in qualifying came at home, with the highlights being a 3-1 victory over USA and a 0-0 draw in Mexico. They will offer spirited resistance and set out to frustrate their opponents but realistically they will be doing well if they can pick up a point in such a difficult group and the 17-10 about them going home pointless looks tempting. |
|
By:
bet gone=year + one day has expired.
|
|
By:
Thanks again Donny and JML for your posts and Clydebank too. I think he, like you thought there was a bit of longshot value in that group D and he also covered the losing combo's. Your recollection supports the odds he took too, thanks.
Brassneck, winning bets do not ever expire in the UK, but thanks for your simplistic incorrect contribution. |
|
By:
its not a bookmaker rule it a finance law.
|
|
By:
have you ever wondered where dead people's money goes if a claim is not placed on it,the government pick it up every five years.and some draconian law about a year + one day involving dormant monies is used every day in law courts.
|
|
By:
you are a clever boy wild,pity about your personality,you should study karma.
|
|
By:
There used to be a year and a day rule when it came to homicides
|
|
By:
If your bookmaker was offering Costa Rica @ 50/1 to win the group, it's about 5/1 any combination for 2nd and 3rd, so I would have thought 300/1 about right for the tricast.
|
|
By:
Ah, just seen donny's already done the calculation. Sorry!
|
|
By:
However, if your bookmaker was not offering 50/1 the group winner, it would explain why their price for the fc was only 80/1. Working from that, it was even money to find 3rd, so 150/1 for the tricast would be about right.
|
|
By:
Just out of interest why on earth would you not cash in a massive winning bet immediately?
|
|
By:
Yeah i always leave my 700/1 shots to cash when i'm short of money,utter rubbish.You would cash that kind of bet out soon as.5 years later really?
|
|
By:
what did he do to get 5 years
|
|
By:
I suppose I should not tar all bookies with the same brush, but if you had a large sum of money that you could put in the bank would you let a possible shyster hold on to it for five years & then fully expect without a moments worry that they would had it ALL straight over ?
|
|
By:
Is he Norman Stanley Fletcher?
|
|
By:
I also agree that the correct price should be around 300/1 but wouldn't surprise me if the bookie had offered 700/1.
|
|
By:
Something just doesn't add up here. A massive winning bet, that is held on to for over 5 years before making an attempt to claim it?
If I was the bookie concerned, I would be asking a lot of questions before settling this bet. |
|
By:
I also agree that the correct price should be around 300/1 but wouldn't surprise me if the bookie had offered 700/1.
Why? If the bookies odds for the f/c were 80/1, then it's either Italy or England for the tricast. How on earth would that multiply the return by eight, unless it was a palpable error? |
|
By:
At the moment we know that the BEST price for Costa Rica to win the group was 50/1.
If the company involved were only going 33/1 it's possible that 150/1 would have been their price for the tricast. |
|
By:
I am guessing that virtually all bets the bookmaker had accepted in that group tricast involved England, which he may have all laid at shorter odds. He might have put up 700/1 hoping to simply balance his book.
|
|
By:
No, it isn't calculated like that.
|
|
By:
Well, has the betting slip got 700/1 on it signed and checked by a staff member?
|
|
By:
If I have a winning bet from a top established firm like Billys I'll go out of my way to collect it that day even if I know I'm going to be near the shop the next day - just in case they go bust overnight. Thinking of a winning betting slip as some sort of financial reserve to keep for a rainy day or when you may need a sudden cash boost in 4 years time is a strand of logic that I would need serious convincing of ....
|
|
By:
Perhaps the bettor was forced to take a five year vacation from the outside world?
|
|
By:
if the single is 50/1 then the fcast at 80/1 is the bet that is out of line, not the 300/1 + tricast
3/5 that uraguay finish above eng and italy, no thanks! |
|
By:
In the original post it's 80/1 for a forecast uruguay then costa rica. That price looks correct, say 2/1 uruguay and 25/1 ish costa rica to come second.
|
|
By:
ah, yes of course, its the reverse of the actual winning forecast...my bad
and i was doing so well  |
|
By:
Okay Brassneck,
Sorry I was a bit rude but your minimal response which was not related to my question irritated me. When I worked with a bookmaker many, many years ago we had a book and when three months had passed we would scribble down the forgotten bet in a book entitled 'Sleepers' My understanding was a bookmaker was obliged to honour these bets whenever, forever and I don't see why he shouldn't. Before posting my response I phoned Ladbrokes (who are not the bookmaker responsible for this thread) they confirmed they would honour a betting slip whenever, forever. In fact I vaguely remember a story about a family collecting a bet on Red Rum recently. Maybe your right with the law, but bookmakers, I feel do not enforce this in shops. This is a distraction and not the issue. I understand the interest and queries regarding the whys but really they are not relevent to the issue. Also thanks for all the calculations, I'm ok with those. I feel we have enough already to hang them, seeing as they signed off the price with 'PTL' What I really want is evidence of their 700/1 offer, I have no doubts they offered it. It would bury them. The purpose of the thread is/was to try and find out some source. |
|
By:
If the betting slip doesn't have 700/1 on it, checked and initialled by a member of staff, your friend hasn't got a leg to stand on.
|
|
By:
.....it has 700/1 signed off with PTL 'permission to lay'
Couldn't be clearer. |
|
By:
ok, good chances then.
|
|
By:
.....so do the other 5 losing bets he placed on the same group that day at similar prices.....
|
|
By:
What is the date/time on the betting slip?
|