I had a bet on the 6.00 At Wolverhampton - ultramarine. I took the 7/1 offered, best odds guaranteed was not available. There was a withdrawal shortly after I placed my bet and a 10c rule 4 was in play. However, ultramarine won at 9/1, despite this, my bet settlement at 7/1 included a 10c r4 deduction. This seems like an incorrect application of r4 to me. It's not much of a difference, (I had a tenner on it) but it's the principle. I understand the logic behind r4, but applying it when the sp is bigger than the price taken is illogical. Before I go and request my adjustment, as I'm not a seasoned horse racing punter, I'd be interested in hearing anyone on here's opinion. Many thanks.
Yes, return was 73 - have to say I'm shocked that r4 applies in the circumstances - I'm struggling to get my head around it, it really seems like something that is open to abuse by unscrupulous bookmakers! I know that generally b.o.g is on offer so that negates the issue in most instances, very little point in taking a price of b.o.g isn't on offer then.
Anyway, thanks for the steer, saved me half an hour arguing with some poor support agent and being wrong!!
Yes, return was 73 - have to say I'm shocked that r4 applies in the circumstances - I'm struggling to get my head around it, it really seems like something that is open to abuse by unscrupulous bookmakers!I know that generally b.o.g is on offer so th