Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Daily mirror
Two Salford Red Devils fans have been left furious after believing they were £23,400 richer - only for bookies William Hill to refuse to pay out the bet.
Gary Smeaton and best pal, Kris Shenton, backed their team back in January when the odds were firmly against them.
The pair both stumped up £50 to place a single £100 "double" accumulator bet, backing Jackson Hastings at 25-1 to be named the Super League's "Man of Steel" and the Red Devils to finish in the top five at 8-1.
And to their delight, both bets came in after the Red Devils reached the Grand Final at Old Trafford, where they face St Helens this Saturday, and Hastings clinched the Steve Prescott Man of Steel award under this season’s new voting system.
The betting slip written out by a member of staff at William Hill for Salford Red Devils fan Gary (Image: Manchester Evening News)
However bookies William Hill say they will not pay out the £23,400 to the two friends due to "related contingency" - where two bets are directly linked as one has a direct influence on the other.
Gary, a company director, told Manchester Evening News : "I put the bet on nine months ago at the Swinton branch of William Hill. The guy in the bookie's wrote it out for me.
"My mate kept the betting slip. We never dreamed that it would ever come in.
"I never thought Salford would finish top five, but I did have an inkling about Hastings winning the Man of Steel. I am a massive Salford fan. I sponsor Tyrone McCarthy and the Devils' mascot.
"I was on holiday abroad when we beat Wigan to get to the Grand Final and then Jackson won his title. I was made up. Even Jackson's mum was pleased for me.
"Then she sent me a message after reading what William Hill had said and said she was gutted.
Jackson Hastings wins Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final
"William Hill have now said they regard our bet as two £50 bets and are prepared to pay out £1,700 to each of us.
"I am not settling for that. I will take it all the way, The Chief Executive of William Hill has refused to speak to me.
"Kris and I were so elated at the weekend. now we are so annoyed after coming down with a massive thud on Monday.
"I went back to the branch where I placed the bet and the person who wrote it out for me said he 'must have been half asleep' when he did it."
Jackson Hastings won Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final (Image: Corbis via Getty Images)
A spokesman for William Hill said: “As stated in our rules, a related contingency occurs when one or more parts of the bet placed affect the outcome of the bet.
"In this case, the prices of Jackson Hasting winning Man of Steel and Salford finishing in the top five are related. Were one outcome to happen, the other would be directly affected and as such the double price would be significantly smaller.
“This bet has been struck as a result of human error and as such has been corrected. At no point was the double on offer before the start of the season. Unfortunately, we realise this is disappointing for the customer and we can only apologise.
“In cases such as this, IBAS (Independent Betting Adjudication Service) offer an impartial adjudication on disputes between customers and licensed gambling operators.”
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
mirrorsport
Two Salford Red Devils fans have been left furious after believing they were £23,400 richer - only for bookies William Hill to refuse to pay out the bet.
Gary Smeaton and best pal, Kris Shenton, backed their team back in January when the odds were firmly against them.
The pair both stumped up £50 to place a single £100 "double" accumulator bet, backing Jackson Hastings at 25-1 to be named the Super League's "Man of Steel" and the Red Devils to finish in the top five at 8-1.
And to their delight, both bets came in after the Red Devils reached the Grand Final at Old Trafford, where they face St Helens this Saturday, and Hastings clinched the Steve Prescott Man of Steel award under this season’s new voting system.
The betting slip written out by a member of staff at William Hill for Salford Red Devils fan Gary (Image: Manchester Evening News)
However bookies William Hill say they will not pay out the £23,400 to the two friends due to "related contingency" - where two bets are directly linked as one has a direct influence on the other.
Gary, a company director, told Manchester Evening News : "I put the bet on nine months ago at the Swinton branch of William Hill. The guy in the bookie's wrote it out for me.
"My mate kept the betting slip. We never dreamed that it would ever come in.
"I never thought Salford would finish top five, but I did have an inkling about Hastings winning the Man of Steel. I am a massive Salford fan. I sponsor Tyrone McCarthy and the Devils' mascot.
"I was on holiday abroad when we beat Wigan to get to the Grand Final and then Jackson won his title. I was made up. Even Jackson's mum was pleased for me.
"Then she sent me a message after reading what William Hill had said and said she was gutted.
Jackson Hastings wins Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final
"William Hill have now said they regard our bet as two £50 bets and are prepared to pay out £1,700 to each of us.
"I am not settling for that. I will take it all the way, The Chief Executive of William Hill has refused to speak to me.
"Kris and I were so elated at the weekend. now we are so annoyed after coming down with a massive thud on Monday.
"I went back to the branch where I placed the bet and the person who wrote it out for me said he 'must have been half asleep' when he did it."
Jackson Hastings won Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final (Image: Corbis via Getty Images)
A spokesman for William Hill said: “As stated in our rules, a related contingency occurs when one or more parts of the bet placed affect the outcome of the bet.
"In this case, the prices of Jackson Hasting winning Man of Steel and Salford finishing in the top five are related. Were one outcome to happen, the other would be directly affected and as such the double price would be significantly smaller.
“This bet has been struck as a result of human error and as such has been corrected. At no point was the double on offer before the start of the season. Unfortunately, we realise this is disappointing for the customer and we can only apologise.
“In cases such as this, IBAS (Independent Betting Adjudication Service) offer an impartial adjudication on disputes between customers and licensed gambling operators.”
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
mirrorsport
Show More
Obviously related contingency - no doubt in that.
Going back a few years a punter couldn't do Sterling to score anytime and City to win, as its a related contingency. Now there are odds for that eventually and in many other types of bet too. But in this case no odds were available for the double. The bookmaker should have made sure a single price for the double was given.
Staff skills have dramatically reduced in recent years [ bookies fault - pay peanuts get monkeys]. Don't know how the bet got through the traders without being picked up?
Going back a few years a punter couldn't do Sterling to score anytime and City to win, as its a related contingency. Now there are odds for that eventually and in many other types of bet too. But in this case no odds were available for the double. The bookmaker should have made sure a single price for the double was given.
Staff skills have dramatically reduced in recent years [ bookies fault - pay peanuts get monkeys]. Don't know how the bet got through the traders without being picked up?
this is from w hill
Related Bets Within the Same Event
Accumulative bets involving related bets, also referred to as related contingencies, within the same event are not accepted.
Related bets occur when combining two or more markets into an accumulative bet where the outcome of one market wholly or partly impacts upon the outcome of another. An example of this is Leeds Rhinos to win by 16-20 points and Leeds Rhinos to win the match.
A special price double may be offered combining related bets for a number of markets.
If a bet is inadvertently accepted combining two or more bets where the outcome of one market wholly or partly impacts upon the outcome of another, the stake will be invested on the selection with the largest price. Where two or more selections are quoted at the largest price, the stakes will be equally divided between them.
Where the related parts of the bet are resolved at different times, unless special price double or special price accumulative odds are available, bets will be settled as instructed with the odds for the second or subsequent legs being determined at each individual stage.
Related Bets Within the Same Event
Accumulative bets involving related bets, also referred to as related contingencies, within the same event are not accepted.
Related bets occur when combining two or more markets into an accumulative bet where the outcome of one market wholly or partly impacts upon the outcome of another. An example of this is Leeds Rhinos to win by 16-20 points and Leeds Rhinos to win the match.
A special price double may be offered combining related bets for a number of markets.
If a bet is inadvertently accepted combining two or more bets where the outcome of one market wholly or partly impacts upon the outcome of another, the stake will be invested on the selection with the largest price. Where two or more selections are quoted at the largest price, the stakes will be equally divided between them.
Where the related parts of the bet are resolved at different times, unless special price double or special price accumulative odds are available, bets will be settled as instructed with the odds for the second or subsequent legs being determined at each individual stage.
@elisjohn "If a bet is inadvertently accepted combining two or more bets where the outcome of one market wholly or partly impacts upon the outcome of another, the stake will be invested on the selection with the largest price."
As I said yesterday -
"As an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, the Company should pay out on Jackson Hastings at 25-1 as a £100 win single, it is this part of the bet that has biggest influence on Salford's final position."
As I said yesterday -
"As an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, the Company should pay out on Jackson Hastings at 25-1 as a £100 win single, it is this part of the bet that has biggest influence on Salford's final position."
what does this part mean exact
Where the related parts of the bet are resolved at different times, unless special price double or special price accumulative odds are available, bets will be settled as instructed with the odds for the second or subsequent legs being determined at each individual stage.
Where the related parts of the bet are resolved at different times, unless special price double or special price accumulative odds are available, bets will be settled as instructed with the odds for the second or subsequent legs being determined at each individual stage.
Sparrow - yours 16:56. Completely agree with you. The bookies should be fully conversant with their own rules and regulations, not put onus on punter. Refusing a bet further on down the line is quite simply fraudulent on their part, but after all we already know they are a load of crooks!
did salford top 5 finish first?
was manof steel award settled few weeks later ?
was there betting on man of steel award after the former, if so what price was he ?
was manof steel award settled few weeks later ?
was there betting on man of steel award after the former, if so what price was he ?
Thanks Elisjohn, nice bet for the lad considering he was going to do an up and down and a double. Thanks for confirming. 
impossible12309
For instance, on saturday Pinatubo is 2/5 to win The Dewhurst, and only 'evens' to win 2000G - a combined odds (double) is 2.8 or just over 7/4 or nearly double his 2000G odds.
But, for Hills to settle the bet as two singles was harsh and unreasonable even though the staff responsible genuinely made a mistake. A conciliatory settlement ought to have been adopted
impossible
Think they were offered around 66/1 for the double but preferred to go to the press and IBAS/courts for the full settlement.
For instance, on saturday Pinatubo is 2/5 to win The Dewhurst, and only 'evens' to win 2000G - a combined odds (double) is 2.8 or just over 7/4 or nearly double his 2000G odds.
But, for Hills to settle the bet as two singles was harsh and unreasonable even though the staff responsible genuinely made a mistake. A conciliatory settlement ought to have been adopted
impossible
Think they were offered around 66/1 for the double but preferred to go to the press and IBAS/courts for the full settlement.
GLASGOW, from ppower rules
- No bet instructions - Where all selections are made, from different events, and a single stake is stated then the bet will be settled as win only as follows: 1 selection as a Win Single; 2 selections as a Win Double; 3 selections as a Win Trixie; 4 selections as a Win Yankee; 5 selections as a Win Canadian; 6 selections as a Win Heinz; 7 or more selections as full-cover doubles, trebles, etc. These win bets will be settled as each-way only when this is stated on the betting slip.
funny that 2 selections is a double , but more than 2 arent settled as a trebles , and accas
- No bet instructions - Where all selections are made, from different events, and a single stake is stated then the bet will be settled as win only as follows: 1 selection as a Win Single; 2 selections as a Win Double; 3 selections as a Win Trixie; 4 selections as a Win Yankee; 5 selections as a Win Canadian; 6 selections as a Win Heinz; 7 or more selections as full-cover doubles, trebles, etc. These win bets will be settled as each-way only when this is stated on the betting slip.
funny that 2 selections is a double , but more than 2 arent settled as a trebles , and accas
Blackrock
Going back a few years a punter couldn't do Sterling to score anytime and City to win, as its a related contingency. Now there are odds for that eventually and in many other types of bet too. But in this case no odds were available for the double. The bookmaker should have made sure a single price for the double was given.
Staff skills have dramatically reduced in recent years [ bookies fault - pay peanuts get monkeys]. Don't know how the bet got through the traders without being picked up?
Probably never got to the traders, got accepted in shop then put on the system as an alien bet to be settled on conclusion of both events
Going back a few years a punter couldn't do Sterling to score anytime and City to win, as its a related contingency. Now there are odds for that eventually and in many other types of bet too. But in this case no odds were available for the double. The bookmaker should have made sure a single price for the double was given.
Staff skills have dramatically reduced in recent years [ bookies fault - pay peanuts get monkeys]. Don't know how the bet got through the traders without being picked up?
Probably never got to the traders, got accepted in shop then put on the system as an alien bet to be settled on conclusion of both events
Thanks elis, I make it £975 for a £5 double, best thing about it was when the lad came back in the Pub after the first
winner he was moaning and groaning saying what an Idiot he was. !!
winner he was moaning and groaning saying what an Idiot he was. !!
if you want to be certain of what they pay him, tell him to ring cust services quote the bet number and ask for the returns.{let us know, incase they pay him as singles}, nice win indeed
Will give you an update when i see him next Elis, sounds like he should get settled as the double. Ta.
TheGoddess
As I said yesterday -
"As an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, the Company should pay out on Jackson Hastings at 25-1 as a £100 win single, it is this part of the bet that has biggest influence on Salford's final position."
Great advice given the fact that the OP say they have been offered 1700 each
As I said yesterday -
"As an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, the Company should pay out on Jackson Hastings at 25-1 as a £100 win single, it is this part of the bet that has biggest influence on Salford's final position."
Great advice given the fact that the OP say they have been offered 1700 each
£1,700 each equates to £3,400 does it not?
£100 at 25/1 equates to £2,500 does it not?
It is one bet is it not,shared by two people?
So your maths are slightly skewed intheknow even if they paid out as you suggest?
£100 at 25/1 equates to £2,500 does it not?
It is one bet is it not,shared by two people?
So your maths are slightly skewed intheknow even if they paid out as you suggest?
apparently the £1700 each is bollocks, it is just one payment of £1750 bet settled as 2 singles @ £50
No idea what they offered dave,just read what intheknow posted,fact is the obligation is on the punter end of story.A friend of mine who worked for willies put on a permed placepot at an indy as she could not bet in her own shop or one of willies.
It came up and she collected under £500 due to the restrictions in the firms T & Cs,biggest ever Placepot at the time by a long way at over £19k,Newbury I think.
It came up and she collected under £500 due to the restrictions in the firms T & Cs,biggest ever Placepot at the time by a long way at over £19k,Newbury I think.
Oct 10, 2019 -- 3:01PM, intheknow wrote:
TheGoddessAs I said yesterday -"As an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, the Company should pay out on Jackson Hastings at 25-1 as a £100 win single, it is this part of the bet that has biggest influence on Salford's final position."Great advice given the fact that the OP say they have been offered 1700 each
It is my belief that the reporting of the £1700 each is incorrect. It is also my belief that the bet has been settled as 2 £50 singles - which pays £1750
Hence my comment:
"As an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, the Company should pay out on Jackson Hastings at 25-1 as a £100 win single, it is this part of the bet that has biggest influence on Salford's final position."
As i said TheGoddess theyve refused a payout of 6700. They think by kicking up this media storm and going to IBAS and then the courts they will get the full amount.
Deepdale - would have thought that PTL would have to be sought by shop staff, esp as the bet comes to over 20 grand? Can't see the bet just being 'left in shop' and will settle when bet concluded.
Lots of people on here don't realise that William hill hasn't always had life so easy .Alot weren't born when he used to stand in the rain and wind and snow accepting bets from gamblers who didn't appreciate him.Many a time he had to use toilets that no man should be made to use
I ve heard stories where he stood in the snow with no socks on for weeks after all the favs won at Cheltenham one day.
He was once mugged and all his money and his umbrella was pinched
Not only did he have money he had no umbrella
The police used to move him on especially when he started busking ,singing old man river when racing was postponed or abandoned To try and provide food for his family .
I ve heard stories where he stood in the snow with no socks on for weeks after all the favs won at Cheltenham one day.
He was once mugged and all his money and his umbrella was pinched
Not only did he have money he had no umbrella
The police used to move him on especially when he started busking ,singing old man river when racing was postponed or abandoned To try and provide food for his family .
This forum is full of biased punters with a chip on their shoulder
The next min you will be saying the main line media is biased
The next min you will be saying the main line media is biased
There's alot worse can happen than not getting what you deserve from a bookie
What about al them lads whose wives have gone through their pockets and found all of their losing betting slips
What about al them lads whose wives have gone through their pockets and found all of their losing betting slips
Not a thing on the racing post website its a hot story as well you would think they would highlight this bad practice
Bookies get a lot of bad publicity in situations such as this but on this occasion Hills are 100% correct to settle as two singles. Can't believe anyone of sane mind would believe otherwise. The only recourse the punter has that might get them some joy down the legal route is if the bet was "PTL". Whether Hills should have offered a discretionary settlement is a different matter entirely...
BlackRock hills ptl chart is purely based on the stake of the bet. I agree 100% with deepdale
This example opens up a new can of worms but many bets are related,
derby trial you back a double with the 2nd in the derby trial and do the double to win the doncaster leger, the winner of the derby trial you finished 2nd to wins the derby easily, and the seconds form in the derby trial is now looking strong and a far shorter shorter price for the leger, its related and under those terms and conditions void, thats why this ruling on this football bet it totally wrong
derby trial you back a double with the 2nd in the derby trial and do the double to win the doncaster leger, the winner of the derby trial you finished 2nd to wins the derby easily, and the seconds form in the derby trial is now looking strong and a far shorter shorter price for the leger, its related and under those terms and conditions void, thats why this ruling on this football bet it totally wrong
rofl this bet is massively related, your example is weakly related. There are stacks of weakly related form lines in horse racing and I haven't heard of books voiding them.
messi player of the year and Barcelona to win league.
the was relatated, tedious, I admit, but still related
the was relatated, tedious, I admit, but still related
Blackrock, think about how many tenner accs must be placed on the football each weekend with payouts that will break the limits or irish Lottery bets that will cop thousands. They don't get PTL either. I'm not sure of Hills PTL chart but i'd say the dealer is right. In this case, the bet will have been entered as an alien in the system because it couldn't be translated.
Aviboyd
Bookies get a lot of bad publicity in situations such as this but on this occasion Hills are 100% correct to settle as two singles. Can't believe anyone of sane mind would believe otherwise. The only recourse the punter has that might get them some joy down the legal route is if the bet was "PTL". Whether Hills should have offered a discretionary settlement is a different matter entirely...
Nah, its bollocks settling as singles is not what the client asked for as clearly looking for a double on both results and the Billy's operative understood that then writing the bet for the client. At the least they should come up with some calculation for a double albeit at a reduced price as the bets were related. I had a bet on England winning World Cup and Harry Kane winning golden boot and was offered a price on that double even though those two bets were related.
Bookies get a lot of bad publicity in situations such as this but on this occasion Hills are 100% correct to settle as two singles. Can't believe anyone of sane mind would believe otherwise. The only recourse the punter has that might get them some joy down the legal route is if the bet was "PTL". Whether Hills should have offered a discretionary settlement is a different matter entirely...
Nah, its bollocks settling as singles is not what the client asked for as clearly looking for a double on both results and the Billy's operative understood that then writing the bet for the client. At the least they should come up with some calculation for a double albeit at a reduced price as the bets were related. I had a bet on England winning World Cup and Harry Kane winning golden boot and was offered a price on that double even though those two bets were related.
most related bet ever, cops should have been waiting for them when they came back to collect ..
It is not a "palpable error". Writing 33/1 instead of 3/1 as a price on a slip is a palpable error.
If the double is made up of a MoS selection from the team that finishes last and different team to win the league, does the bookie pay out at enhanced odds? Whar about MoS and team to finish exactly third?
At the end of the day, who made the mistake? An employee of WH. Who should bear the responsibility? Obvious if you think about it. It is a well established principle at law. The employer bears the responsibility. Message for the crooked bookmaker concerned: TRAIN YOUR STAFF BETTER!
If the double is made up of a MoS selection from the team that finishes last and different team to win the league, does the bookie pay out at enhanced odds? Whar about MoS and team to finish exactly third?
At the end of the day, who made the mistake? An employee of WH. Who should bear the responsibility? Obvious if you think about it. It is a well established principle at law. The employer bears the responsibility. Message for the crooked bookmaker concerned: TRAIN YOUR STAFF BETTER!
agree jimmy on your palpable error post.
another example of where i agree with palpable is when this postman thought hed won £250,000https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/unlucky-punter-thought-hed-wo...
another example of where i agree with palpable is when this postman thought hed won £250,000https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/unlucky-punter-thought-hed-wo...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/unlucky-punter-thought-hed-won-5420046
At the end of the day, who made the mistake? An employee of WH. Who should bear the responsibility? Obvious if you think about it. It is a well established principle at law. The employer bears the responsibility
It's a well established principle at law that an employer doesn't bear responsibility for contract error eg pricing.
The issues here are bookies enriching themselves with related bets settled as two singles that aren't claimed when one wins and when both win, two singles doesn't represent the correct payout.
These bets should be settled as doubles with the odds amended.
It's a well established principle at law that an employer doesn't bear responsibility for contract error eg pricing.
The issues here are bookies enriching themselves with related bets settled as two singles that aren't claimed when one wins and when both win, two singles doesn't represent the correct payout.
These bets should be settled as doubles with the odds amended.
have a chart like they do with rule 4, and if say 4/1 and 2/1 related on different event, pay out eg 7/1/ ( half the double odds } , but only pay on the bigger single on related on same match event eg utd to win and win 2-0. thats fair to all
Elisjohn, the lad I was talking to you about that backed the 2 winners without putting any instructions indeed got paid out as a win double. Thanks.
Super League Man of Steel Jackson Hastings has been named in the 24-man Great Britain Lions squad for the tour to New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
Did anyone have the treble up?
Did anyone have the treble up?
To those saying that this was the 'most' or 'strongly' related bet I'd have a question.
How many other players did he still need to beat, just because his team finished top 5 in the league? Quite a lot of other players I would have presumed? His own team mates for a start.
And top 5 is not exactly winning the league is it? So, that makes it even less related.
How many other players did he still need to beat, just because his team finished top 5 in the league? Quite a lot of other players I would have presumed? His own team mates for a start.
And top 5 is not exactly winning the league is it? So, that makes it even less related.
The fact that he was playing for a team that was more likely to be relegated than win was the reason that his MoS odds were 25-1. So good team performances equate to MoS points being awarded to the leading player in that team.
I think 'billie' settled the bet in accordance with their rule however, as the bet was written and accepted by a member of their staff - blame could be apportioned - a more appropriate settlement or compromise would have been using a double result formula/odds similar to football, etc. Also, if the bet had been from a regular punter it definitely would not have been settled as it did - a compromise (given the size of the winning) would have been suggested, and applied (if accepted).
dave, don't think many are disputing that it's partially related, the question is how much?
As has been stated multiple times, MoS has gone to a player in a top five team 9 out of the last ten years. So massively related is the answer.
But how many is that to pick from (from the top 5 sides) - a large number of players?
So is 25/1 that massive even if you knew they were top 5? Maybe should be 12/1 instead or similar?
So is 25/1 that massive even if you knew they were top 5? Maybe should be 12/1 instead or similar?
The point is that the 8-1 about something that randomly should be 7/5 indicates that the team were expected to perform very poorly throughout the season. Unless someone can find the book for MoS at the beginning of the season we can't tell if there were many of his teammates with a price. And more importantly the prices of players with the teams expected to have a chance of winning the league.
Hills have milked this long enough. I reckon they will pay all of it. Just a hunch
IBAS are completely useless, but the publicity in this one may sway them to offer something on the punter's side.
Shame same can't be said for when you take a less publicized case to them, and they don't give a stuff about punters being stitched up.
Shame same can't be said for when you take a less publicized case to them, and they don't give a stuff about punters being stitched up.
It;s a related bet, Hills have settled it correctly as 2 singles as per their rules. IBAS will have to find in their favour. Hills have already suggested settling the bet at the related odds double of 66/1 to try and meet in the middle which was rejected by the customers. Be interesting to see how the courts view it when it gets there.
Must admit the 66/1 offer would be something I'd consider accepting in this case.
Where does all these related stuff stop, you back a mulling horse in the first race and last race double at cheltenham he has 5 winners and the last one you took 20/1 its now 4/1 due to the roll up factor, that is related and could come under this stupid rule
know all 12.20 post
Don't be silly, that isn't related. The events are largely independent. Any bookie saying they were would be laughed at.
Don't be silly, that isn't related. The events are largely independent. Any bookie saying they were would be laughed at.
Related bets ARE accepted by the "firms",after all what is a football scorecast bet.Yes,the odds are trimmed from the separate prices for correct score price,and first goalscorer price,to reflect that it is related.These bets are available everywhere.
The price for the double on the bet in question should have been trimmed by trading room compared with the individual prices for each event.Unfortunately it appears traders weren't consulted,but to say that related bets cannot be accepted isn't !00% correct.
The price for the double on the bet in question should have been trimmed by trading room compared with the individual prices for each event.Unfortunately it appears traders weren't consulted,but to say that related bets cannot be accepted isn't !00% correct.
Oct 15, 2019 -- 6:20AM, know all wrote:
Where does all these related stuff stop, you back a mulling horse in the first race and last race double at cheltenham he has 5 winners and the last one you took 20/1 its now 4/1 due to the roll up factor, that is related and could come under this stupid rule
https://imageshack.com/i/iqMF9ig4j
Seems to me that a few on this thread are very supportive of the "related" bet principle and are loath to question it at all.
There's many possible doubles that could be 'weakly' or 'partially' related. Possibly some that would get through the net without notice. Life is full of related factors.
I can't believe however, that a bet equivalent to 23,000 quid did not get checked at any point for this kind of issue when placed. The allowance for bookies to do that post-hoc is surely akin to being a sharp practice?
I can't believe however, that a bet equivalent to 23,000 quid did not get checked at any point for this kind of issue when placed. The allowance for bookies to do that post-hoc is surely akin to being a sharp practice?
As mentioned before, they should be then audited and return all losing doubles etc, which may now be found to be 'related'.
The allowance for bookies to do that post-hoc is surely akin to being a sharp practice?
Of course it is, but remember we have a "regulator" in place that thought it was ok for a shutting down company to walk away from ante-post liabilities and routinely ignores complaints about such sharp practices, saying that ultimately customers can go to court (forgetting that some of its licencees are incorporated in foreign countries).
Of course it is, but remember we have a "regulator" in place that thought it was ok for a shutting down company to walk away from ante-post liabilities and routinely ignores complaints about such sharp practices, saying that ultimately customers can go to court (forgetting that some of its licencees are incorporated in foreign countries).
And bookies wonder why their 'industry' is dying on it's @rse these days too!
A goodwill gesture should be the answer here. Somebody placed the bet in good faith and it was accepted in good faith.
Stu bets with a liability like that pass through the tills daily without a second glance. Like I said earlier hills ptl is based on stakes not liability
Fair enough dealer. First time I've posted on the thread. That said, how many are beat and no return?
Sorry Stewart I was referring to stu's post about a bet with a liability not seen
Looking back it looks like they were offered a 66/1 double. With regards put on and taken in good faith, it would leave them wide open with staff being offered money to put bets on, would it not
Perhaps staff should be better trained because in my experience I doubt if three quarters of them would get a job elsewhere.
ie. about 3 months ago I went into a hillys with a 200 double. I knew both would go off FAV'S so only wrote the time of the races and FAV. The assistant manageress asked me if I wanted the prices..
The trouble with today though is the amount of betting opportunities on so many sports, even with this one there are still some who say it wasnt related.
I still believe the bet was taken, stuck in the system and wasnt seen again till they came in and collected
I still believe the bet was taken, stuck in the system and wasnt seen again till they came in and collected
With what they pay now and how quick they promote it's not surprising
the dealer 16 Oct 19 18:14
The trouble with today though is the amount of betting opportunities on so many sports, even with this one there are still some who say it wasnt related.
My point is "who decides whether it is related or not" and when do they decide it?
The trouble with today though is the amount of betting opportunities on so many sports, even with this one there are still some who say it wasnt related.
My point is "who decides whether it is related or not" and when do they decide it?
In this case I would imagine when they dipped the bet, settled it and phoned for permission to pay
The bet was certainly related, just a question of the degree they are related. For instance, in football Harry Kane to score 1st goal (6/1), and Harry Kane to score a penalty (6/1). Obviously, this bet can only be settled at a reduced odds (related) if a double is requested, and not 48/1 if unrelated.
The bet in question was 100% related, just a matter of to what degree. And, I think it's ridiculous the dispute has gone this far as a "sensible" compromise could have been reached (and accepted) between the two parties if reasons why a reduced odds settlement was necessary and explained to punter. But, to settle as two separate single (when clearly written double wanted) was heavily bookie friendly, unjust and unprofessional.
The bookie will need to accept a proportion of the blame attached to the acceptance of this bet as it was written by a member of their staff and accepted in error - the betting events had taken place thus a recompense/reward was necessary for the correct predictions.
The bet in question was 100% related, just a matter of to what degree. And, I think it's ridiculous the dispute has gone this far as a "sensible" compromise could have been reached (and accepted) between the two parties if reasons why a reduced odds settlement was necessary and explained to punter. But, to settle as two separate single (when clearly written double wanted) was heavily bookie friendly, unjust and unprofessional.
The bookie will need to accept a proportion of the blame attached to the acceptance of this bet as it was written by a member of their staff and accepted in error - the betting events had taken place thus a recompense/reward was necessary for the correct predictions.
Yes but no one is telling me who decides whether or not. Is it just one person or and independent panel of judges?
I'm not talking about this one particular case but of all cases.
I'm not talking about this one particular case but of all cases.
All this "related" business is just a smokescreen. The bet was accepted and indeed the slip written out by a member of staff on behalf of the Company. Q E D.
Customer relations deal with bet queries and rules so I would imagine it came from them. I don't know if the person in charge of that department has the final say or not.
MM if that was the case it would leave them wide open to staff corruption would it not
Surely you could say that of a lot of businesses. If this occurs there is always sacking and legal redress to consider.
Yes but in you scenario you are saying if the bet is written by a member of staff and accepted in good faith, what's to stop anyone saying to a staff member, write this out for me and stick it through your till and there's some cash for your trouble.
How do they prove what happened and would you really expect them to pay these bets out.
How do they prove what happened and would you really expect them to pay these bets out.
having read this thread I am gobsmacked that a bet taking out £23k didn't go onto their system
surely a similar bet placed on their internet site would have flagged up as related
surely a similar bet placed on their internet site would have flagged up as related
Dealer, then it's the fault of their system - or lack of it.
From a punters point of view any of these sort of bets are stupid because you will never know if you've won or not until the settler looks at your bet.
MM you can argue it is the system is anything else but suggesting imo that if a bet is written and accepted by a member of staff should be honoured is miles away from a solution.
Personally I think the bet was placed in good faith and taken in good faith and feel sorry for the punters but if it was me and I was offered 66/1 the double after the event and after taking advice, I would have jumped at it.
Time will tell when it finally gets resolved but I doubt they will get paid.
Time will tell when it finally gets resolved but I doubt they will get paid.
66/1 ridiculously generous
It’s a 25/1 and 1/8 shot because of the relation to the bets
It’s a 25/1 and 1/8 shot because of the relation to the bets
Anyone know the reason why the shop worker wrote out the bet & not the punter.
if they spent all that profit they made from roulette machines over the years into their betting system to flag up these bets, online do not take related bets at all
Wales 9/1 to win rwc, adams to be top try scorer 5/4, a related bet which wont be taken,but combined odds would be approx 22/1, but a special bet on this happening is 16/1 with 356 ,which is very fair. So taking this as an example the rugby bet in question could/should be settled in around 66/1 to 100 .
They are spending money on technology. The future will be betting terminals with nothing over the counter. Epos will be defunct.
betting terminals, i asked price in hills few weeks back was quoted 33/1, told me to try the terminals same bet 20s
Aren't the SSBTs in most bookies a completely separate operation from the over the counter bets? I mean that there's a 3rd party who make the book and take the bets, and the bookie chain whose shop they are in just gets revenue share or the like?
i take it these terminals if you win you get paid over the counter, so what happens if say you get in hills terminals £200 win at 2/1, and hills have them over the counter 7/4, do they pay you the £ 600 no question, and what about r4 etc.
Yep, Elis you can take a price and the terminal prints a slip with odds on it. Rule 4 same conditions as normal board price rules.
hills are their own. internet prices and shop prices vary, so no different from ssbts and shop prices.
To carry on the related bet discussion. Raaeb in the 6.30 at Kempton was soundly beaten by Kinross, 25-1 in the 2000gns antepost market. You can do a double.
Given that Raeeb is odds on and expected to win, should there be a movement in Kinross's price if it does?
Given that Raeeb is odds on and expected to win, should there be a movement in Kinross's price if it does?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539