sky bet refuses to pay out

Clearly the bet landed.

Staggering that they would refuse to pay out.

They would get it all back, and more.

What's the betting that Sky have an unwritten agreement with OPTA to make statistical decisions in their favour when it comes to things like this given Sky are paying them a lot of money for the stats, problem being is that it's not even contentious, it's clear theft and they'll get away with it

I stopped betting on things like shots on target quite a while ago - for exactly the reason that it has to be 'judged' rather than an obvious fact. Open to abuse for sure.

Yet again another reason to bet less with bookies and keep to exchange betting.

Shysters Have had seven Different accounts Back in the Day All Kyboshed For fook all

@stu

"Yet again another reason to bet less with bookies and keep to exchange betting."

Football is not my thing but BF Exch appear (from their rules) to use the same OPTA stats for settling their Shots on Target markets as the bookies?

Would have been good if the exchange was "inplay*
on the Messi 2 shots on target, as 1.01 would be
a stonking bet,... Until it lost

Betfair would have some explaining to do.

Betfair, Sky and Paddies are all owned by flutter so they'd all be using OPTA.

WH and Coral are not owned by Flutter and they both use OPTA.  Seems to be pretty much industry standard?

Used to be press mob that sorted this stuff out, ffs.
If it's a cross and it goes in,would it then be a shot?
Why can  it not be both?   A cross come shot is a term I have heard before.
As mentioned before it's swings and roundabouts whether it's a cross or shot, cross backers lose what shot backers gain.
Don't think there is any great conspiracy, although I don't bet on such things.

Football is not my thing but BF Exch appear (from their rules) to use the same OPTA stats for settling their Shots on Target markets as the bookies?

Fair point longbridge - mostly meant that these kind of disputes seem to happen when a bookie gets involved - I didn't actually think exchange often included Shots on target?

If the goalie has to make a save on his line it’s a fooking shot no matter how they to dress it up

This is why I refuse to bet anything other that outrights, match odds,Btts and overs/unders goals

All these cards betting, corners, shots on target etc are open for easy corruption

if a shot from 50 yards out peters out and rolls into the keeper's hands in his 6-yard box is that classed as a shot on target?

This wasn’t rolling into his hands he had to punch it over the bar

I must admit this has also made me question OPTA for the first time I can recall - I always presumed they were objective and not connected to other organisations.

But, I guess if they are being paid, then they cease to be objective entirely for sure.

It does make you wonder if the bloke in the pub who use to say its the bookies running the show was right the entire time eh....

@stu

"I didn't actually think exchange often included Shots on target?"

I have no idea how commonly they are offered, but the World Cup matches seem to have "Match Shots" and "Match Shots on Target" which have rules saying they are settled according to OPTA?

I still seethe about William Hill reneging on their special on Jack Grealish MotM for England.


4/1 doubled to 8/1

Here's the post-match photo - https://tinyurl.com/2k6mtheq

However they referred to Gary Neville or Alan Smith mumbling something about Declan Rice being their standout player.

You're right longbridge - I've not noticed that offered on exchange before, but then again I wouldn't play those markets much anyway so may not have noticed it on other games before.

They wouldn't get my money!

Use cricket's 'Hawkeye' to determine if the ball would've ended up in the back of the net

The ridiculous part of these calculations is the idea that there now needs to be 'intent' from the shot taker - yeh, let's start reading minds to determine this one...

Have Skybet responded to this yet, or still just refusing...?