There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 120 comments are related to the topic:
Bet dispute SkyBet contact
Bet dispute SkyBet contact
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 120
|
By:
Still worrying that an official result can be wrong, and remain wrong, even when obviously wrong.
|
|
By:
Exactly, stu. They obviously did not want to revisit their mistake.
|
|
By:
In fairness to sky, all their bets are automatically settled on the feed provided. The fault is human error on the feed providers side.
Okay they could have dealt with it more efficiently but they got there in the end. In shops today, horses, dogs and virtual, over 400 betting opportunities, mistakes will always happen. |
|
By:
In this case I might not complain so much to skybet (who are using the official result) more that it should be passed on to be looked at by the official organisations who record results?
Would/could this happen in horse racing I wonder...? |
|
By:
It happened once at Lingfield and cost me an e/w bet and the placepot, she mixed up the 5th and 6th, then one of the first 4 got chucked so the wrong horse was promoted into the placings(4th). It was Judge Stickels aka Calamity Jane for a string of photo mis-calls
After a 16-runner race at Lingfield in 1999, she wrongly promoted the sixth horse home to fourth upon disqualification of the winner, somehow leapfrogging the fifth-placed runner. The error was attributed to "a slip of the pen". |
|
By:
The Jockey Club last night called an internal inquiry after the latest in a series of blunders by racecourse judge Jane Stickels was estimated to have cost the betting industry upwards of £2m.
Stickels, nicknamed 'Calamity Jane' for previous high-profile mistakes, called 9-4 favourite Welsh Dragon the winner of the 4.30 at Lingfield yesterday, only to overturn her decision in favour of 14-1 shot Miss Dagger, the horse she originally placed second. Coral announced they would pay out punters who backed first and second. William Hill and Ladbrokes, the other companies that make up the Big Three bookmaking firms, are to pay out on the original result but estimate that will have cost them up to £½m each because that result went in favour of the well-backed favourite. Stickels, who was only on duty because original judge Dave Smith was absent sick, had already been suspended once and undergone a period of retraining with the Jockey Club because of previous blunders. "A report will be sent in from the stewards and then there will be an internal procedure that we will follow to see if any action will be taken," said Jockey Club spokesman Paul Struthers yesterday. Stickels first attracted adverse headlines in 1994 when calling a dead-heat between Absalom's Lady and Large Action in Kempton's Captain Quist Hurdle - but later ruled in favour of Absalom's Lady. Her decision not to call a dead heat between Midnight Line and Alignment, first and second in Goodwood's Prestige Stakes in 1997, was also widely questioned. After a 16-runner race at Lingfield in 1999, she wrongly promoted the sixth horse home to fourth upon disqualification of the winner, somehow leapfrogging the fifth-placed runner. The error was attributed to "a slip of the pen". Although trainer John Best was pleased to be handed the win, Miss Dagger's owners, The Fruit Cake Partnership, were less than impressed. "My owners are screaming as although they are not huge gamblers, this is their only horse and they've gone out there and had a bet," said Best. |
|
By:
Yes, pretty poor cases indeed - though hopefully not so many modern ones...?
|
|
By:
Dave Smith called a few wrongly, Emily Jones called some wrongly but they were changed before the weighed in, think since they've made them be checked by another set of eyes no mistakes...apart from that one with the camera set up wrongly at Sandown I think it was.
|
|
By:
Was nice of them to Pay TBH , had the Race included Tcasts or if the call was for 2nd Place , it would have been picked up on the night
And BTW Good shout by the OP for the bet  Was probably the only person in the Country on it |
|
By:
Just going back to this specific dog race case, surely this mistake also applied to any other bookies who might have been offering betting on it?
|
|
By:
skybet did the right thing in how they handled it.....their response is spot on...You have to go with the official result, cant set a precedent imo, stating that in their response and then making the ex gratia payment was the way to do it.
|
|
By:
Just going back to this specific dog race case, surely this mistake also applied to any other bookies who might have been offering betting on it?
well, yes, and maybe other bookies did the same thing in how they dealt with losers that were "winners"....id be surprised if that was a popular bet mind....3 place betting on that particular race....must have been a tiny number of bets placed...maybe only the one..lol |
|
By:
Yeh, likely small numbers or bets for sure in this case. But still potentially 'industry wide' if offered.
|
|
By:
Yes official result, good idea. Never mind whether is correct or not just accept it.
|
|
By:
you cant just start ignoring official results and payout of your unofficial decision....the legal world would have a field day.
|
|
By:
*on your
|
|
By:
Rubbish, aberdonia. Had that been a fancied runner in a more important event you would never have heard the end of it on here.
|
|
By:
then you payout on the the right and the wrong result and take the hit, but you dont ignore the official result..Thats the point.
The official result is the official result....if bookmakers make the decision to payout on the official loser, thats a decision for them. The legal ramifications for not paying out on an official result are endless.. |
|
By:
Who do you think a Court would favour aberdonia? No offers they would favour the correct result and kick out the official result as it never actually happened.
|
|
By:
The point is as far as we know that nobody took responsibility to check if the result was correct or not.
|
|
By:
That much is obvious sparrow and when I viewed the replay it seemed obvious that whoever called the result assumed the 3 sog was the six and vice versa , the 3 finishing on the outside of the 6 and the jackets being blurred by lights?
|
|
By:
I did post the screenshot myself cagliari of the finish and it can be seen earlier on this thread as did the poster jamee.
|
|
By:
I did not need the screen shot sparrow, I told the OP his dog was 3rd a long time before that. My point is it is easy to see how it could happen if the result was called in real time, and no dividend required for the tri meant that on track punters would not have noticed or bothered to make a fuss?
|
|
By:
Bookmakers have a responsibility here when they put up a special market such as this. If they aren't prepared to be sure that the correct finishing order is given then they should not be offering such markets.
|
|
By:
im assuming its in terms and conditions that bets are settled on the official result....imo, its not their job to be gamekeepers for what is another industry...
|
|
By:
The judge at the track called the wrong result, absolutely nothing to do with skybet. You simply can't re check every result. In football games alone there can be over 200 markets on each game.
Mistakes will inevitably happen because people make mistakes. |
|
By:
It was covered in their rules and they have paid as an ex gratia payment, I think that's more than fair. Like most complaints these days it takes a bit of perseverance to get things going but he got the right decision in the end
|
|
By:
I thought in 2024 we had moved on from Trodmore of 1898. The idea that technology can't give us the correct finishing order of a greyhound race in this day and age is ridiculous. A mistake it is not, but sheer carelessness when punters are entrusting their money on such a wager.
|
|
By:
The Dealer has summed it up perfectly.
|
|
By:
Technology did give the right result, it was the judge who got it wrong
|
|
By:
I'm clearly wasting my time with this.
|
|
By:
it was a human mistake....skybet did the right thing...once the punter did some of the leg work....and persevered. But they were under no obligation to make that ex gratia payment.
|
|
By:
You can't have a situation where in every close horse race finish, each company wants to decide themselves what has won by checking the photoand not taking the judges word. They have to accept he has called it right.
|
|
By:
You are Sparrow, because you are wrong.
|
|
By:
Well said Tom
I'm still waiting for someone who backed T6 in the 3 place market to enter the thread  |
|
By:
Yes hayden, very amusing I'm sure.
|
|
By:
This sort of thing would be an interesting RP article, if they could stop posting bullshine posts about how lovely every jockey and trainer is for a moment...
|
|
By:
Issues like the exact chain of results declaring, who it gets passed too for actual reporting then use (e.g. bookies)
why is there no checking procedure to correct obvious errors - or who should be contacted about it...etc |
|
By:
so as things stand, you have £20k on Trap 5 at 6/4
it wins half a length from Trap 1 the guy returning the placings says Trap 1 won a length you've lost £50k the bookie is £18k up and the guy returning the placings is off to Magaluf for a fortnight. and there's fk all you can do about it ....  |
|
By:
trying to get younger people to bet on the greyhounds
what happens if i bet on one, and it wins, but the mans says it came second ?? yeah. in that case you've lost. sorry bout that  |