General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
09 Feb 10
18:04
Joined:
Date Joined:
22 May 02
Magician
Any ideas the legality of a bookmaker refusing to pay out on a winning bet? Football game last night that was supposedly fixed due to irregular betting patterns but ladcrooks accepted bets right up to kick off. Obviously their heaviest liability (2-2) was the final score and so they have cried foul and refused to pay until after an investigation.
Is there any legal way to enforce payment prior to this investigation being concluded?
Any help much appreciated. Not a lot of money involved but a bag full of principle ;)
Any ideas the legality of a bookmaker refusing to pay out on a winning bet? Football game last night that was supposedly fixed due to irregular betting patterns but ladcrooks accepted bets right up to kick off. Obviously their heaviest liability (2-2) was the final score and so they have cried foul and refused to pay until after an investigation.
Is there any legal way to enforce payment prior to this investigation being concluded?
Any help much appreciated. Not a lot of money involved but a bag full of principle ;)
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 20
|
By:
no I think they have a legal obligation to hold all funds till investigation is finished, think about those who might have lost money because of a** they need to be protected etc. That's what I think imo, somebody else might confirm it.
|
|
By:
extract from magic sign rules..........
Withholding payment and our right to set off liability We reserve the right to withhold payment and to declare bets on an event void if we have evidence that the following has occurred: i the integrity of the event has been called into question ii the price(s) or pool has been manipulated iii matchrigging has taken place Evidence of the above may be based on the size, volume or pattern of bets placed with us across any or all of our betting channels. A decision given by the relevant governing body of the sport in question (if any) will be conclusive. If any customer owes any money to Ladbrokes for any reason, we have the right to take that into account before making any payments to that customer. Back to top |
|
By:
you'll get it eventually - ladbrokes are hardly going to uncover fixing evidence in deepest Italy are they...(and god help whoever does discover it!)
|
|
By:
agreed. you shall be paid. not magic sign to withhold payment.
what were the betting patterns out of interest?? match odds, correct scores?? what was the gamble from and how much matched? |
|
By:
taken from footy forum
[i]MILAN, ITALY Bookmakers were least night questioning the result of the Gallipoli vs Grosseto which ended 2-2 after what has been described as |
|
By:
"Also, what the above doesn't mention is that the home team went down to 10 men early in the second half so for the 2-2 scoreline to be 1.96 with 20 mins to go at 2-1 again doesn't seem unreasonable"
The odds of 1.96 occurred when the score was 2-2, not 2-1. Absolutely nothing unusual about that, it's what you'd expect with less than 20 minutes to go. In answer to the question, gambling debts are legally recoverable, so send them a letter giving them 7 days to pay up, saying that if they fail to do so which you will take legal action and the case will end up in court! It doesn't matter one jot what their terms and conditions say, a court will rule if they have acted reasonably. And for that reason you can rest assured they won't want it to go that far.... |
|
By:
the strongest evidence likely to materialise is "betting patterns", and who were in the best position to spot these?
Erm ... that will be ladbrokes, the same ladbrokes who continued to take bets, absolute scandal that the **s want it both ways. |
|
By:
When I looked there was around £150k traded on the correct score market, and around £80k of it on 2-2. The odds were between 7/1 and 14/1 so the liabilities might have been over £500k, also a large % of the match odds was traded on the draw. It does look a very strange market but most of it was bet before kick off, so lads should have stopped taking bets if they wasn't going to pay out.
|
|
By:
.(...'...........\|..................................|
..\...............\:................................F ...\...............L:.............-.-............'./ ....'...............':............/.)..\._.......'..| ......'...............'....'....-(-"'')'..).......'....L ........'...............'.__.-'..|..'..'|.'...........\ ..........'....'.................'!_'...|-........:...\ ............'-._..................."'...)::''..........L ................'-..................._.':::'...........J ................J..'-._........_..-'...):'..............L ................F......'-...........-'.).................| ...............J..........'.....-'...-')::...............J ...............F............'-._.-'._.'.:'...............L ..............J................J""".....)'...............J .............J..................\.......F................L .............F.....:.............\...../........ |
|
By:
but when something like this happens it makes us question whether it is even worth covering the league.
Of course it's worth them covering it. If they don't like the result they just refuse to pay out. |
|
By:
if you see this magician
what did you bot think of 4.40 sedg Wt Jockey Trainer Age SP 1 Eagle Owl (IRE) 10-8 B Harding T D Easterby 4 10/3 held up mid-division, headway 5f out, led 2f out, drew clear approaching final furlong, comfortably opened 7/2 £13333-£4000 2 7 Power Flow (IRE) 11-4 P Aspell P Atkinson 5 80/1 led, ridden, headed 2f out, kept on same pace, no chance with winner final furlong opened 100/1 3 13 Pair Of Kings (IRE) 11-4 B Hughes G A Swinbank 5 10/3 chased leaders, driven, outpaced over 4f out, soon ridden, stayed on to go remote 3rd over 2f out, no chance with leading pair opened 5/2 touched 9/4 £1400-£400 £1500-£600 4 9 Flicka's Witness (IRE) 11-4 J M Maguire D McCain Jnr 5 3/1 f mid-division on outside, ridden, outpaced 5f out, never on terms opened 4/1 touched 9/2 £2250-£500 5 10 Smudger 11-4 Gary Rutherford (7) Mrs S J Smith 5 4/1 to my untrained eye it looked like all the money went on the winner. I saw a bot trying to push the winner out in thin liquidity and then all the 5.3 was eaten up and horse backed in(bot did drift horse in morning) hope some of this makes sense. which horses were trying? |
|
By:
adding insult to injury bad crooks have now shut my account with the reasoning that it is a trading decision and they don't have to give a reason.
Some background to my account over the past couple of months:- 30 bets 29 losers £2.5k down 1 winner (money withheld) Great trading decision boys :^0 |
|
By:
it was a great trading decision.
being down with a firm after 30 bets is neither here or there is it. |
|
By:
jonnyg
how does a bot try and push the winner out? |
|
By:
I've got to...didcot, yately 10 Feb 15:46
it was a great trading decision. Care to explain this drivel? |
|
By:
it makes ** all difference if you are down on the acount.
ffs. if you are beating the sp (like you did in this match) all the time it's the correct decision to restruct or close you down. really not rocket science is it? |
|
By:
If you bet on**Italian matches you shouldn't be surprised if your AC gets factored or closed. Let's face it, you didn't pick the 2-2 Draw out the paper did you? If ESSA rule the match was**you won't get paid either. (even in Italy) **s don't always prosper.
|
|
By:
who said I was beating the sp. Don't be so presumptious ffs.
The majority of my bets were on mug multiples. I only used them as they were bog. And who said I was beating the odds on this game. I backed 2-2 at 14's when it was 16's elsewhere. Fact is they've closed a winning account (from their perspective) on the back of one winning bet in a supposedly dubious game. |
|
By:
will they be giving everyones dosh back that didnt win ?
|
|
By:
If they void the match, all stake money should be returned.
|