not a very good comparison Barry
same event

I'll just have the single 5/1 about Cook, thanks

Parispike in "I really don't understand the point being made" shocker.

For the less mentally adept I will spell it out a little more clearly.

If firms are made to stand by more errors then that opens the door to fraud. Staff can offer bets/prices to their mates that the firm aren't laying knowing that the bets will stand. The only way the firm can then stop this is to sack the staff.

If on the other hand the bets are voided or settled at the correct price it would stop the staff being fraudulent as there would be no point and those who were just incompetent could be better trained.

If this isn't done you are encouraging chancers to ply their trade and get inexperienced staff sacked.

Parispike that may not be an issue to you however in this current economic climate I would not want to contribute to anyone else losing their job. Perhaps if you were in their position neither would you.

We know th theoretical possibility BB but really......

siralex

the shops in my area are doing very badly on the fobts, in the next couple of weeks each member of staff will receive a phone call from a cluster manager doing a quiz on how much we know about each of the fob games, the quiz will have 20 questions including such questions as how many features real king potty has, what is the top prize for cops and robbers, no prize for getting them all right but a reprimand if you don't.

Sadly the OTC is going down the pan anything said? not a dicky bird.

Is this topic some sort of a joke....?

So Mr Pollard , you expect people to believe that after joining Betfair just over 3 years ago and posting over 28000 posts , what's that 30 per day , including this quote from another of your incredibly long , copy and paste topics...

" We were often asked to lay horses for owners at race meetings nothing of biblical proportion but usually a couple of hundred or so  usual excuses were ''He hasn't eaten up this morning'' or ''She missed a weeks training last week. "

So from the above quote , one can only imagine that you were or worked as a bookie years ago , and you obviously read a lot of stuff about horse racing and betting , because you post everything onto this forum for the viewing pleasure of... Who knows...!!

So for you to pretend that you had never heard of " related contingency " is ridiculous , you are obviously trying it on , even a relative new comer to betting knows this...

The more interesting question on this topic is.. How many times did you write this actual bet out , and how many bookmakers did you attempt to get this bet placed with , until you finally found a cashier that was busy/unaware to actually take your bet...?

I'm guessing about 17 times , and how some of these people who've posted their support on here stand for this rubbish , well I don't know...

Anyway it's been a few hours since you copy and pasted an article on this forum , chop chop....

Forgot to say , lets all hope that Dawn Approach gets beat , so its a victory for good over evil , and that people like yourself dont get away with the bullying tactics of having 6000 twitter followers , to help them perform an action of a pathetic conman...

i dont think that was the subject of this topic swift-tuttle , the poster wanted to let everyone who has half a brain know that he's an expert at getting an illegal bet through the system at probably his twentieth attempt ,with the power of his twitter followers...

Rules are Rules , why is it money back on here if its a tie in cricket..? theres a seperate market , as there was for the double ,  its the rules , rules he obviously knew an tried and tried to take advantage of , unfortunately he was successful , more fool William Hill , but at least he's played this card now and wont get away with it again...

theres a seperate market , as there was for the double ,

Are you saying that there was a special price for the double at the time of placement of the bet?

Well if he'd ask i'm sure a phone call would have sourced a price for the double , after all you can bet on your son playing for England , your marriage lasting 50 years(gulp) , you can bet on anything...

but you can't take 4/1 and 12/1 on 2 events that are related and just multiply them , everyone knows that...

Always hassly , related contingency bets .

However if Dawn Approach was 12/1 for the Derby , 15/1 the doudble is the real scandal in their offer . Bearing in mind that 4/1 was decent odds for the Guineas , 7 months ago you would have pencilled in Dawn at 4/1 at least for a Derby win , even though it had won the Guineas .  So an offer of 24/1 would have been reasonable , as against a 1/5 odd for a Guineas win .

Assuming it was a computer driven bet , would have thought that their systems people would have disqualified the bet before / during the initial attempt to plasce the bet .  Antepost that must be as basic as avoiding any hassle due to millenium date considerations etc . First lesson in writing computer programs when I was learing Fortran and Cobol .  Shoddy PR etc as well .

Pollard has clearly pulled a fast one there can be no doubt, but the bet should never have been taken in the first place.  Online systems should have the code built in to stop these kind of doubles and the vast majority do.

However, as has been said, online bet would have been flagged up somewhere in advance and Hills should have corrected before first race. 

I wonder if Pollard will take up the crusade now that his online account has been closed or restricted to pennies?

thing is though it wasn't expected that even if he won 2000 that derby was on the agenda.

Its probably the best result for all concerned here

Hills for either not having the staff to notice the bet BEFORE the Guineas and then contacting punters afterwards, or hoping he'd lose the 2000 and getting all the bad publicity.

Or mr Pollard, who imo seems to know enough to get a sneaky one on, kicks up a fuss, gets a right result through social media.

So Hills havent come out of it well publicity wise and despite all efforts, Mr Pollards done his money

Oh and if he says he's "Laid it off" you can be sure he's been trying it on

^
NO FISHING on this thread.

I think you are talking about a different kind of relation with a scorecast because it is the same event and the true related contingency kicks in i.e. a goal has been scored so there must be a first goalscorer

The price for the Guineas / derby double with the same horse should be a matter of judgement for a trader imo

the fairest odds, should be double SP on the 2nd related event ,this builds in a reduction(if any )for the bookmaker and a recognition for the punter who rightly predicts the horse winning the 2nd event prior to the 1st event.

bookmakers should take these bets if punters want them - why not.as SNA says the price is the problem ,bookies cant gave you a hindsight price on the 2nd event after the 1st event as finnished.

surely these bets have been to IBAS ,how anyone at IBAS as ruled in favour of the bookies view is very bias,yet the standing rule is the punter gets the new market odds - given a fair hearing it would be easy to win any case ,as the weight of arguement here clearly lies with the punter.

good example of this kind of double, I see ruler of the world 2/1 hills for leger and 11/2 for arc, ok nowif you asked for that double to come up I bet hills wouldn't give you more than 8/1, but in all reality     anyone should give you bloody 33/1 I would , the chances of him running in both is very unlikely let alone winning both. this is where a horsecast wouldn't work

Mask slips to show betting's ugly truth

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/hanging-on-their-every-word-29313999.html

IT seemed like a good day's work for quick-witted punters last October when availing of juicy odds of 64/1 about the Jim Bolger-trained Dawn Approach completing the Guineas-Derby double. The price was on offer from the bookmaker William Hill: a combination of 4/1 to land the Guineas and 12/1 to prevail at Epsom. The bets were struck and accepted, apparently, in good faith. Seven months later, all hell broke loose.

The issue and solution are instantly apparent here. Some time after the bets were placed, before the Guineas had been run, William Hill should have contacted the punters and pointed out its error, offering a refund or bets recalibrated at more realistic odds, 20/1 or thereabouts. They would be sorry for their customers' troubles. Mistakes happen and the punter loses out. That's just how the game works.

Instead, it took them seven months, a week before the Derby, before they got in touch, offering revised odds at a risible 15/1 or, tweaking their funny bones even further, two single bets in place of the double. Unfortunately for the bookie, one of the punters, a British journalist and editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, wasn't going to be mollified. Especially on such stingy terms.

Pollard wrote to Hill's customer service and then to the company's CEO, Ralph Topping, but failed to receive even the courtesy of a response. So he turned to Twitter instead and began stamping his feet in anger. And pretty soon others started stamping their feet in anger too and the cacophony finally woke the bookie from his slumber. A PR scuffle was about to ensue with William Hill, effectively, stuck in the starting stalls.

Lesson number one for the self-styled world's largest bookmaker: never try to reason with aggrieved, righteous punters through Twitter. Basically suggesting Pollard accept his medicine, Hill's clumsy response was made to look more curt and insensitive than it needed to be, in front of an audience of millions. The story had only one possible ending. The bookie caved. Pollard's bet stood.

In a way, though, we should probably applaud William Hill and its appalling handling of a situation the bookmaker itself created. In getting so ruthlessly exposed, we got a glimpse of the true face of the industry and it's not the smiling, cheerful one that beckons you into clean, modern shops, offering free coffee and custard creams, bamboozling you with all kinds of special offers and making you feel like a dullard when you walk out some time later without your pockets bulging from all the easy profit-sharing schemes on offer.

Every so often the mask slips and the ugly truth is revealed. Like when a memo from Ivan Yates to his Celtic Bookmakers' staff was intercepted, warning them to be on the look-out for sharks (ie winners). Or when Paddy Power appeared on Liveline to tackle a punter whose crime had been to actually win money off the firm and, for his temerity, had his account shut down.

In there lies the reality. Behind the smiley, punters' pal exterior lie ruthless, bottom-line pursuers who loathe winners and those clever clogs, like Pollard, they suspect of pulling a fast one. They prefer losers and the vulnerable who will return day after day to help bump up their share prices. Let's not ever forget that.

Just out of interest can you place a double on a football team to win both the league and the FA cup ???