V.C. and the £92,476 bet.

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!

Sorry `problem solved` ^^^ as in;
Bet before 53rd minute = jackpot, VC simply couldn`t justify such a price.
Bet after 53rd minute = phucked.

Second `sorry`, but don`t want to appear illiterate, so ^^^`there` should be `their`.

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.

Clearly VC are extracting the urine.

and that 1.6 is the Overs price at KO, not Unders.

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

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.

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.

1-0 scoreline

insane amount of money to put on

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

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

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.

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.

did he take IBAS to court ?

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.

May 2, 2016 -- 1:24PM, 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.