There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
15 Apr 15
22:38
Joined:
Date Joined:
08 Aug 07
I've posted this here even though it relates to a football bet as many of you are familiar with previous cases I've been involved with against Betfred.
They have a football coupon with enhanced prices divided up into 5 sections.
The games containing a short priced favourite are all in Section A, with the closely matched teams in Section E.
You therefore need to do at least a 5 fold, and obviously include at least one match from each section - that's fair enough.
A 5 fold including one match from each section is therefore a valid bet.
Adding a second selection from the "banker" Section A to make a 6 fold would not appear to be a problem would it?
Well according to Betfred it is.
By adding a sixth selection, even though the other five selections are still a valid 5 fold on their enhanced prices, they have somehow decided that all selections revert to the inferior Long List prices - a difference of over £1000.
The question is, are they trying to rip off yet another customer in your opinion?
They have a football coupon with enhanced prices divided up into 5 sections.
The games containing a short priced favourite are all in Section A, with the closely matched teams in Section E.
You therefore need to do at least a 5 fold, and obviously include at least one match from each section - that's fair enough.
A 5 fold including one match from each section is therefore a valid bet.
Adding a second selection from the "banker" Section A to make a 6 fold would not appear to be a problem would it?
Well according to Betfred it is.
By adding a sixth selection, even though the other five selections are still a valid 5 fold on their enhanced prices, they have somehow decided that all selections revert to the inferior Long List prices - a difference of over £1000.
The question is, are they trying to rip off yet another customer in your opinion?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 110
|
By:
no
|
|
By:
a fair judgement imo
|
|
By:
It shouldn't but the crux of the bet is 5 selections that get progressively harder.
The bet would be a fivefold or I suppose two selections from each a ten fold. This bet is notoriously difficult & is laid out to be so, also deviating in any way from the five selections will give the bookie especially that rancid lot an excuse to pay out a straight six fold. First lesson in betting with these charlatans is never give them any excuse whatsoever to turn you over & that bet gives them just that. |
|
By:
as pump says its a difficult bet becos the teams in the bottom few sections arnt certs so thats why the odds are enhanced ie to tease punters into having a go...its abet for 5 selections not 6...so the enhancement is rightly scrapped imo...
Surely Paul you dont disagree? |
|
By:
read the rules before placing your bet..harsh in this case, but true.
|
|
By:
so where does bf draw the line? ok to put 10 certs in with 4 not so certs purely for the enhanced odds?
no way jose. |
|
By:
No advantage has been gained by adding the extra selection.
A selection has been made from each of the five sections, so it's not a case of trying to manipulate the bet. The fivefold meets the requirement to make at least one selection from each section. So making the bet a sixfold by adding an extra selection makes it harder to win the bet. |
|
By:
but paul it also enables the average odds of the certs to be enhanced also...
If the bet rules strictly state 'only' 1 from each section then case closed as far as arbitration is concerned. |
|
By:
It won't be going to IBAS as it's a certainty they will rule for Betfred.
However, the betting slip states the returns for the bet are more than Betfred are paying out. They are therefore not honouring the contract. Perhaps we will let the courts decide. |
|
By:
If the odds are enhanced on the last selection it could change the bet status.
|
|
By:
'the betting slip states the returns for the bet are more than Betfred are paying out'
but surely the betting slips rules aint been adhered to so they have the right to pay as a normal odds 6 fold? |
|
By:
I think you should get some expert advice Mr Haigh as this might not be a straightforward case of welching, as is so often the case.
|
|
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect 15 Apr 15 23:15
No advantage has been gained by adding the extra selection. I 100% agree, however as far as the bookie is concerned the punter has deviated from the bet that produces the enhanced odds, does not seem fair but as the said firm consistently renege & try to s c r e w punters over less ambiguous bets such as this one I think there is no chance of being paid out. |
|
By:
Ive nothing but contempt for high st bookmakers but i'll also give wot i consider to be an unbiased opinion as i do with anything in life...
this time the bookmaker imo is correcdt to pay a 6 fold normal odds. |
|
By:
With Betfred coupons you must pick the same amount of selections in each section so you can pick one in every section, two in every section, three in every section etc..
If you picked two in one section and one in all the other sections then I'm 100% sure that the coupon would not go through and the cashier must have said something as they wouldn't have been able to put the bet on. Therefore the only way the bet could have been put on is if it was rewritten on the normal long list or if you picked other selections to make it 2 from every section. Sorry to say but there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of you getting paid any extra..you will only get paid the amount that was stated on your receipt |
|
By:
They are not paying out the returns printed on the betting receipt. They are resettling it.
The bet was placed on the Weekend Bonus coupon and the returns calculated by their computer. Why accept the bet and quote the payout if the bet is not valid? |
|
By:
palpable error....
paul im suprised at your stance re this tbh. |
|
By:
I posted the details to get some opinions from people with gambling experience, I'm genuinely interested in people's views on this case.
Under contract law I am confident the bet will eventually be settled in full. Time will tell. |
|
By:
If the bet does not fill the criteria as per their t&c's you can have 20/1 Paul.
paid on of course  |
|
By:
these 1,2 or 3 from each section bets are on seperate
coupons I think.IE 5 sections,5,10 or 15 teams. Any other accas ,they want you to place them on their longlist,I should think.Hope your man gets his dough. GL |
|
By:
Not sure how the bet could be put on.
Only way I can think is if you made it 2 per section by selecting void matches. If there was a glitch in their system and the returns are printed on receipt then you may have a chance through IBAS. No chance through Fred though |
|
By:
I've not settled a betting shop bet for over 30 years-but a bet like this one in my day would have been settled as 2X half stake 5 folds.
|
|
By:
Only do that now if 2 of the selections are in same race/match
|
|
By:
If it doesn't state only one from each section or a maximum one from each section then I think you can argue that, but as with all of these scenarios, I tend to flip the coin and say had the bet lost do you think they would be looking to return the punter's money as a void bet?
|
|
By:
this bet does state 1 from each section...2 from each section etc
|
|
By:
I would imagine that for enhanced odds, as suggested by earlier posters, there must be the same amount from each section, and they enhance the odds because your less likely to win because with the enhanced 'bankers' you are also putting in enhanced 'longshots'.
However their own computer should not have accepted the bet and should have been returned to the punter - which it seems wasn't the case here, so I'm suprised that they are refusing to pay, you would think that they would pay out and try to tidy up their software to make sure it wouldn't happen again. With regards contract law, and by posts on here I'm sure your knowledge is better than mine, but when I studied law, not too far ago, I was taught that bets were unenforceable by the courts? |
|
By:
glitches/mistakes are settled as palpable errors
|
|
By:
find myself agreeing with wazza, he can be hard work at times but he does speak a fair degree of sense. not that this should detract from you phtr - possibly the best thing on here
|
|
By:
'he can be hard work at times but he does speak a fair degree of sense'
 |
|
By:
see what i mean ...
|
|
By:
I hate baldy with a passion after the Accrington v Bury game a good few years ago, they voided payment after cutting the price of Bury right up until kick off when others had suspended betting on the match. Decided to void after the result which imo is just plain wrong. If the result is in their favour kerching, and if it goes against them just void it. Anyway........
I do see that paying out as a 6 fold is the fairest way, as all you would do is enhance all of the 'bankers' and then pick one from each section after hoping to win. You will be betting over the odds therefore longterm would probably win - I am not saying there was anything dodgey going on at all from the punter here though. roida 15 Apr 15 23:21 but paul it also enables the average odds of the certs to be enhanced also... If the bet rules strictly state 'only' 1 from each section then case closed as far as arbitration is concerned. That would be surely the main point? What is the wording on the coupon itself? |
|
By:
Seems pretty obvious that the bettor was trying to gain an advantage with enhanced odds for the two 'easy' selections as against 1 per the bet rules.
Nothing to see here in my opinion much as I despise the High St firms and there welching, this simply not the case here. So many better cases to pursue than this spurious one at best I'd have thought |
|
By:
Thanks for all the replies so far, they make interesting reading.
I am trying to decide whether or not the bet should be settled as stated on the customer's receipt or not. I normally have a conviction that any case I take on involves a bookmaker treating a customer unfairly, and whilst my gut feeling is that this is such a case, I am looking for other opinions. Keep them coming. |
|
By:
The enhanced prices are the key. I would have to agree with Baldy.
|
|
By:
Paul, I would file this one under 'bet acceptance error' rather than 'unfair practice'.
The bet should not have been accepted, an error by the cashier and/or system in accepting such. You could argue either or both should know this, but it must be hard for till staff to know all the rules offhand about all bet types in this day and age with so many sports and offers. I also suspect the bettor is more canny than you think (the bet isn't in 5p units is it?) and knew he was getting value over and above that what is intended to be offered as part of the bet. |
|
By:
Hi Paul, I feel dirty for even thinking this let alone putting it down in the written word but I agree with Fred's stance. The punter has used the enhanced prices to boost his 6 fold that included 2 shorties (we don't know if this was deliberate or not, probably not otherwise he must surely have put more than 2 shorties in to increase his value).
Another question to ask in the interest of "fairness" (if such a thing exists in Fred Land) is was the punter better of with the enhanced prices on a fivefold (either one of the two from the top) or a sixfold at "normal" prices. In which case if it is the former let him split the stakes in 2 x fives instead of 1 sixfold as a previous poster pointed out would have happened when I was a kid. |
|
By:
Not looked at other replies.
Definately YES. I'm going in there later, I'll ask the staff. |
|
By:
Two selections in a race,two selections in a 'section' seems like the same thing to me.Repeat: settlement should be two half(of total) stake fivefolds.Simple really.
|
|
By:
Dixie if you are going in there try to put that bet on...
Fill in one per section except for one section where you put two. You will see that the automated system will not let the cashier put the bet on |