Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I placed my wager on Questions Answered at 14/1 with Sky Bet. I placed the bet at 23:41 the night before the race where they had 18 horses quoted and the two reserves un-quoted. In this instance a bookmaker is liable to payout if your horse finishes second to one of the un-quoted horses.
Firms such as B365, Powers and SJ, had priced up both reserves in addition to the 18 runners, thus meaning they are not liable to payout. Three firms had the reserves unpriced, Lads, VC and Sky Bet. The aforementioned Lads and VC have paid out as a winner, and rightly so. The reserve is ignored for settlement purposes in these cases. Sky Bet on the other hand are refusing to honour the wager as a winner. In fact they were happy to quote via email that they have a rule which allows them not to price reserves and then to count them as a winner. This is simply not right. Effectively, as punters, we are betting on a market where a defined 18 selections are running in a race, if a reserve who is unpriced at the time the bet is placed is to then run, it becomes a different market, one in which we have not struck a bet. The bookmaker is obliged to payout in these instances yet Sky Bet are blindly refusing to do so. This is not acceptable and certainly not within their rights.
What frustrates me, having pointed out the error of their ways to them, proving the fact with screenshots of their market where the reserves were not priced is that I have to make the effort of contacting IBAS which could take months to claim winnings that are rightfully due to me. I would urge people not to bet with Sky Bet (I should have known better myself given their track record but this is a bizarre new low for them)
Firms such as B365, Powers and SJ, had priced up both reserves in addition to the 18 runners, thus meaning they are not liable to payout. Three firms had the reserves unpriced, Lads, VC and Sky Bet. The aforementioned Lads and VC have paid out as a winner, and rightly so. The reserve is ignored for settlement purposes in these cases. Sky Bet on the other hand are refusing to honour the wager as a winner. In fact they were happy to quote via email that they have a rule which allows them not to price reserves and then to count them as a winner. This is simply not right. Effectively, as punters, we are betting on a market where a defined 18 selections are running in a race, if a reserve who is unpriced at the time the bet is placed is to then run, it becomes a different market, one in which we have not struck a bet. The bookmaker is obliged to payout in these instances yet Sky Bet are blindly refusing to do so. This is not acceptable and certainly not within their rights.
What frustrates me, having pointed out the error of their ways to them, proving the fact with screenshots of their market where the reserves were not priced is that I have to make the effort of contacting IBAS which could take months to claim winnings that are rightfully due to me. I would urge people not to bet with Sky Bet (I should have known better myself given their track record but this is a bizarre new low for them)
Show More
Like banging your head against a brick wall mate, all clones, and know nothing about betting.
More bad news for you, IBAS will rule against you if the rule is clear.
The Sky rule is Some races contain reserves, who may or may not be priced in our Early Prices Lists. The finishing positions of any of these reserves will count whether they are priced or not.
I think that you should try to find the rules of the other bookies. If Sky are out of line, you could argue that hiding an unusual rule in small print is unfair.
I think that you should try to find the rules of the other bookies. If Sky are out of line, you could argue that hiding an unusual rule in small print is unfair.
FJC, what is their ruling if a horse is entered in a grade one months after the original entry stage, its connections paying a huge supplement to run in the race, and that horse wins? Would you get paid on the second if you had backed it before the new entry?
Assuming the posting above is accurate regarding their rule, you are a million to have IBAS rule in your favour. Sad but true.
I have had issues with this type of bet in the past myself.
Although 99% of punters don't bother you need to check the exact rules that each firm has before choosing who to use.
PaulHaigh is correct in what he states, just don't use this firm for races with reserves.
I don't use Ladbrokes for other reasons but VC have always been sound with their settling.
Although 99% of punters don't bother you need to check the exact rules that each firm has before choosing who to use.
PaulHaigh is correct in what he states, just don't use this firm for races with reserves.
I don't use Ladbrokes for other reasons but VC have always been sound with their settling.
I would never ever use Sky Bet one of the worst companies out there, this seems very harsh
Whatever happened to The Pharaoh? Vanished into thin air!
@jmdc, if it is an ante-post market then supplemented horses will count, firms will have something along the lines of "others may be added" in the market description which covers them in these cases.
@dave1357 "Some races contain reserves, who may or may not be priced in our Early Prices Lists. The finishing positions of any of these reserves will count whether they are priced or not." That rule is pointless and cannot be applied if they are a licensed bookmaker, it would be the equivalent of a bookmaker saying "if you win £200 then you are liable to lose your house and belongings", it's completely irrelevant and not legal to say a horse that isn't priced can be counted as a winner in this particular event. They don't seem to understand the reserve system or the rules in this instance. As has been pointed out, Lads and VC have paid out and rightly so.
The problem with IBAS is that they are funded by the firms so will never be impartial. This one is black and white though!
@dave1357 "Some races contain reserves, who may or may not be priced in our Early Prices Lists. The finishing positions of any of these reserves will count whether they are priced or not." That rule is pointless and cannot be applied if they are a licensed bookmaker, it would be the equivalent of a bookmaker saying "if you win £200 then you are liable to lose your house and belongings", it's completely irrelevant and not legal to say a horse that isn't priced can be counted as a winner in this particular event. They don't seem to understand the reserve system or the rules in this instance. As has been pointed out, Lads and VC have paid out and rightly so.
The problem with IBAS is that they are funded by the firms so will never be impartial. This one is black and white though!
FJC - By saying it's black and white", are you suggesting that even IBAS will see that the punter should be paid out in this case? If so, you are mistaken.
Is there not a rule that if you cant win you cant lose?
So everyone who had a bet with skybet prior to the reserve getting in could'nt possibly win.
I doubt skybet are giving everyone their money back that lost.
So everyone who had a bet with skybet prior to the reserve getting in could'nt possibly win.
I doubt skybet are giving everyone their money back that lost.
To expand on my point above, IBAS will not make a ruling based on whether this rule is fair or not, they will simply rule that Skybet have settled the bet in accordance with their published rules.
No BigRob1, that does apply because he could have won if his horse had finished 1st.
Similar to fist goalscorer markets when additional players are added just before kick-off when the teams are announced. Doesn't make previous bets void (as long as this still don't play).
I dont like it but their run is clear and don't think there is much you can do
Similar to fist goalscorer markets when additional players are added just before kick-off when the teams are announced. Doesn't make previous bets void (as long as this still don't play).
I dont like it but their run is clear and don't think there is much you can do
@Paul Haigh, I see your point here and I know IBAS is pretty much useless. Even if they aren't to rule in my favour here I will be taking it further, I know the rules in this instance well, I know what they can and cannot say in relation to their rule above and they are in the wrong. It's a substantial amount of money that's in question, hence why I believe they are not paying out. From their emails to me, they know that they are in the wrong, they didn't quote that above rule until 3 emails in when I provided them with screenshots after they initially told me they had got the reserves priced. Their lying is embarrassing.
@BigRob1, they should also be paying out on the 5th place horse, King Ali, for e/w purposes to all those who took an EP before the reserve was considered in their book.
@BigRob1, they should also be paying out on the 5th place horse, King Ali, for e/w purposes to all those who took an EP before the reserve was considered in their book.
Your probably right swardean but goalscorers are different as you can request a price for a player
not in the market as he is in the squad.others on request is usually stated
in a horse race were everyone falls you get your money back because nobody could win.
they dont say your horse could of won but fell.
not in the market as he is in the squad.others on request is usually stated
in a horse race were everyone falls you get your money back because nobody could win.
they dont say your horse could of won but fell.
FJC - I would strongly advise you not to submit your dispute to IBAS, as that's exactly what Skybet want you to do as they know the ruling will be in their favour.
Your difficulty in this situation is that the Gambling Commission won't be any use to you either - I know this from personal experience.
In general terms, legal action or the threat of it is the best way to go, but if I am being perfectly honest I think you are unlikely to get paid.
You are merely questioning the fairness of their rule - that's not a matter for IBAS in their opinion.
Should you be paid? Yes.
Will you get paid? Very unlikely.
That said, I'd be happy to help you if you want to contact me:
betdisputeadvice@gmail.com
Your difficulty in this situation is that the Gambling Commission won't be any use to you either - I know this from personal experience.
In general terms, legal action or the threat of it is the best way to go, but if I am being perfectly honest I think you are unlikely to get paid.
You are merely questioning the fairness of their rule - that's not a matter for IBAS in their opinion.
Should you be paid? Yes.
Will you get paid? Very unlikely.
That said, I'd be happy to help you if you want to contact me:
betdisputeadvice@gmail.com
Thanks Paul, I'll drop you a mail later this afternoon with the correspondence I've had with SkyBet thus far.
No problem, look forward to reading it.
BigRob1, the no win no lose rule went out years ago. How much would you expect to be returned if you backed the favourite in a race with 10/11 joint favourites?
Refusing to pay out.. Only surprise is getting on for anything over 1 pound
Correct BR. They bombed me out very early. Not bona fide bookmakers, imo.
How much can you get on with these smaller firms for a short period of time,is it worth opening an account even if it only lasts a few weeks.
A truly rancid firm......."my mums" account was closed with them after 6 bets.
£300 down but all of them beat the SP
WTF?
£300 down but all of them beat the SP
WTF?
I see prices occasionally that are great arbs so i tell a couple i know and they have £50 on to win say £20,i very rarely look at their prices but for someone who only hqs small bets winning £20 is great for 2mins work.Iv'e had over 200 accounts since last year,so i just do it out of spite now if its possible just get an account for a week or two.
Worst firms in order:
Spbet, SJ, Sky, Boyles, Tote, PP, Hills, BSQ , 888, Lad, Cor, VC, B365 - and I should know - I've had a dozen + of each!
Spbet, SJ, Sky, Boyles, Tote, PP, Hills, BSQ , 888, Lad, Cor, VC, B365 - and I should know - I've had a dozen + of each!
In my experience if a bookie can spot an opportunity not to pay out then it will take it, and any ambiguity in their rules will be interpreted by IBAS in the bookie's favour.
when a firm offers a £5 free bet weekly on a TV ad you know they are a tuppenny hapenny outfit.
Everybody seems happy when a supplemented horse wins a big race, and the ante post money thre is huge, North Light, and EVERY Ante Post placed over the winter on the Derby became a loser, even though nobody could have bet the winner.
Did you ever care then, NO, ypu have made 3 cardinal,inexperienced ,errors.
1.Not read the rules
2.Bet with Sky
3.Bet on Irish racing
Only you would do this, but, learn, listen, and move on. You have made an error, we all do,but treat it as a learning curve
Did you ever care then, NO, ypu have made 3 cardinal,inexperienced ,errors.
1.Not read the rules
2.Bet with Sky
3.Bet on Irish racing
Only you would do this, but, learn, listen, and move on. You have made an error, we all do,but treat it as a learning curve
why would they pay out on this? you're clearly in the wrong. Different firms have different rules. get over it
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539