bet help

please don't tell me it's  bet fr^d

spot on my friend

£500 seems almost fair .....

I can see how it would be settled like that but my mate is adamant that the cashier who took the bet had more than enough time to tell him it wasnt possible

IBAS

have a feeling thaats the way,though the member of staff values saving face at £250 which is hardly a drop in the bald mans ocean

Think it depends if Phil,s price was cut for the Open after winning the Scottish open which it probably was,my view it would be a related type bet similar to say backing a horse to winning the guineas and doubling him for the derby.
I,d agree with Donny Osmond seems fair enough as they are giving him the double adjusted.

bookies convieniently see this as related,like a scorecast in soccer ,still most would give u a double at say 18/1 for open at start odds. ttt

thanks for advice fellas i can see how the first win would shorten the latter price and he should have taken the£500 but for them to withdraw from any payout on the double cant be right.It should have been flagged as an unacceptable bet when placed

Well for them to withdraw from any payout seems plain wrong,you can cross double two tournaments,fact it was the same player while it matters wouldn't think it's an automatic void and for them to say it is an unacceptable bet is dubious imo. As said above i would take it further to ibas. Good luck with it anyway.

You need to take this further - these are 2 totally separate events a fortnight apart and no way should he be offered a reduced amount. It's like saying you can't have a double on Man Utd to win the cup and the league

The only time they are within their rights to do that is when the outcome of the first part of the double directly affects the 2nd part - hardly the case here

the 2 x £7.50 bets are fair -  the shop are incompetent for not knowing but if I tried to stick a treble on phil to win the next 3 tournies at 20/1 20/1 and 20/1 you think that should pay 8000/1?  same idea -  if it was a decent bookie they may have paid you out for the sake of it as its not much money....

Why not - these are not the old any to come bets - 1 bares no reflection on the other

They are related bets - quite simple innit i think tbh

Result of the 1st one has a bearing on the price of the other

e.g No different to backing a horse to win a race and the derby in the same double imo

Although they are an awful firm I think he should have accepted £500 from them. I think the price for Lefty for the Open was around 28/1 before the start of the Scottish Open. The price contracted after he won the SO and the best price available early on Thursday was circa 18/1. It would be difficult to argue that the bets are not related and I suspect IBAS would side with fred if it went that far. I would also guess that it would be covered in their rules although you would need a very good magnifying glass to find it.

Last post - these are not related as the result of the first and second parts of the bet are on different tourneys - if the first part was say to win and 2nd part was to shoot a certain score then I agree - as I said its like having a double on  a team to win the league and cup in the same year = sre you really saying that you can't do that - anyway would not let this go - just my opinion

Of course they are related as the price on the 2nd part of the bet will shorten if the first part ia a winner.

any updates from yorkierob ?

The bookies have their cake and eat it in cases like this. When taking bets like these they should be forced to pay the second half at S.P as the price will clearly shorten if the first half wins. Better still explain this to the client and put it on the slip.

It is related whether u like it or not - the same selection in 2 different events is always related

There is a related element to the bet but by the time the bet was struck it was obvious that lefty was playing the links well & that should have already been factored in to the odds about him winning the Open.It begs the question how come the bookies havent developed software to flag up these disputable bets at the point of striking the bet,i've long since given up hope of any staff knowing anything about betting.Also if mickelson had won the scottish but not the open whats the chances that baldy would have refunded on the double-no chance.

At last somebody talking sense - if the next tourney he played was not for 3 months do you still think these bets are related ?

Related Contingency is a term abused by bookmakers.

Whilst Rooney to score first and England to win is an obvious related contingency I will take some convincing that just because a player wins one tournament he somehow becomes more likely to win another.

Ok it shows he is playing well and his price will shorten but is it justifiable that his price shortens.Two different courses and challenges, so apart from the players wellbeing winning the first event can mean very little as regards the 2nd but inevitably bookmakers will always shorten.

Let's say Frankel is a strong favoutite for his guineas prep (1/3) and his price for the guineas is evens why should you not be able to have the double the two?What happens to his guineas price if he scrapes home a short head in his trial, he becomes maybe 11/8 to win the guineas.

Just another welch from the friendly bookmakers imho.

Some fair points Biscar but the OP asked for help regarding his friends bet and we seem to be straying a bit here. Most people (not tompricho) will accept that the bets are related to some degree. Both on Scottish courses and one starting 4 days after the other finished and form in the SO is often seen as good form for the Open. Certainly the price will shorten - it always does.

The question is what the guy should do now. I think he should have accepted the £500 offered rather than risk IBAS who could easily side with fred, and what about his rules - what do they say?

I very much hope he gets paid in full but experience tells me otherwise.

ok CY fair enough I was trying to explain my reasoning. I don't think they are directly related.
Related Contingency should be where the outcome of one selection has a direct bearing on the outcome of another.Not where the outcome of one prediction has a bearing on the price of another.

I understand why you believe the £500 offer was one to take as imo IBAS will rule in favour of the bookmaker(we all know who funds IBAS)and its a hassle free route.

I would threaten with small claims court,in the past I have seen many firms buckle after such a threat(normally a price dispute)

It is about opinions and I would be screaming blue murder - have to say in no way do I use bookmakers with BF around - could have invested on the first leg and he would still have got a better price on the second leg than any bookmaker would offer

The small claims court could be a good bet as you say - it will be interesting to hear what transpires in due course. Let's hope for a good outcome.

£500 is totally fair.
Any double or multiple bet can only be settled at full odds if ALL contingencies are separate entities.

Biscar Two: regarding your example, the cash rolls on at 11/8.

Why is it not a serate entity ?

Are we to believe that if Tiger wins the Masters then he is more likely to win the US Open ?Of course his price will change but that doesn't mean he is any more likely to win than before.

If the punter had wanted a double on Mickelson to win the Scottish Open and Woods to win TheOpen should he be offered enhanced odds on Woods due to the claim that Mickelson is suddenly more likely to win The Open ?

Just because bookmakers offer special odds for the same selection in different events does not mean we have to believe they are any more likely to win the 2nd event after they have won the 1st.

Lets say Usain Bolt is 1/3 to win the 100m and 1/2 to win the 200m why shouldnt I be able to bet the double?
If he wins the 100m his price might shorten but winning the 100m has no direct bearing on his chances in the 200m.

Are we to believe that if Tiger wins the Masters then he is more likely to win the US Open ?Of course his price will change but that doesn't mean he is any more likely to win than before.

  I think most people(including me) will disagree with you on this one....

If the punter had wanted a double on Mickelson to win the Scottish Open and Woods to win TheOpen should he be offered enhanced odds on Woods due to the claim that Mickelson is suddenly more likely to win The Open ?

  No he shouldn't as all the others who played in the Scottish Open(and didn't win) are by this definition less likely to win The Open and evens out the Mickelson effect.

Suppose you had a place bet double on say Mickleson to be placed in the 1st event and Woods in the 2nd event - if Woods won the first event are you saying that they are within their rights to change the price then ?

No and they wouldn't have...

Pity he didn't know his onions and snap up the monkey.

rory is 30 this week and 30 for uspga

any chance ill get  960/1 the double

Bet him in the first and when he wins that re-invest - bet you do - if people are stupid enough to use bookmakers then they get all they deserve

But if he wins this week, what price do you think he'll be for the PGA ?
  Still 30 as according to you ,  these are 2 totally separate events...

My last tuppence worth

We have two golf tournaments back to back there are only 3 men(A,B and C) in the field they are all of the same ability so boomakers go 2/1 all three for both tournaments.

You want to bet player A in a double.Bookmakers should be offering 8/1 the double given there are nine possible outcomes but because they dont want to be laying 2/1 on what might eventually be an evs chance they only offer you 5/1.In offering you 5/1 they assume that your player will win the first tournament.

Whilst the doubles book percentage should be 100% the firms would offer

AA 5/1 (16.6%)
AB 8/1 (11.1%)
AC 8/1 (11.1%)
BA 8/1 (11.1%)
BB 5/1 (16.6%)
BC 8/1 (11.1%)
CA 8/1 (11.1%)
CB 8/1 (11.1%)
CC 5/1 (16.6%)
_______________


book perc 116.4 %

When offering you a price for the double firms assume that your selection has won the first tournament.

My last 2p worth

Eddie which is exactly what I have said in the first place

Biscar

100% book - show me the last time you saw 1 of those from a bookmaker

All good banter boys

tom you have missed the point, I was using 100% books to illustrate why its wrong to relate two tournaments.

If betfair were to offer a doubles market for every combination in the next two tournaments the book would be the actual double price with no reduction in price where it is assumed the player has already won the 1st tournament.

It's perfectly fair to relate two tournaments.

It's right to say the outcome of the second is not directly affected by the outcome of the first tournament, but the price is.

You can't get the price on the second tournament once the first tournament has been settled so you can't have them in a double, unless they offer a special double price.

had acall from my mate yesterday.He has a letter now from betfred services stating that in their opinion the bets are related and that a golfer winning the first tourney is more likely to win the second.They sometimes offer a special for this at less than the true multipliewd odds ,though not in this instance.Therefore under their rule 9 the stake goes on the largest priced selection and would he accept281.60.Now i did ask how 15n pounds of bets could be settled as such as it doesnt add up anyway ican see and i dont have a copy of betfred rules so advised him to contact iBAS which betfred themselves suggested

not great, youd think they would at least give the double of scottish open price taken multied with open starting price !!



id get him to copy this thread, and add to any letter he sends to ibas, it may have no bearing but id be pretty sure
the bookies have already read it

50 quid for a solicitors letter would soften their cough.......

He's a million with IBAS.

I have seen betfred rules and like it or not they have acted totally within their rules.

Accept they have their rules but surely these are flying in the face of common sense, Your friend put his bet on i presume on the Sunday morning,for argument sake if he put his £5 on Phil at 10/3 as a win instead of a double and then went and put the £21.66 on him to win the Open at the lesser price nobody would have said a word to him. A very mean settlement and the wording of them offering a special sometimes is pure flannel.
Probably will have to settle for the £281 still i,d voice my dissatisfaction and would go still to ibas.
Can actually see the scenario if your friend is an infrequent user of the shop,say maybe goes in there once a week and did the bet for convenience given the proximity of the two tournaments.