Forums

General Betting

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
son of jimbo
30 Apr 16 15:24
Joined:
Date Joined: 29 May 02
| Topic/replies: 97 | Blogger: son of jimbo's blog
Picked this story up yesterday on the internet but in the Scottish papers today.
                 Apparently one Gordon Shearer placed the above bet with V.C.bet on Xmas Eve 2011 on the outcome of the Kilmarnock v's Celtic game.He claims the bet ( £92,476 Celtic to win struck at 1/18 ) was to be over 90 minutes but V.C. claim it was on the outcome of the second half only. Celtic were winning 1-0 at half-time but the second half score was 1-1, so Celtic won 2-1 with the second-half a draw.He took it to I.B.AS but no joy there so he took it to the Court of Session in Edinburgh but the judges ruled they had no jurisdiction as I.B.A.S. was registered in England.
           Unfortunately the only information available is what is printed in the newspapers. I can only assume if Celtic to win outright was intended, that at 1/18 ,it was an in-running bet as before kick-off Celtic would not have been 1/18 and I say this not knowing what either teams relative league positions were at the time of the game. I am no odds compiler so could not even begin to imagine when Celtic would/could have been 1/18 and I do not know when the second half goals were scored though it seems likely that Celtic were 2-0 at some point. I think best to stay away from your laptop on Xmas Eve!

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 17
By:
timbuctooth
When: 30 Apr 16 18:41
As we can see from betexplorer.com, Celtic (at home), were priced up at between 1.17 and 1.25 to win, pre-match, with VC going 1.22. So, we have to assume the 1/18 was in play, with Celtic winning 1-0, having scored in the second minute of first-half injury time.I don`t know how much the `second half` betting changes in-play (pre-second half) with the hot favourites winning 1-0, but I wouldn`t think very much at all. With a 1.2 shot, for them to be winning at half time is already pretty much factored into the pre-match `second half` prices.Imagine Kilmarnock were 1-0 up instead, and you can picture the price for Celtic to win the second half would probably have shortened, suggesting that, with Celtic one up, there price to win the second half should, if anything, have lengthened from pre-match prices.

For a comparison, VC are offering 1.22 for AC Milan to win tomorrow, and 1.5 to win the second half. Even factoring in such things as differing goal expectancies, there`s no way a 1.5 shot goes to 1/18 purely because it`s now 1-0.  No way.
One exception to this might be if Kilmarnock had three or four players sent off, but skysports.com/football/celtic-vs-kilmarnock/237793 makes no mention of any red cards in a fairly detailed match review that does tell us of yellow cards.

The only other possibility would be that your friend backed them to win the second half, when they were already 2-0 up, (53rd minute goal), thus already winning the second half.
If he knows the time the bet was placed, problem solved!
By:
timbuctooth
When: 30 Apr 16 18:47
Sorry `problem solved` ^^^ as in;
Bet before 53rd minute = jackpot, VC simply couldn`t justify such a price.
Bet after 53rd minute = phucked.
By:
timbuctooth
When: 30 Apr 16 18:57
Second `sorry`, but don`t want to appear illiterate, so ^^^`there` should be `their`.
By:
Andriy
When: 30 Apr 16 19:09
Based on VC prices at KO (1.22 Celtic, 6.5 Draw 17 Kilmarnock, 1.60 Under2.5), then if Celtic were 1-0 up at HT, i get them 1.08 to win the game at FT, assuming perfect price decay with time.

Just considering the 2nd half:
KO prices give me goal expectation for the whole game of Celtic 2.4, Kilmarnock 0.5 ; assuming that 56% goals are in 2nd half (a rough European league average), we have a 45+ minute game with goal exp's of Celtic 1.34, Kilm 0.28, for which Celtic would be about 1.6 to win.
By:
Andriy
When: 30 Apr 16 19:10
Clearly VC are extracting the urine.
By:
Andriy
When: 30 Apr 16 19:11
and that 1.6 is the Overs price at KO, not Unders.
By:
Andriy
When: 30 Apr 16 19:18
The person to contact by DM is 'Paul Haigh - Total Respect' on this forum.

Alternatively contact him on Twitter at @BoycottBetfred or betdisputeadvice@gmail.com


aaargh, 4 posts where 1 should have sufficed
By:
dave1357
When: 30 Apr 16 19:26
andriy - this has gone well beyond that. 

Not sure what the guys lawyer was doing going for judicial review.  Presumably he was claiming that IBAS was exercising a public power?  If he got that one through, that would put the sh1tters right up IBAS - they would have to pay damages when their rulings were deemed oppressive! 

We should really start up a fund to have a go for judicial review in England.
By:
dave1357
When: 30 Apr 16 19:41
btw seems certain the guy backed second half in running.  Kilmarnock scored in the 87th minute, so def plenty of opportunity for short odds on the second half.
By:
xmoneyx
When: 02 May 16 09:52
1-0 scoreline

insane amount of money to put on
By:
Westender
When: 02 May 16 11:17
This shows that people should not waste their time or money betting with bookmakers including Paddy Power or Paddy Power Betfair Sportsbook.

They ban you if you win, some finds ways of not paying you when you win and they take advantage of uneducated people all in the name of business, share prices and profits.

People should stick to Betting Exchanges where they can win or spend their money on products/services/activities that bring enjoyiment to their lives
By:
CLYDEBANK29
When: 02 May 16 11:56
Punter was applying for legal aid.  Good use of taxpayers' money NOT.

Imo score was 2-0, not long left.  Victor put up second half market as game was as good as won at that point. 

Gordon thought 1/18, wow that's buying money, but didn't have the sense to realise he was betting on something else.

UNLUCKY
By:
CLYDEBANK29
When: 02 May 16 12:15
Betfair don't even have a second half market on the exchange.  There was one but there was so little interest in it, that they understandably  pulled it.  If the punter was taken straight to the 2nd half market rather than the match odds markets, then I can see the argument that the punter was unintentionally misled and Victor had a duty of care not to mislead him.  Problem is the gambling industry isn't regulated effectively enough to avoid instances like this, so the punter must pay for what his own mistake.
By:
dave1357
When: 02 May 16 15:59
CLYDEBANK29 • May 2, 2016 11:56 AM BST
Punter was applying for legal aid.  Good use of taxpayers' money NOT.


If it brought IBAS into the scope of judicial review, it would be a brilliant use of taxpayers money imo.
By:
breadnbutter
When: 02 May 16 19:24
did he take IBAS to court ?
By:
Pandoras
When: 02 May 16 20:21
Seems another instance that bookmakers can make mistakes and void them but punters can't.

Obviously as pointed out above the punter fell into the trap of "too good to be true". But i have noticed that on in running markets it is a little underhand to put markets other than the match odds at the top of the screen...for that much money though he needs to be more careful i would have thought.
By:
dave1357
When: 02 May 16 22:13

May 2, 2016 -- 7:24PM, breadnbutter wrote:


did he take IBAS to court ?


He was seeking to put IBAS's decision to judicial review, presumably on the grounds that their dispute resolution service is provided in accordance with Gambling Commission regulations ie on behalf of a public body. 

If that one got through it would be utterly fantastic for punters - mainly because IBAS and every other similar body would close down overnight (because they would be sued by punters) and the Gambling Commission would have to set up a completely impartial service like the Financial Ombudsman.

sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com