Advice wanted regarding non payment of online bet

He was the fav and they ran an in play with the fav market - he was never in trouble I think, so they ran that all night yet still failed to notice the competitive market was taking bets? hmmmm

Only reason I ask is that it would help make some sense as to why they're claiming palpable error. Still doesn't make a load of sense to me - I'm struggling to imagine a market where the leader is 5/2 and the player 2 shots off is 18/1 and on the flip side the bookies "correct" price is 8/15! For that to happen the 2 must have been a mile clear. Yet it's 5/2 the fav! Might be me being dense...long day.

Either way, best of luck.

Thanks areyoutalking to me. That makes a little more sense. Sounds like the 8/15 should have been the price for Fraser, not Ramsey in that case...

No worries yeasty

jbbrfc....He was very short all night, as you say, never in trouble.
Most firms would have seen money in the w/o market, have you tried to collate info from them? They may be able to provide you with the info that you require.

Also, don't have too high an opinion of any trader, let alone those that work for these tin pot operations.

Yes i agree the 8/15 sounds like Fraser's price.

Bookmakers are happy to encourage punters with a dispute to go to IBAS because they know that 'palpable error' still rules supreme in their eyes.

The ironic thing about that is that Kevin Pullein is one of the panel members and he constantly bangs on about the need to only bet when you believe you have spotted a pricing error.

Sadly, all too often the only way to get paid in such circumstances is to pursue legal action and make it clear you have no intention of referring the dispute to IBAS.

Kevin Pullein is one of the panel members !!

God help us all....

"Recommendation no payout"....

Thanks to all for the advice so far.

I think you are probably correct regarding IBAS now I think more about this and I have looked in to the costs and procedure of this and will push this on now.

Have you posted this on the golf thread to see if anyone else has been affected by this?

I have not no. I am still waiting for clear evidence on the claims made by the firm and regulator, neither seem to know what they are doing.

I have not no. I am still waiting for clear evidence on the claims made by the firm and regulator, neither seem to know what they are doing.

Who was the bet with ? Aviboyd has mentioned BI but there are plenty of other firms over there ?

WilsonBet, "powered" by JenningsBet.

Just thought it would do no harm to post it there, as they are claiming that they cancelled other bets, but will not give you proof of this, I can understand that they don't have to provide proof, as peoples bets are between them and their bookie, at least post a link to this thread on the golf forum and you never know what replies you get back.

Well the latest is that as JenningsBet power WilsonBet all bets placed on the "without fav" market at JenningsBet must also of been voided - I imagine that is the same for every Firm JenningsBet power and they power several.

While transacting with Wilsonbet (a brand owned and managed by TDL Sports Limited) your bet is struck on servers belonging to Jenningsbet IOM Ltd a company authorized and regulated under an Isle of Man Gambling License. All debts and liabilities relating to deposits, winnings, and loses with Wilsonbet are between the customer and Jenningsbet IOM Ltd and player deposits guaranteed by the Isle of Man Government. Jenningsbet may at any time assign, transfer, mortgage, charge or deal in any other manner with any or all of it's rights and obligations relating to your transactions with Wilsonbet without notice and in transacting with Wilsonbet you will be deemed to have given your consent to such assignment or transfer.

I take it that means the dispute is with myself and JenningsBet? Curious set up isn't it, I would not be keen to have accounts with the two as they would probably throw in the multiple accounts rule if you had a decent chop I would imagine.

jb, I wish you luck. Hang on in there. Sounds like a trader had his balls on the line and his get out of jail free card was to cancel your bet.

I thought that Wilsonbet were supposed to be the Golf Experts.....

2012-04-29 08:16:33    Bet returns    £1900.00    £1900.00      

2012-04-30 15:57:34    Bet Unsettlement    -£1900.00    £90.00

And they are claiming every single bet placed on that market was voided, laughable really.

Why not go to a solicitor, first consultation free and even though many think gambling disputes fall outside the normal legal channels, not all do. If you're serious about this and believe you are right that is the best thing to do, as under law of contract or other such avenues there could be a solution.

I think it may be useful to determine the actual nature of your grievance:

-        Is it the case that you feel that the company made a mistake which you were able to exploit and should now be held accountable by paying you ?1800; or
-        Do you agree that they have the right to void a bet as per their terms and conditions and you simply disagree with that on principle?

This is an email from the regulator.

How many punters make mistakes daily yet do not cry foul? I thought Firms were attempting to move away from this palpable error rule, if they are poor at pricing up and offering markets they should not be in the business.

i cant really see you winning this imo.

any chance someone could state what the exact state of play was with the golfers in question? how many shots they were in front/behind when placing the bet?? someone said a golfer was 5 shots ahead going into the final round, but id like to know when bet was placed on hole 14 or whenever?

id be amazed if they cancelled every punters losing bet though the crooks

I think it may be useful to determine the actual nature of your grievance:

-        Is it the case that you feel that the company made a mistake which you were able to exploit and should now be held accountable by paying you ?1800; or
-        Do you agree that they have the right to void a bet as per their terms and conditions and you simply disagree with that on principle?

Where they the only 2 otions?

What about you agree that they can void bets as per their terms and conditions however you don't agree that this situation was one where they should have invoked the rule.

That is a mile away from challenging the principle that they can void bets.

The golfer who was 5 shots ahead was the outright leader - he was around 1/33 going in to the last round I think and that price never really changed (got bigger) throughout the final round - yet they are saying they ran that market in play as WIN ONLY.

They are saying they never ran the without fav market in play - tell me, which would be the better market to run in play in order to take bets?!! That is what makes it even more laughable when they say it should not of been up - how on earth did a Trader not notice bets going on it? I doubt he/she was rushed off his/her feet taking lumps at 1/20etc for the entire final round?

I used the final round tee times and scorecards to have a rough guess of how they stood after Ramsay was through 13.

-15 Wiesberger
-11 Ramsay
-10 Dubisson
-10 Fraser
-10 Jimenez
-9 Fisher
-9 Coetzee
-9 Noren
-8 Wall

Quite a bit of guesswork involved but 18/1 was obviously the wrong price.  Disgraceful to settle the bet and then void it a day and half later with no notification though.

Thanks again for the replies, that is correct they were the only two options the regulator said to me. That is a good point Banned_Banks.

how can they say they didnt run the market and then claim the correct price was 8/15!!!!!!!!!!!!

and yes, ^ from above clearly the wrong price for w/o the fav, looks to me like 18/1 was for the outright imo

I am certain Ramsay was behind at the time by 1 or possibly 2 shots.

jbbrfc does make a good point about the trader not being rushed off their feet being a small firm probably not seeing much business.  Errors can obviously be made and not noticed until after a number of bets have been placed, but it sounds like his bet was referred to a trader to manually authorise. When that happens its given the ok the firm really should have to accept some responsibility and not hide behind a palp.

After discussions with the Independent Bookmakers Service we have established that the price on Richie Ramsey at 06:38 on 29/04/2012 in the Ballentines's Championship without the favourite was 8/15.

I attempted to find contact details for the IBS when this email was sent (early May) but the website was suspended due to non payment of fees. I have never heard of them and the WilsonBet website makes no mention of them at all.

Has anyone ever came across them please?

i think deep down you know you got the wrong price, as soon as it was paid you should have withdraw it and closed account 

The biggest mistake they've made from a customer service perspective is not just to void the bet but to do so with no communication , that's appalling business practice.


In my view there's a worst scenario here ,assume that the leading golfer was 1/9 or shorter so consequently the max R4 of 90p in the £ is applied , basically because the 18/1 looks to be the all in outright price based on the approximate leader board posted earlier in the thread.

So the minimum scenario should be settled as a 9/5 winner in my view ( 18/1 x 90p R4 ) , not suggesting you should accept that but a 9/5 return should be an absolute minimum.


Best of luck , hope you win the case   

If the books are correct with what they are stating, there would have have been no fluctuations in the w/o market, it wasn't supposed to go in running. Therefore, the 18/1 Ramsey would have been the price available in the w/o market, before play got underway, surely!?

202 Bernd Wiesberger (Austria) 72 65 65
207 Marcus Fraser (Australia) 71 67 69
208 Oliver Fisher (Britain) 71 70 67
Felipe Aguilar (Chile) 71 69 68
209 Paul McGinley (Ireland) 71 73 65
Miguel Angel Jimenez (Spain) 72 68 69
210 Kiradech Aphibarnrat (Thailand) 76 69 65
Richie Ramsay (Britain) 70 72 68

and 5/2 about fraser looks about right as well, 1 clear going into final round

erogenous but the op states that 12s and 14s was freely available elsewhere.

^ im doubting that tbh.

Will say this again, speaking from personal experience, CONSULT A SOLICITOR, first consultation free.

I shall follow what Paul Haigh says, no offence but I think he is best placed to advise here.

I very much doubt this bet would have been voided had this not have won - those prices were available I can assure you. It is in play betting - prices move constantly.

36 hours is terrible - that is why I am asking for proof that every single bet placed on this market was voided as they state, it seems pretty obvious that only one bet was voided though and many others were probably settled as losers and not voided.

Food for thought.

18s was price in the normal market we can b fairly certain. the elsewhere prices quoted didn't exist in the w/o market either.
the 8/15 hes been paid at is defo to short persuming he wasnt at least 1 shot clear of 3rd at the time..

jbbrfc, if just your bet, or a few selected larger bets were voided than that is fraudulent, but what is to stop them?

gnasher, you say that you seem fairly certain that the 18/1 was an outright price? Could you then explain the price of Fraser, quoted by the OP @ 5/2, which was available in the same market (w/o fav)? He would never have been that low in the outright market.

My theory is that Ramsey was quoted at 18/1 in a w/o the fav market (it fits, as does the Fraser quote of 5/2, see round 3 scores above), before a ball was struck. The operators incompetence was to attribute to the failure to withdraw the market, therefore the stagnant price was exposed. It would surprise me if there were any fluctuations on this particular wilsonbet market. Also I would not imagine that they were inundated with wagers on this event (early hours of Sunday morning, small operator).

Ruling: palpable error.   

jbbrfc, how many bets had you struck with the firm prior to this wager?

as my learned friend areyoutalkintome stated earler,...
the best thing by far is 

Time of the bet when struck, email every other company in the world (apart from betsson) asking if they could give you there price at that time............ if it really was 14/1 slash 12/1 take them to court, if it wasnt and by that i mean way out, give it up............
and as for the term trader ! theres no such thing as a trader anymore, just a person watching this site........ cracks me up when they say "our traders".........

Just another case of a Bookmaker thinking they can do whatever they want, they are not content with ruining peoples lives with online Casino's and FOBT'S, they never accept any responsibility for their mistakes.

I hope people do not use Jenningsbet or any of their white label sites having read this, also P--L S------R of the Isle Of Man GC has been utterly useless regarding this - a man clearly in the pocket of a bookmaking firm, I am contacting him by phone tomorrow to offer him the opportunity to explain his cocky e-mails to me in voice.

I simply do not have the energy for this any more and shall be closing all accounts I have with any firm that comes under the Isle Of Man GC, good luck all.

Dear Sir,

Please forgive me for not answering some of your questions – I should have perhaps explained earlier that my role as the regulator is not to determine whether the company offers a good service to gamblers like yourself but rather to investigate whether they have conducted themselves in accordance with the law; the questions you have posed regarding the market, the apparent oversight of the operator on the error and IBAS are periphery to the main issue which I believe we have now isolated in our dialogue.

If I have understood your response correctly, you feel that the company does not have a right to void this bet.
I derive my conclusions from your response, “I do not believe they have a right to void this, the bet was taken in good faith. . .”

Again, I have lifted what I consider to be the relevant terms from their terms and conditions:

Wilsonbet is not responsible for printing errors that may occur on its website and printed material.

Wilsonbet reserves the right to cancel any bet made on an obviously "bad" line or a wager made after an event has started.

The contents of Wilsonbet World Wide Web pages are provided "as is". Except as required by applicable law no warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy, reliability or content of the pages.  Wilsonbet reserves the right to revise the pages or withdraw access to them at any time.

There does not appear to be any qualifier which prevents an error from being unilaterally corrected if bets were placed in good faith.
The terms and conditions have not been breached by the operator.

Unless the operator breaches their terms and conditions then what they are doing is within the law and the regulator – in this case the Gambling Supervision Commission (the GSC) – has no reason to intervene. If we were to approach their compliance team and point out that they had voided a bet in compliance with their own terms and conditions, they would probably quite rightly wonder at the point we were trying to make.

I am surprised that an experienced gambler like yourself disagrees with the terms on palpable errors; such conditions are almost universal for bookmakers as a protection against this very scenario. I have copied examples from Ladbrokes and SBOBet who I hope you will agree are representative of the sector. While they differs in style, their substance – which I assume you feel is equally unfair - is the same:

Where, in respect of any Product or an event within a Product, we make an error (whether human or otherwise), we will be entitled to declare the transaction void and withhold any payments. If we wrongly pay an amount to you or we pay you more than the amount to which you are properly entitled you agree to repay to us immediately upon request from us the amount which has been wrongly paid or overpaid to you. We have the authority to adjust your account to reflect the true outcome and rectify the error. An example of such an error might be where a price is incorrect, a bet is late, a failure occurs in one of our systems or where we enter a result of an event incorrectly.
Your bet may be void due to one or more of the following reasons.
Event was cancelled prior to commencement.
Changes in the event venue.
Bets were made after the scheduled game has started (except for live betting).
Incorrect information (e.g. participant or member of participating team or odds/price) was quoted for event.
Incorrect information was utlised to compile odds.
Bets were accepted by SBOBET's system in error.


If you think the terms I isolated for WilsonBet earlier do not sufficiently clarify their rights to void bets made on errors, I would be prepared to consider any feedback you have which would make their position clearer for future customers.

Before I close this complaint, I would like to try and explain the relationship between IBAS and the various parties in this situation.

WilsonBet is affiliated with Jennings so there is a chance that IBAS will recognise that because your contract is with Jennings and not WilsonBet that they will accept your dispute for resolution. That is a matter for their policy towards so called white-label sites (of which WilsonBet is one). We do not control that policy – it is for IBAS to decide whether they accept a dispute or not. In this case, it seems to be that their policy in this matter is to not accept a dispute unless the website itself has paid its dues to them. As the GSC, we have no opinion on this policy – it is theirs to determine and they have drawn their conclusions in this case. You appear to have no recourse to IBAS’ services – as we are not affiliated with IBAS we weren’t to know that when we suggested you present your case to them, but IBAS membership is not a regulatory requirement of an Isle of Man licensee so your lack of an appeal to them is academic for us.

While I remain open-minded to the possibility that new facts may emerge in this discussion, unless you are able to demonstrate that WilsonBet acted dishonestly when they offered their market then I intend to consider my analysis to be the more likely: an error was made when setting the odds and it was corrected in the proper fashion using the terms and conditions that you agreed to when you formed a contract with the operator – they have not breached their terms and conditions and there is no case for the Commission to pursue.

Regards,

I would be utterly amazed if either of the two Firms had ever left a market up in the fashion WilsonBet say they did and no Trader had noticed.

The stuff about IBAS leaves me thinking this man is mentally ill as he has kept saying the case can resolved by going to IBAS but is now saying IBAS means nothing in this case.

You appear to have no recourse to IBAS’ services – as we are not affiliated with IBAS we weren’t to know that when we suggested you present your case to them, but IBAS membership is not a regulatory requirement of an Isle of Man licensee so your lack of an appeal to them is academic for us.

Exactly who should know then?!

Summary? The man doesn't know his job.

Sir

The Commission has received a response from Wilsonbet concerning your complaint.

The operator has confirmed that you placed a without the favourite bet on 29/04/2012 for Richie Ramsey to win the Ballentines's Golf Championship prior to the start of Day 4 of the event. However they state the price quoted at the time was clearly incorrect.

Under the terms and conditions of the site, Wilson Bet are permitted to cancel bets where a pricing error has occurred.  In this instance as the difference in the price quoted and the actual price was considerable, the operator acted correctly under the palpable error rule. 

If you consider the Wilson Bet conclusion to be unfair, may I suggest you refer your complaint to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS).   

Kind regards,

That e-mail was sent to me on May 18th.

Tread carefully with this people gents, they really do think they can do whatever they want.

The operator has confirmed that you placed a without the favourite bet on 29/04/2012 for Richie Ramsey to win the Ballentines's Golf Championship prior to the start of Day 4 of the event. However they state the price quoted at the time was clearly incorrect.

There he is saying the bet was placed before the start of the final round!

jbbrfc 16 Jul 12 17:34
Price was 18/1, other firms were less but only by a few points - such as 14s and 12s. Bet was settled as a winner in full but not voided until 36 hours after it was settled as a winner, no e-mail notification sent at all of bet being voided.

We have ascertained since you posted the above that the 18/1 at the time you struck the bet was incorrect (as per the post below):

leviathan
17 Jul 12 13:06 Joined: 04 Dec 03 | Topic/replies: 543 | Blogger: leviathan's blog
I used the final round tee times and scorecards to have a rough guess of how they stood after Ramsay was through 13.

-15 Wiesberger
-11 Ramsay
-10 Dubisson
-10 Fraser
-10 Jimenez
-9 Fisher
-9 Coetzee
-9 Noren
-8 Wall

Quite a bit of guesswork involved but 18/1 was obviously the wrong price.

Therefore I'm a little concerned that you saw 14/1 and 12/1 with 'other firms', it would seem the bookmaker with which you have the dispute are not the only bookmaker to have made a right horlicks of the IP W/O Fav market.  Either that or you are fully aware that you took advantage knowing it was a 'palp' and are now trying a last throw of the dice to get paid out by kicking up a stink on here.

I'm afraid looking at the evidence I withdraw my previous best wishes to you at getting paid and you should except the fact the bookmaker has the right to refuse payment at the 18/1.  Whether they should have voided the bet in its entirety or not is another matter.  Cheers.

If this lad by the firms own admission had the bet before the start

of the 4th round and the price he obtained was 18-1 and the same player

was offered at a lesser price elsewhere is just hard cheese for the layer,

the layer must pay up he has not got a leg to stand on.

    As gambling debts these days are recoverable in law I would give the

firm in question one last chance to pay up or sue, imo you cannot lose on

the evidence you can produce.   Best of luck.

Indeed wee eck but they will produce evidence that the bet was not placed prior to the fourth round.  The company involved should be ashamed of the way they have handled this bet and the correspondence they have sent to the OP.  Their Customer Services people are clearly guessing and lying through their teeth, rather than admit their mistake and settle the bet at the correct price.

Where do you all stand on the fact that the Firm never sent me any notification that the bet had been voided and also that the Firm's regulator have no problem with that?

Do you also not think that a regulator should know whether a Firm is registered with IBAS and also if a decision by IBAS in my favour would lead to payment?

What do you think about this "Independent Bookmakers Service" who appear not even exist?

You may call it "kicking up a stink" avi but it is also to let people know what is going on with these Firms and more importantly with regulator's in the present day. The reason bookmaking in this country is now on it's arse for the punter is that people have not stuck together and had a go back, this has happened for years and years and years.

Where do you all stand on the fact that the Firm never sent me any notification that the bet had been voided and also that the Firm's regulator have no problem with that?

Do you also not think that a regulator should know whether a Firm is registered with IBAS and also if a decision by IBAS in my favour would lead to payment?

What do you think about this "Independent Bookmakers Service" who appear not even exist?

You may call it "kicking up a stink" avi but it is also to let people know what is going on with these Firms and more importantly with regulator's in the present day. The reason bookmaking in this country is now on it's arse for the punter is that people have not stuck together and had a go back, this has happened for years and years and years.

I now suggest that you follow Paul Haigh's advice.

Send an email to head of customer services and say you will now be going through the small claims court. They have had plenty of time to address this issue.

I agree with other posters that the 18/1 was probably not the true price that should of been offered but 8/15 is clearly even more wrong!!!

GL

The regulator has also constantly said EVERY bet placed on this market was voided but will not enter in to any form of discussion regarding providing evidence of this claim - that speaks volumes.

jbbrfc, under no circumstances let IBAS be the arbitrator in your dispute,

they are funded by Bookmakers and will invariably after much ado find in

their favour.   Sue and you will win.

I also want people to know about the IBAS factor here.

If you spend time on any Jenningsbet powered site you will notice errors (by errors I mean prices in play that are of huge value, this is down to shoddy/slow trading). You will also see some terrible prices in play - Football appears to be the key Sport they cover in play and the prices are ridiculous - you are talking about teams that should be 2/1 etc that are sat at 1/10 or over/under markets where both sides are under say 1/5 etc.... Have a look if you can be bothered sometime, people probably have seen this is some degree though I expect.

jbbrfc - the validity of the 18/1 aside you have been appallingly treated throughout this whole process and on that score I sympathise.  You are right to highlight the shortcomings both with the firm in question and IBAS - they are an absolute disgrace.  I can't think of any other industry where what amounts to 'fraud' is commonplace on a daily basis and yet is ignored by the bodies that are supposed to regulate it.  Bookmakers nowadays are untrustworthy with no morality or ethics whatsoever.

Sorry i forgot to add on my previous post.

If and when you send them the email saying your going through small claims, ask them to acknowledge receipt of your email - nothing more.

I am interested to see what will happen next!

Like I have said has this bet of lost I very much doubt this would of been cancelled.

Given they are saying EVERY bet on the market was cancelled I expect other customers will of received e-mails saying so and possibly they could forward me one of those? They cannot though.

Avibond, that comment re bookies generally is a bit strong, I have

been betting for over 60 years and must say that I have found that

in that time 99.99% of the guys and firms I have wagered with have

been totally honourable.

jbbrfc
18 Jul 12 10:08 Joined: 14 Mar 11 | Topic/replies: 37 | Blogger: jbbrfc's blog
Like I have said has this bet of lost I very much doubt this would of been cancelled.

100% it wouldn't have been cancelled but proving this is impossible alas...

Yes wee eck, although not 60yrs like yourself i have been going for 25yrs. During that time i have only had 2 disputes and both were settled in my favour after threatening to take them to court.

wee eck - you have been very fortunate imo.  Over the past fortnight I have suffered two increased Rule (4) deductions due to bookmakers shortening non-runners after they have been officially withdrawn.  That is theft.  I've only been betting around 25 years (on an almost daily basis) and to be fair the 'dishonesty' I refer too has only occurred during the past five years or so.

Aviboyd - I think we have discussed this before! A practice that is getting more widespread and goes mostly un-noticed!

Yes Nige.  Sorry to hear you have had to threaten bookmakers with legal action (not happened to me or anyone I know), the fact that they climbed down says all you need to know really...

I think that you are all missing one salient point here...

The Isle Of Man has a separate legal system and to sue Wilsonbet you will have to go through the Manx Courts.An English brief is a waste of time....

Tell them that you will get in touch with the local paper that will shift them !!

Avibond funnily enough in the last 5 years or so my betting has diminished

by around 90% so perhaps I am posting about the past and am not aut fait with

things as they might be today.  Best of luck.

Good luck to you too wee eck.  To be fair I turnover a fair amount so statistically I will have the odd problem or two that will probably not effect the more casual gambler (rule 4s aside).  There were many genuine people in the bookmaking industry in days gone by but I guess they are retiring and being replaced by an entirely different breed...

Yes todays are a completely different breed both on track, shops and online. The online and shops are not overly interested in horse racing anymore as it is not their main income.

I used to manage a shop 15-20yrs ago and it was a completely different environment ( apart for single manning of the shop ). I enjoyed it but got out when things started to change.

Funnily enough Nige I used to work in the industry too.  Met a lot of good people, both colleagues and customers.  Got out when Sunday racing was introduced.

Yes i had a great set of customers, even the mad chinese!!! lol

I was still working when sunday racing started but i didnt last much longer.

I saw and spoke to a lot of trainers as my shop was close to Sandown Park, Jimmy White used to pop in a lot.

Also had the 3 card trick merchants stopping by before they went to Sandown, they were a funny bunch!!!!

Spoken to a member of the GC and he is looking to answer some further questions.

I was concerned of something like that homefortea, thanks for pointing that out.

This has been dealt with terribly, the firm are now saying they e-mailed everyone to tell them al bets were cancelled yet I have an e-mail where I have had to go to them in the first instance. Very poor, you wonder how often they get away with this sort of stuff.

I can't think of any other industry where what amounts to 'fraud' is commonplace on a daily basis and yet is ignored by the bodies that are supposed to regulate it.

Correct. The fact is that many firms fill their T&Cs with terms that are clearly unfair to the punter. Many of them base themselves in jurisdictions where the regulation is even more tinpot than our GC, with absolutely no interest in protecting punters. Quite the opposite; they actively seek to be as lenient to operators as possible, to attract them to their jurisdiction.

jbbrfc - It seems to me that to make a rational judgement on your dispute several points need clarification.

The issue of the exact timing of your bet is crucial - if Wilsonbet have confirmed that your bet was placed prior to the commencement of the fourth round then you have a much stronger case than if it was placed after play had started for the day.

Once again, I would implore you not to refer this dispute to IBAS though it appears that Wilsonbet are not registered there anyway. Don't place too much faith in the involvement of the Gambling Commission either.

The issue here is in fact a much wider one, and not one that I am keen to discuss on here to be honest.

Suffice to say that any regulator will say that your bet has been settled (voided) in accordance to the T&Cs which you agreed to when you placed your bet.

Based on what information you have shared here, your treatment is, at best, grossly unfair in my opinion, but your only hope of getting paid is to consider a legal challenge. If it was to be heard under English Law I think I would fancy your chances but IOM law I know nothing about.

sorry I haven't followed the whole thread but if that "without the fav" market still had up the same prices that it had at the start of the tournament, then you have no chance of being paid as they can claim there was no "in running" for that market.

if you can prove that the market was fluctuating the same way as the all in market then you might have a shout, but 18/1 seems a bit overpriced to me for somebody in second place. 

I do agree that your treatment was shoddy, but shoddy treatment isn't usually covered in bookies rules, whereas palpable errors are.

good luck though.

By the way if anybody wants any help with a betting dispute I'm happy to offer free advice:

betdisputeadvice@gmail.com

Paul Haigh, are you a Lawyer?

Nige, what's a 3 card trick merchant?

^ 'Find the lady' Blades...

Not a lawyer but years of experience of IBAS in particular and a decent record of helping people who have been treated unfairly get paid what they deserve.

Blades that were around mostly pre-war working the race tracks playing a scam

called find the Lady, the Lady being the Queen of Spades.

   The trick was performed by using three playing cards and the punter had to

find the Queen which when the cards were dealt in front of you seemed easy enough

and it was when the perpertators were using their stooges but as soon as a mug put

his money down the Queen was never where it appeared to be.

        I have seen unfortunates lose bundles trying to find the elusive Lady.

Paul, you seem a decent lad.  Best of luck to you.

Firstly - should the onus not be on them to show evidence as to where this 8/15 quote comes from? They keep moving the goalposts you see. Firstly they say it was because the market was left up due to a technical error, then they say it was the wrong price and should of been 8/15 - they have never once said in concrete where 8/15 comes from other than the IBS THIS IS VITAL HERE - the IBS stands for Independent Bookmakers Service, who are they? There website has been suspended from the day WilsonBet sent the e-mail - they appear to be some outfit in Cheshire.

Paul:

Regarding the bet being placed prior to the start of the 4th round that is simply an error by them, it highlights again that they don't really understand the problem. I haver never at all said this was placed before the start. It just serves up their incompetence even more.

At the very least this thread is showing up what a bunch of chancers this operation really are.

I implore you to follow some football prices in play on their site, you see books where they are betting to upwards of 250% on a regular basis.

Without wishing to hijack the thread, I have for some months now been receiving copies of IBAS adjudications from people willing to pass them on to me.

I intend to continue collating these and hope to set up a website at some point which will open people's eyes I suspect.

Feel free to email as above with any IBAS adjudications you have received.

jbbrfc - I would suggest you drop me a line and I would be happy to help you with this. There are just too many inconsistencies on this thread between the two sides and they need to be cleared up before you can proceed any further in my opinion.

jbbrfc, what margins they bet to are irrelevant that is their business

and if people are prepared to take the prices they offer is up to the

folk involved.

       Reading your post this moment it appeared by the gist of it that

you had placed your wager before play started on the 4th day, if that is

not the case and your bet was placed during play on the 4th I think your

claim is weakened.  The whole episode is wishy washy to say the least.

They used to work at Sandown Park in my area quite a few years back now. Usually setting up their table on the way out of the course towards the railway station.

Usually a group of about 5, one working the table and 4 posing as punters, who seemed to win. Then when they got a customer the lady was never found.

I saw one Chinese chap lose over £500 in 5mins!!!

That is correct wee eck, I am just pointing out that they probably should not be running in play markets at all or that certain "Traders" are incapable of offering in play - it seems that when they do make an error they simply cry foul and void, without even saying exactly why.

I will take a look at their website jbbrfc for myself. I doubt i will invest any money mind based on what has been said.

Leon de Huanuco v Universitario    Wednesday 18th Jul, 2012 21:15


Great value for the draw price in that match in Peru on the front page.

and the away team may I add

Melgar v Sporting Cristal    Wednesday 18th Jul, 2012 19:15

Again in Peru the away side are 4/6 here but 7/4 across the boards elsewhere.

I wonder if you lump on at 4/6 you will get it settled at that or voided or whatever as that is an obvious error but they are frequent daily.

Yes i see what you mean!!

Mindyou they offer a £50 matched bet for new customers and BOG so i might investigate a bit more to see how competetive their prices are.

They have moved Cristal in now - they are 4/7 from 4/6. Calamity.

Just read the small print it is not a free £50 matched bet as you have to put 20 bets on first!!

Yes that was exposed on here a while back.

Horse racing prices the worst in the world Nige same as jenningsbet...Bottom price on everything, every race, every day...

A complete disgrace.Site must be some kind of tax dodge as even the mentally challenged would not bet at those prices...

Don't talk to me about BOG......

Hills hotbox homefortea newcastle, have a look at those prices - value a plenty.

Work fore me chaps, have a good day.

Ok thanks HFT. I wont waste my time checking the prices out.

Good Morning

Apologies for not responding earlier.

I can advise that Wilsonbet use, as a guideline for their own markets, the Independent Bookmakers Service run by StanJames. This service is also used by numerous Independent Bookmakers around the UK.

The service  provides results and price history for both StanJames and its associates for both betting offices and online bookmakers.

StanJames has a full and precise list of current prices including the history of all in-running prices for events that are displayed by their website.

Wilsonbet has confirmed that the prices quoted by StanJames are used for guideline purposes and that the Wisonbet market is quoted under these circumstances.

Kind regards,

Another response and another laughable one.