Also guilty of employing people with limited intelligence. Leaving aside the punter at least 3 of their staff appear confused with the difference between 13 HUNDRED and 13 THOUSAND. Punter wins this case all day long.

@sparrow -- "1,300 to 13,000 was the sort of mistake I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to make."


It wasn't aiui "one thousand, three hundred" but "thirteen hundred" that got transformed into "thirteen thousand".

And now I'm wondering if the problem is not 10 year olds but telephone operators whose own language or even their own variant of English does not include "XX hundred" to refer to amounts over a thousand.

Counting and even the way we group numbers is language and sometimes culture-specific. Think of French where 96 is quatre-vingt-seize, or 4 20s and 16. Americans can be slightly thrown by Brits saying "double 3" instead of "3 3" when giving out phone numbers.

@sparrow, no, we were not taught wrongly. The point is that different languages and cultures count differently. There is no universal standard. It is probably a blessing he was not asking for monkeys.

The first time I would here figures above a thousand called in hundreds was when I watched my father clerking on the racecourse but the people dealing with this case might never have set foot on a racecourse.

I used to have this all the time with my non-betting mate when he joined me for a day on-course. Ten fifties, a five to eighty, even five-and-a-half hundred to four - he'd have no idea what I was talking about, and couldn't have worked it out if he'd tried.

so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like

Fashion Fever 30 Jun 21 14:24 
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like




Especially when you're £106,000 down since 2013.

So a chasing mug with too much money can have 13k ew on no worries. But shrewdies trying to stay under their radar and asking for 10 ew will be offered 50 pence ew. Get the police involved here. Normal punters are fed up with it all.

By Chris Cook
UPDATED 8:57PM, JUN 30 2021
 
The High Court has been urged to rule that Paddy Power must pay a punter £286,000 for a bet of £13,000 each-way on the grounds that all those involved had agreed on that stake, rather than the £1,300 each-way for which the punter had originally asked.

Lawyers for the bookmaker maintain there was no agreement for the increased stake, which was first mentioned mistakenly by the operator who answered the call when she relayed it to traders for approval.

Closing arguments were presented on Wednesday, with the barrister Mark James – representing James Longley, the punter in question – insisting: "Objectively, it's a bet for £13,000 each-way.

"That's how Mr Longley understood it, that's how the phone operator understood it and that's the bet that Paddy Power's trader authorised. It would be a very unusual outcome if they were all wrong."

Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, presiding over the two-day hearing, intervened to ask if it were realistic that someone seeking a bet of £1,300 each-way would then be offered a stake ten times as large.

"It's not plausible for many," responded James, "but it is plausible for a punter in the situation of Mr Longley."

The court had heard on Tuesday that Longley is a wealthy punter who had already lost £19,000 to Paddy Power earlier the same day from an initial balance of £78,000 before seeking the disputed bet at 16-1 on Redemptive, a winner at Wolverhampton.

James regretted no evidence had been heard from the trader in question, suggesting it could have been given remotely in less than an hour had the defendants agreed. Drawing on email correspondence submitted in evidence, the barrister said of the trader's decision to approve the bet: "He seems to have been tempted into doing that because he thought the customer was chasing his losses.

"He thought this was a good chance to make a profit for the business. He says in that email, 'For some reason, the liability just went out of my mind'. We know he thought he was in trouble."

Paddy Power cleared disputed £26,000 bet thinking punter was chasing losses

James argued an 'error' clause relied upon by the bookmaker was unfair. He noted that Paddy Power had been able to lay off part of the bet, recovering £17,000, and could in theory have laid off the entire sum.

"They can lay off their bets, make a profit on the deal, and then tell the bettor, 'We're keeping our winnings but you can't have yours'."

Summing up for Paddy Power earlier, barrister Kajetan Wandowicz pointed to the phone call and said the claimant was relying too much on the phone operator telling Longley: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand," from his account.

"It beggars belief," said Wandowicz, "that a highly intelligent and sophisticated punter who has only just been told that his requested bet has been approved" would regard that mention of a different sum of money as a counter-offer.

Wandowicz said there was "overwhelming" evidence, from the context and from Longley's reaction, that the punter did not register a larger sum had been mentioned during the call and only realised he had been given a larger bet when checking an app on his phone later. As a result, the defence argues, the parties had been at cross purposes and a contract had never been agreed.

The judge is considering her verdict.

Barrister for PP
---------------------
Kajetan has a substantial practice in gambling law, advising and acting for large gambling operators as well as their customers. Recent instructions have included bet outcome disputes, issues of cheating/dishonest bets, withholding of winnings pending completion of integrity investigations, claims by problem gamblers, self-exclusion, disputes with high-value / VIP customers, and the interface between findings of regulatory authorities and private law actions between the customer and the bookmaker. He has particular experience in bet outcome disputes in respect of events without an obvious mathematical outcome or official result of a governing body, where the gambling operator has made an evaluative judgment as to the correct settlement of the bets.

He has also undertaken urgent advisory work in this field in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Featured Gambling and Betting cases
Advised a major bookmaker on settlement of bets on events cancelled and postponed due to COVID-19 (both one-off events such as matches/tournaments, and long-running events cancelled or postponed mid-way such as leagues).

Acting as sole counsel for a bookmaker in an ongoing £250,000 claim in respect of a horseracing bet.

Advised an online bookmaker in respect of its exposure to ca. 120 small claims totalling over £500,000 in respect of the same subject matter.

Acted for a major bookmaker in defence of a claim brought by a high-value customer whose winnings were voided on the basis that he had been at the centre of a horserace-rigging conspiracy (successfully ended with the claimant being forced to abandon the claim at an early stage).

Advised a betting exchange on multiple claims in respect of its settlement of a domestic political event market.

Acted for a betting exchange in defending several claims in respect of bets on the date of a party leader’s official departure from office.

Drafted the operator’s submissions to IBAS in a successfully-defended six-figure adjudication brought by a customer in respect of bets on an international political event.

Acted for a bookmaker in a successful defence of a claim in respect of alleged breach of a self-exclusion agreement.

Acted for a bookmaker on a successful strikeout application in a claim in respect of freezing a customer’s winnings for 10 months pending an integrity investigation.

Advised a problem gambler on recovering his online gambling losses.

Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, presiding over the two-day hearing, intervened to ask if it were realistic that someone seeking a bet of £1,300 each-way would then be offered a stake ten times as large.

They are going to win.

how much was traded on here between 20.0 & 25.0 when his 16/1 was green-lighted ?


It actually drifted on here, the average price matched was 14.5 and the SP was 16. The morning price was 7.5 and the max price traded was 23.  There was also less that 16k traded pre.  I can't see that there was much opportunity to lay off a bet of that size without taking a substantial loss.

I hope the Judge considers what would the outcome be if the horse had lost.

The GC need to ask why one punter can get a £26k bet when others cant get minimal stakes on.
Their answer will be 'traders decision'.
That must show that their licence allows them to profit from non-savvy punters without affordability/laundering checks which I thought was the objective of addressing that very issue.

Dealer Didnt he have a limit of £203? The  authorising of the bet was instant was it not? Hence no time for due process.

The main issue for the GC is lax systems and controls.  A trader could authorise a bet with a payout well in excess of PP's published limits ie 100k for that grade of race.  I would guess that is why the "trader" won't testify - he could find himself liable. And also why PP have gone down the "punter didn't mean to bet that amount" route for their defence and not the "our trader employee made an error in authorising the bet" route.

Can't see the man getting paid £286,000, but I hope I'm wrong.

Mr C
Instructing Kajetan seems to have been a very smart move;  has Longley's barrister got a track record dealing with betting disputes ?

if the fella agreed to the bigger bet and the £26k
went from his balance,surely this bet should be honoured?

If it had got beat would Paddy have contacted client and said we are pleased to tell you  it looks like you meant only £1300 eacy way and therefore we are refunding the overstake of £23,400

Of course they wouldnt. They took the money and the client agreed to that revised stake .They should be made to pay up.

Otherwise i need a 90% refund on all my losing bets which i overstaked.

The GC doesn't normally deal with complaints - how did you get them to do so on this occasion?