Student wins £1,000 from 50p bet

not a cat in hells chance of being paid out,surprised the paper even ran the story,punter should have grabbed the free bets.

Now it is pretty obvious that the price was wrong and he won't get paid, but how come if the story is completely legitimate they haven't refunded the other bets that were obviously wrong?.

because bets are/would have been settled at the correct "market" prices, and the other ones lost

£100 in free bets is a reasonable offer, I'm assuming he's not training to be a brain surgeon

Lets be honest if they offered any one on here 2 x £50 free bets we would have snapped their arm off

Absolutely carrot. He'll probably still get them given the negative publicity but he's basically a chancer.

When do the bookmakers need to start being held to account for their errors though?
Most online punters will have never heard of 'palpable error'
Their prices should be checked and double checked before they're accepted.

If the bet had lost, no way would they have alerted the customer and refunded his stake.

if they,d put up 20/1 i'd tend to agree with you but not 2000/1!

It's about time someone challenged this "palpable error" bo**ocks in the Courts.

OK, so the punter took advantage of some numpty inputting the wrong odds, but by not returning the stakes on the losing bets what f'in leg have Hills got to stand on?

humans make mistakes in all walks of life, seemingly bookmakers cant walofs

so if the other bets had won he would have been happy with his stake back

If I make a mistake at my work it costs me. If a shopkeeper under charges someone, it comes out of their takings.

What makes a bookmaker exempt from being punished through their own mistakes?

aye right let them pay him at those odds, if it was your business would you? this isnt even a story, granted some have hidden behind the rule in the past and maybe it needs to be looked at in certain cases but here, come on its complete bollox

No, I would have double checked the price before accepting it in the first place.

doe peek hunt

James dean u clown

I doubt that they would refuse to return the stakes on the losing bets per se, rather they would have been happy to re-settle at the correct odds if they had won as per company policy. No need to contact the customer to refund stake.

If a course bookmaker had chalked up 2/1 (in the days of chalk) instead of 1/1 and had been knocked over in the rush, I don't think he would have been able to claim palpable error.
Instead the price would have been rubbed off the board as quickly as possible to limit the damage, those that got the 2/1 would have been paid.

Obv the case in point is a palpable error but the point I am trying to make is that the error is intrinsically part of the new technology in offering odds and, as such, the case law (the rights and wrongs) of situations like this are largely untested.

They have this very well covered in their terms and conditions.

However, one thing i would challenge, is that a numbers of punters on this site have "restricted accounts" with WH - if i ever place a bet with them, it takes an absolute age for it to be accepted or declined, if they can go to the obvious trouble of allowing staff to check every bet a restricted customer makes, then they have no excuse for accepting a bet thats going to pay out over £1000 from any old chancer.

You cannot have it both ways (or shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways)

Just out of interest i tried to place a £5 @ 16/1 (a price that is widely available) on a horse running later today, it took 15 seconds, before declining the bet - now thats for a potential loss of £80 - why is someone allowed to place a bet costing the firm £1000 with no issue? This is the question that needs addressing and challenging.

Exactly ^

incredible a rag runs this, clearly a mistake ffs

the issue is should he get paid at 2000/1 the answer imo has to be no, there cant be any other outcome.

you can argue all day about the other issues, some fair points some not.

for me its a nothing story that shouldnt have been printed.

next thing the rags will have some britains got talent dog controversy on the front cover

They wont get paid in a month of Sundays - nor should they.

But if they decide to take it to court (surely no one would advise them too) then the question should be why do you vet some bets where the winnings can be as small as £50-£100, but merrily accept a bet that pays out £1000+

Everyone can see its an error, but certain customers could not have placed that bet - so if i couldn't have placed it and a large chunk of people on here couldn't have placed, then why was it accepted?

The answer would at least cause them to squirm in a public domain and they would have to admit they dont check bets from certain customers - which you would hope would lead onto further questions being raised.

It is a palpable error but as others have said, it is about time bookies were made accountable. This is not a cashier writing the wrong odds off the screen, but an online system that could easily be programmed with safeguards just like in other industries. For instance, the computer could check:

1) the overround
2) that no price is above a threshold value
3) comparisons with Betfair or rivals

and the system could also require that odds are signed off by two or more people before going live.

But they won't while IBAS mindlessly upholds "palpable error".

I agree with ramruma

Agree totally Ramruma, bookies have been hiding behind this for too long - it seems one way with the bookies... in todays technology this is not acceptable, and this advertising is great to show some of the practices of the ever growing high street bookies...

They make so much profit and need to invest that in a daily slip system that is similar to what they use grand national days.. etc

So, If its there mistake they should honour it simple.

Good luck to the student.

As for IBAS biggest independent joke ever.

Finally some sense on the thread. Maybe not so much of a doe peek hunt or a clown after all.......

its in their t's and c's it was obvious the wrong price, in this case he has no chance wherever he goes. to ask them to honour mistakes is nonsense imo and shouldnt happen here

so are we also saying if a punter makes a geniune error in shop say, he shouldnt get paid either because it was his mistake

Julius, from Bangor, said: “It’s a joke, 2000-1 were the odds and I won. They can’t just refuse to pay me.

50p mug

If you won a grand from 50p you would be on suicide watch for only having 50p on.

No, just saying bookies should double check their bets before accepting and start being made countable for their mistakes.

For what it is worth though, if a punter makes a mistake in a bookies they don't get the safety to change their minds after the event, unlike the bookies. As has been pointed out, they shouldn't have it both ways.

so bookm

so bookmaker makes a mistake make them pay, punter makes a mistake make the bookmaker pay. dont bother about any rules in place, seems fair to me

What part of shouldn't have it both ways do you not understand?

that would really work, customer sets up a cashier to write 10,000/1 on a slip. sticks a tenner on it or why not a score. splits it with the cashier, job done as the bookmaker has to pay for any errors

you are saying exactly the same thing, you want it both ways also

You're being silly now. I can't put t better than Ramruma etc above so will leave it at that.

why am i, merely giving an example of what could happen if certain rules werent in place.

The punter sees a price and think's that's value, so has his bet and takes the price on offer, if the odds were only 1/2 or 1/4 of what was on offer he may think no value here, so no bet. How on earth is he to know that they have made an error. Would love to see this go to court.

I take your point the dealer but do you not accept that some bets would not have been placed were it not for the 'palpable error' odds and therefore they should be voided

How on earth is he not to know that 2000/1 was an error.

the difference in that case is that he would have a case, clearly in the OP he hasnt

#

swift i have said already on here that in certain cases they have hidden behind that rule. in this case i dont think they have, in my opinion top say they should pay out on any errors is a nonsense

and to answer the voided point, i also said had they won would he have been happy to take his stake back

I know about palpable errors etc but latterly a point was raised about if the punter made a mistake and say wrote Fav 1.30 and it transpired he meant Turffontein or in France or even virtual (if they have 1.30) but the settlers went with 1.30 at a British meeting. Do they have to split stake or prefer to see some previous that he bets on the overseas. You can't see Betfred getting a result in England and giving up some of it to an overseas filler.

You've got to love the fact that he thought he'd found outstanding value, so what does he do? Places a series of 20-50p bets.

@thedealer -- your examples are correct -- and the palpable error rule is there to protect the bookmakers from errors like the cashier ringing up the wrong price, as you rightly say.

But in the case of an internet bet, the palpable error defence should not apply. As per my earlier post, the system should have safeguards built in (just like in other industries) and this could be done quite easily. For instance, if the tennis match is priced up 6/4 2000/1 then a simple overround calculation would be enough to flag up the error before the prices are published. Other checks are suggested in my earlier post and I dare say any bookies' IT department could brainstorm another dozen before teatime.

And if IBAS rules against the bookies, the systems will be in place by the following weekend. But they won't.

On course punters have often snapped up the 10/11 just as one bookie goes evens. I can hear the resounding laughter as punters clamour for their money back as they have made a "palpable error"....

Ramruma 02 Jun 15 17:32 Joined: 11 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 6,395 | Blogger: Ramruma's blog
@thedealer -- your examples are correct -- and the palpable error rule is there to protect the bookmakers from errors like the cashier ringing up the wrong price, as you rightly say.

But in the case of an internet bet, the palpable error defence should not apply. As per my earlier post, the system should have safeguards built in (just like in other industries) and this could be done quite easily. For instance, if the tennis match is priced up 6/4 2000/1 then a simple overround calculation would be enough to flag up the error before the prices are published. Other checks are suggested in my earlier post and I dare say any bookies' IT department could brainstorm another dozen before teatime.

And if IBAS rules against the bookies, the systems will be in place by the following weekend. But they won't.


so you think betfair should have covered the £600 million or whatever it was on Voler La Vedette?!

its an obvious palpable error.

the customer should have bitten their hands off for the 2 £50 free bets. Plus his 50p winning bet will be settled at the correct odds too.

They settled his bet at 50/1, 2 1/2 times the correct price as well as offering 2 x £50 free bets. A few others put small amounts on this bet and have accepted WH's offer. This is a non-story and the punter is a chancer.

20/1 for Fed to win a set 6-3?

Or was that for 6-3, 6-3?

Federer was 3-2 down so you were betting 20/1 that he would win 4 games on the spin. I am no expert but those odds don't look that bad and 2,000/1 is ridiculous.
I remember when Federer was at the top of his form - he was in a 5 set match and had lost the first set and was behind in the second yet he was still odds on to win the match!

That explains the big price then.

he was on 5 live

William Hill spokesman

offered him 50/1 + two £50 free bets

student refused,saying he's going to see a lawyer

he will end up in debt because of .50p

He deserves to be on the "Clown list".

would be a laugh if he ended up 1k in debt

Industry News / IBAS News


Ibas calls for change to palpable error wording - Racing Post - Thursday 27th November 2008

THE chief executive of betting’s arbitration service yesterday called for ‘palpable error’ to be removed from all bookmakers’ rules, and a new, clearer ruling inserted in its place.

Ibas boss Chris O’Keeffe was speaking after a Totesport punter received an out-of-court settlement following his decision to take his case to Northampton County Court, after Ibas had found in favour of the bookmaker.

Steve Baker stood to win £700 after making two bets on Northampton Saints to win rugby union’s National League One title with a 100 per cent record last season. However, Totesport refused to pay out because Baker had mistakenly been offered odds on the town’s football club instead.

O’Keeffe said: “As it stands, at the moment we are mindful of the fact we are working against a backdrop of contract law, but we are also mindful of the fact our role is to be expert interpreters of bookmakers’ rules.

“The industry needs to remove the term ‘palpable error’, or its equivalent, from their rules. It has become a mere device lacking true definition.”

He added: “It should be replaced with ‘error, inadvertent error, or obvious error’, qualified through a definition.

“I think the term palpable error has got to be removed from bookmakers’ rules completely. It is something that bookmakers have got to focus on now. I want the rule clearly defined, because at the minute it is so subjective.”

With no precedent to the Northampton bet issue, O’Keeffe said it would be “enlightening” for both the industry and Ibas should a similar case go to court, before adding: “I would have been extremely interested to see how the court would have ruled following our decision, where we judged the case on its merits and made reference to the company’s rules.”

Two of Britain’s biggest betting chains yesterday welcomed O’Keeffe’s proposals, while others have already changed the wording of their rules.

Coral’s director of trading and PR Simon Clare said: “We are always open to reviewing our rules with the prime objective of making them easy to understand for our customers.

“This is the first time that a change has been suggested but it would be sensible to discuss the matter with Ibas.”

Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said: “We will have to look at any legal implications of changing the wording but if there was a move to provide clarity we would obviously look at it.”

Totesport spokesman Damian Walker said: “Any past references to palpable error have been changed. We now just refer to a ‘right to rectify mistakes’ or ‘right to rectify its errors’, which is fair and in line with Ibas’s suggestion.”

Kate Miller, of William Hill, said: “We already refer to it as an obvious error and have done since August 2007.

“We were never a big fan of the term palpable error, and sought to find a more acceptable one.”

Ibas boss Chris O’Keeffe was speaking after a Totesport punter received an out-of-court settlement following his decision to take his case to Northampton County Court, after Ibas had found in favour of the bookmaker.

Kenbo, you're making yourself out to be a fool. He clearly knew it was an error and had 50 p on i assume to try and get away with it and not raise suspicion. If he had stuck on 100 quid or 50 or even 10 it's going to be glaringly obvious paying out 20 grand. Whereas 50p to win a 1000 is actually quite clever as he may have thought it would go undetected and get away with it.

I was contacted by a couple of people via Twitter regarding this story and asked if I would help him.

It's so obviously an error that it's almost impossible to say he should be paid in my opinion.

If it did go to court, I'm sure Hills would win.

I tend to agree with those who say he should have snapped their hands off when they offered him the free bets.

it shows how many clowns there is in this forum that this is still being discussed.

Its obvious to even to a broadmoor inmate that it was a mistake and falls under 'palpable error'

Now ffs get to bed you sill leek hunts.

would be a laugh if he ended up 1k in debt

hes a student..that nothing

why are you still commenting roida yfsc

commenting on the sill leek hunts in this forum...including yourself.

the irony

you're a proper dc.

you need to look up the word 'irony' ysfdc

you need top look up 'litotes'  sc

patrick starr   


so you think betfair should have covered the £600 million or whatever it was on Voler La Vedette?! Laugh


Where does the line get drawn though? If it was a punters money matched in running, would the 'winner' have been paid? Of course they would (and should). When someone has layed one that has won, after listening to a commentator saying it has fallen have they had to pay out? Laying at 999/1 on something that is a 10/1 poke in running is surely a palpable is it not?

The VLV fiasco was all down to the volume of money, not the price. I cannot believe that Betfair actually came out with the line 'palpable error' after the race - surely opening a can of worms for in running layers.

turning down TWO £50 free bets for some1 betting 20p and 50p stakes is an unforgivable error imvho

Turning down the £100 free bets does, I suppose, strengthen his claim to be an innocent punter who believed Hills odds, rather than a shark trying it on.

The VLV scenario was a cover up without doubt...

In over 10 yrs ive never known anyone place a bet that exceeded their exposure limit.

roida - of course it was a cover up, it was a BF bot gone wrong (very badly). I would imagine a few got paid some sort of compo after taking it as far as possible without it hitting the courts. I would love to have seen them giving out the account details of the 'punters' account that was over exposed in court....

The first goalscorer market ended up leaving customers with a big minus balance after the reductions, but when the bets were placed they did in fact have the funds in their account.

Issue fundamentally surely is what constitutes a "palpable error". Undefined the words are capable of differing interpretations and therefore a recipe for dispute. The whole rule as currently constructed is unfair,unclear and ambiguous.

A bit like "responsible gambling".........

Don't think anyone on here is disputing the fact that it was clearly a palpable error.
The discussion is still going on because people are rightly saying there should be measures put in to ensure it doesn't happen.
The technology is there to stop it. If the bookies are too greedy to put they steps in, then surely at some point they have to take some responsibility.

palpable error = a basically obvious error.

Shouldn't it be a two street though.

I've made loads of palpable errors down the years...how come I don't get my money back from the bookies.

you have no legally enforceable t&c's

HTH

Sure you do. Consumer rights/protection act

Every bet placed is in essence a product bought. You're buying into a contract with the bookmaker.

jamesdean there are numerous cases of white goods being offered online and apparently bought at ludicrous prices, none of the contracts has ever been deemed enforceable.  Bookmakers are no different.

The area worth fighting about is a bookmakers error of judgement that merely seems like the best price on the market and is claimed to be an obvious error.