General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi People,
Michael Bisping was 1/4 on to win in his UFC fight in the early hours of Sunday morning in Australia. Every betting company had him at 1/4 and his opponent at 11/4. When I looked on Oddschecker.co.uk Michael Bisping was 11/4 and his opponent was 1/4 on VCbet.com. They had got the odds the wrong way round. I thought this was too good to be true, so I went on VCbet.com website and there it was, Bisping 11/4!!
I have placed £120 on Bisping to win and it has placed the bbet and my statement reads Bisping win 11/4!!
I went back around 9pm lastnight to put another £100 on and the betting had dissapeared, so they must had realised there mistake!!
I was wondering though are VCbet able to void my bed if he wins???? They have given me a perfect statement and have laid the bet, so in my eyes they dont have a leg to stand on.
Please advise??
Thanks
Phil
Michael Bisping was 1/4 on to win in his UFC fight in the early hours of Sunday morning in Australia. Every betting company had him at 1/4 and his opponent at 11/4. When I looked on Oddschecker.co.uk Michael Bisping was 11/4 and his opponent was 1/4 on VCbet.com. They had got the odds the wrong way round. I thought this was too good to be true, so I went on VCbet.com website and there it was, Bisping 11/4!!
I have placed £120 on Bisping to win and it has placed the bbet and my statement reads Bisping win 11/4!!
I went back around 9pm lastnight to put another £100 on and the betting had dissapeared, so they must had realised there mistake!!
I was wondering though are VCbet able to void my bed if he wins???? They have given me a perfect statement and have laid the bet, so in my eyes they dont have a leg to stand on.
Please advise??
Thanks
Phil
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 88
|
By:
they will void it - no doubt
the scum will probably wait till he wins before voiding |
|
By:
Yes they can void it. It is bad news to place bets on obviously wrong prices as you put yourself in a lose/lose position. If your selection wins they claim palpable error and void, if it loses then they are not likely to volunteer to give you your stake back.
|
|
By:
No doubt they will void, but give them a call to check where you stand as occasionally they let these sort of bets run. The main thing is you need to know for sure in advance if you are on or not - and at what odds.
|
|
By:
will void and probably close your account
not worth taking this mistakes |
|
By:
*ahem these
|
|
By:
Its a joke
|
|
By:
Just rang VCbet and they have said its a palpable error. Good job I rang to check because they were going to place it as a 1/4!! Its unfair on the customer because if we made a mistake they wouldnt credit us back
|
|
By:
JBHA is exactly right. You wouldn't expect to buy a car for 20 quid if all other stockists were charging 20k, even if it appeared on a website. If something looks too good to be true it usually is.
No point moaning about it, it's been going on for years, your best bet is to point it out and maybe get a bit away at 1/3 rather than 1/4. |
|
By:
i dont agree. they have professional people working for them and companys shouldnt make mistakes like this. If I bet has geniuly been made. They should have to honour the bet.
|
|
By:
You had three people telling you the answer and you still seem to be outraged by something that is applied across the board and widely know.
 |
|
By:
So if Man U are 1/10 at home to say, Wolves..... but someone makes a typo and puts in 10/1, and someone places a bet (larger than you or I would place), say 20k, you honestly think that firm should honour it?
The industry would cease to exist within months. |
|
By:
Good haul.
|
|
By:
Of course they should honor it. The industry would not 'cease to exist'. It's just another way that the corporate giants get one over on the little guy, all the rules are in their favour.
What about pro's on betfair? I've backed an evens shot at 1.01 by accident before. I still exist  |
|
By:
Also discriminating based on skill should be illegal along with other forms of discrimination [;)]
No closing accounts of customers that beat you. Or otherwise there should be a health warning when they advertise: Please be advised that in the extremely unlikely event that you do became savvy enough to beat us, we will no longer accept your business. |
|
By:
i would advise going over there, standing over victor and shouting "apologise! apologise!" at him again and again.
or wait till he's kneeling down, then knee him in the face. |
|
By:
Agree with Investor .None of them are going to lay a 20K bet on United @10/1 anyway, max liabilty per punter would be far less, even on those not subject to further restrictions, and i'm sure they will have systems informing them of their increasing liabilties on particular outcomes which would be flagged up very quickly.
I have made 'palpable errors' on here myself. Most notably lumping almost my whole bank at the time (about £500) on a boxer @1.16 , that i'd backed pre-fight (£40@ @11/2) , i was intending to lay him for about £70 backers stake as i, and everyone else following it on the forum , thought it was 50-50 going into the last round .Fortunately he won on a split decision , if he hadn't voiding the bet was hardly an option. What makes it ridiculous is , as Curlywurly's reply , they can wait til it's over and assess wether they will be better off voiding or letting it stand. |
|
By:
So a car showroom has a car for sale at £31,000 in its windscreen, the 3 falls off, so you can buy it for £1,000 that sounds like a fair deal.
|
|
By:
I think if you go to a restaurant, look at the menu and order a meal for £20 quid and then ask for the bill, and they tell you, oh sorry, we increased our prices to £25 last week but haven't updated our menus, you are within your rights to insist on paying no more than the 'advertised' price.
|
|
By:
I think if you go to a restaurant, look at the menu and order a meal for £20 quid and then ask for the bill, and they tell you, oh sorry, we increased our prices to £25 last week but haven't updated our menus, you are within your rights to insist on paying no more than the 'advertised' price.
You can. But don't eat the complimentary mints that arrive at your table after you have challenged the bill. |
|
By:
It's a case of what can be reasonably be expected, and that is what a judge would do if it went that far. In the above case of course nobody would expect a price of £20 for a meal to be automatically wrong, but equally nobody would expect a company to offer 11/4 on something where everyone else is going 1/4 or simmilar.
|
|
By:
You get these threads from time to time and it astonishes me even very experienced punters do not have it worked out properly.
In the UK you have the Gambling Act 2005. I have demonstrated clearly on here before how that Act makes debts like the one VC Bet have to their client in this case recoverable. The only time it would not be as far as I can recall is where the client has been party to some fraud, ie match fixing etc. An important thing to note here is that it is not you who takes their incorrect price. In ordinary contract law, their advertised price is not binding on them. You actually make the offer of the bet at that price. The bookmaker then accepts your offer(or rejects it.) Once they accept your offer, they have sealed the contract which is now binding on them. They could perhaps argue that their terms and conditions are part of the contract....but I would think the palpable error rule would have next to no chance of being on the right side of Unfair Contract Terms legislation, for reasons I don't feel like explaining in detail here. My advice to people is to search the Gambling Act 2005, and actually read it. Then search Unfair contract terms and study that. Here is a link I found: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311.pdf Would you think a company could successfully argue that a clause they have hidden deep in their terms and conditions is fair, where that clause allows them to void a contract for a bet where THEY have accepted a client's offer at a price that is palpably wrong, but does not allow the client to void the contract where he has inadverantly had an offer accepted at a price that is palpably wrong? I don't. And that is just one of many ways the palpable error rule could be found to be an unfair contract term. It is not cleraly defined, it is not widely publicised or certain to be known by the client, are just two other ways I can think of off the top of my cranium. Any amateur lawyer will tell you that in the case of a car salesman accepting a low offer on a car in error, he binds his company to the contract at that price. It is the same with any shopkeeper or any type of contract, unless there is some fraud on the part of the person making the offer. The law will not save you from making a bad bargain. These are words I recall from some time as a student of law. |
|
By:
How come no cases have ever come to court then ?
|
|
By:
Probably two main reasons I would imagine.
1. Punters are generally unaware of their rights. 2. If someone took one of the firms on by challenging the palpable error rule legally, the firm would be unlikely to let it get to court, settling early. |
|
By:
But dont you tick I have read the Companys rules and regs and accept them before you can open account, doesnt this cover them ?
|
|
By:
If I open a website (of any kind) and put in my Terms and Conditions that by opening an account with me, it allows me to negate your human rights, it doesn't mean I've covered myself to come and lock you up against your will etc.
This is obviously an extreme example and bookmakers obviously don't infringe on people's human rights, but my point is that just because something is written in Ts+Cs doesn't make it legal or binding. |
|
By:
But are they not just protecting themselves from human error, say if somebody puts something at 4/1 instead of 4/7
|
|
By:
I totally agree with you and have no problem most of the time with the way bookmakers implement palpable errors, I was just pointing out the difference between the law and Ts+Cs.
I would like to see an industry standard in regards to palpable errors. ie some kind of a minumum % difference between the prices before they can be implemented. They should also have to provide proof of what they claim the price 'should' be. |
|
By:
Any business is bound by the actions of its properly appointed agents. There is no reason why bookmakers should be any different. If they don't wish to be bound by their agents they should have an alternative system. A punter should be entitled to have a bet accepted and honoured, regardless of whether it is a bad bargain for one party or the other. In fact, in my(admittedly amateur) opinion, this would be where the law stands on this issue.
As TB points out, ticking that you accept terms and conditions does not automatically make them operative in your contract with the other party. Those terms have to be FAIR. I forget all the legal tests of fairness, but not overly onerous on one party, clearly defined etc etc. The palpable error rule would pass few of these tests if I am not mistaken. |
|
By:
Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly aware that some bookies abuse this palpable error rule, and these instances can reasonably be taken further. However to suggest that bookmakers cannot have the rule full stop is nonsense, it would be easy to get a friend to get a job with one and "accidentally" make a mistake to cost them a fortune. (How would you prove it to be fraud as opposed to a genuine mistake?) No judge would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to every single person to enforce every single bet or else bookmakers would be bankrupt in no time.
|
|
By:
Fraud is the right word. The Gambling Act 2005 allows that all winning bets are recoverable in law, except those that result from fraudulent conduct.
It is not for an honest punter who has made an offer of a bet to a bookmaker and had it legitimately accepted to explain how the bookmaker could prove fraud where fraud exists. It is for the bookmaking firm to have sufficient checks and balances built into its process to ensure fraud does not occur, or that it is easily detectable when it does. In fact, most bookmakers do have such checks and balances to my knowledge, for major stakes in any event. |
|
By:
As I understand it, by accepting the terms and conditions, which cover the palpable error rule, they are covered if an error is made. Seems sensible to prevent fraud. If any firms abuse it thats when problems arise.
The error at the top is transposed prices, a human input error. The guy got on - he knew it was a wrong price - sometimes you get paid sometimes you dont. How would he do if he took that to court ? |
|
By:
DE, you can talk about checks and balances all you want, if a £5 an hour cashier accepts my bet on a horse at 1000/1 "by mistake" instead of the actual price of 10/1 - how are you going to prove it was not just that, a genuine error?
Pounf, if something went to court the judge would hopefully make a judgement on what is reasonable for both bookmaker and punter to believe - so if he scribbled down man united to win the league at 1000/1 instead of Blackpool, clearly no-one in their right mind would think that to be correct - but if the bookmaker tries to claim that Man United to win the league was 6/4 rather than the price taken of 2/1, and everyone else was offerring 7/4 or 15/8, I suspect he'd have a job convincing the judge that no-one could have thought it to be genuine! |
|
By:
So in the case above, what would be the verdict - 11/4 a 1/4 shot ?
|
|
By:
Turtleshead and pounf - You seem to be saying with authority how you think the law would operate regarding the palpable error rule, but as far as I can tell you are relying on mere myth to support your assertions.
The applicable part fo the law when dealing with hidden terms and conditions(ie buried in reams of other terms on a bookmakers site) is surely Unfair Contract Terms legislation. I forget the exact name of the Acts, but I think there are two Acts which apply, the UK Act and the European Act. Here are just a few bits from the European Act that I found on Wikipeia: Regulation 5(1)[n 3] defines the principle of unfair: If a contractual term has not been individually negotiated[n 4] and the term causes significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations, then the term is contrary to the requirement of good faith. Then there is this: The 'contra proferentem' ruleThe 'contra proferentem' rule is that where there is any ambiguity in regards to a clause it is to be interpreted against the party seeking to rely on it. Regulation 7 states this very clearly:[2] "(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of acontract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12." You can search and read about this sort of thing to your hearts content. But it might be good if you took the time to do a bit of research into the law before writing on here how you think it should or would operate in relation to the palpable error rule, otherwise you are simply guessing and perpetuating myths, the very thing the bookmakers are relying upon to void bets they have accepted. |
|
By:
I was hoping the common sense approach would suffice, I wouldnt dream of wasting any time researching it (I expect Turtles probably feels the same), I have far more enjoyable stuff to do.
DE - you are one of the few on here who actually live up (or down) to their username... |
|
By:
DE I'm not guessing, or peptuating myths. I am using basic common sense.
The simple point is that if a bookmaker is forced to lay every single bet taken by a member of his company no matter how absurd the price is, he goes bankrupt in no time. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And for that reason, it won't happen, no matter how many Acts you try to find. |
|
By:
(and I am well aware of the unfair terms in consumer contracts act and the sale of goods act - I have used both of them myself - but it is nonsensical to think they can be used to force a bookmaker to pay out a bet at any price displayed)
|
|
By:
Well, if it is 'nonsensical' as you say, it will be very easy for you to show us where in the law your view is supported....
You go to a bank for a loan, the staff member who handles your application signs of on a contract at 3% interest when the going rate is 12% interest, how would the law treat this? The bank would be held to it. Why would it be any different in the case of a bookmaker's staff member agreeing to a bet at a price above the market price? Pounf - I chose my username for that very reason mate. You have come on here stating a flimsy case, providing nothing solid to support your view, then cried foul when somebody cared enough to do a little research to set you straight. Caketaker extraordinaire. More front than Myers as we say in Australia. Talk about unmitigated gall.  |
|
By:
Turtleshead
The simple point is that if a bookmaker is forced to lay every single bet taken by a member of his company no matter how absurd the price is, he goes bankrupt in no time. That's not an opinion, it's a fact You will forgive me if I don't engage you to conduct my defence in the event I am wrongly charged with murder.... |