I was lucky enough to get an accumulator up on Sunday with william hill. On being paid out I noticed a deduction. On checking I saw that there were 3 non runners in the final leg the 4.35 at tipperary. I put the bet on at 3.39. They say the deduction is for all bets made between 10.22 and 3.45. When I put the bet on I'm sure some of the non runners had already been withdrawn. Am I right to think that I shouldn't have payment reduced for the already declared non runners or am I wrong?
It's pretty straight forward if you take Hills word for it s.kenbo but what the OP is alluding to is that by 3:39 some of the NRs were already known and reading into that maybe all of them even.
What the punter is less likely to ever know and therefore have to go on the bookies say so unless taking it further is the exact times that NRs were taken out and at what times new markets were formed. If say the NRs were know by 3:35 and a new market was formed then why say between 10:22 and 3:45? I'm not saying that was the case here but is just for example purposes.
It's pretty straight forward if you take Hills word for it s.kenbo but what the OP is alluding to is that by 3:39 some of the NRs were already known and reading into that maybe all of them even.What the punter is less likely to ever know and therefor
Are you suggesting that bookies are less than honest!
Its quite a specific time frame 10.42am-3.45pm, which makes me think that a new book was formed at 3.45pm. It seems the OP has got his acca up and is now after more money, looking at the result of the race it was an evens fav, what price was the reduction? I'm guessing he had a 4 horse acca at least, otherwise he would have said double, treble etc, so any man who get an acca up in 61 minutes needn't worry about a rule 4 imo.
Are you suggesting that bookies are less than honest!Its quite a specific time frame 10.42am-3.45pm, which makes me think that a new book was formed at 3.45pm.It seems the OP has got his acca up and is now after more money, looking at the result of t
ima that is my point. I've asked them when non runners were declared and what prices they were at the time. I can't believe that if a horse was withdrawn at 10.22 that the market wouldn't have been reformed by 3.39.
ima that is my point. I've asked them when non runners were declared and what prices they were at the time. I can't believe that if a horse was withdrawn at 10.22 that the market wouldn't have been reformed by 3.39.
s.kenbo happy with what I won but querying if it is right. Of course I'm after more money if I've been paid wrongly. Don't see what is wrong with that. If I've been paid correctly then no problem but just a nagging doubt which is why I posted.
s.kenbo happy with what I won but querying if it is right. Of course I'm after more money if I've been paid wrongly. Don't see what is wrong with that. If I've been paid correctly then no problem but just a nagging doubt which is why I posted.
because a 20p deduction is evens and they cannot go below SP
I see one of the non runners (Carlos Fandango) had some form so that is probably the reason if that one was withdrawn after your bet
so the amended price must have been 5/4 * 9/10 = 45/40 (9/8)a 10p deduction because a 20p deduction is evens and they cannot go below SPI see one of the non runners (Carlos Fandango) had some form so that is probably the reason if that one was withdr
There was a thread on here a few weeks ago regarding Hills, a horse got withdrawn with a 10p rule 4, Hills deducted all their customers 15p, after a few phone calls they gave in apparently and paid out at 10p.
Well done on a big though.
There was a thread on here a few weeks ago regarding Hills, a horse got withdrawn with a 10p rule 4, Hills deducted all their customers 15p, after a few phone calls they gave in apparently and paid out at 10p.Well done on a big though.