Bet dispute SkyBet contact

Good luck shooda , as you say there's a huge principle but their attitude alone makes you want to persevere anyway 

to be fair you,d struggle to get a bet like that taking on the GOLD CUP by skybet, never mind a 5 dog race at donny dogs

Isn’t the official result the main problem? All bookies will go by that. Get the official result published correctly and they should pay out. Now getting that done….

I suppose it's not bookies fault, but they should look, see
the error, and pay out to maintain customer account.

Good luck getting sorted.

THINK YOU MIGHT FIND SKYBET ONLY PAY FIRST TWO, IN ENHANCED PLACE RACES, WHERE LESS THAN 6 DOGS RUN

HOPE THIS HELPS

15.44 Newcastle - 480m Paying 3 Places instead of 2

Wednesday 27th November 2024 15:44

    Each way terms: 1/5 for first 3 places

Bets placed in accordance with our Market Rules
Watch Race
We are paying 3 places instead of 2 (at 1/5 place terms) on all each way bets if there are 6 runners or more. In the event of less than the minimum runner stipulation, industry standard terms will apply.

place only betting is offered some races eg 3.49 towcester prices are
T1...1/12
T2...8/11
T3...2/7
T4...5/4
T5...2/7
T6 vacant

that's 3 places

OPs 11/4 bet was a 3pl bet on a 16/1 shot

He didn’t bet it each way. Place only.

OK Ken , reckon he should delve into the small print to make sure though regarding only 5 runners.

Sporting Life.....

greyhounds icon|
Greyhounds
Racecards
Fast Results
Full Results

18:04 Doncaster

Tue 26 November 2024
18:0418:2118:3918:5619:1419:3119:5120:0920:2620:43
450 | B1

    1st £160, Others £40 Race Total £320 | Off time: 18:04:22 | Winning time: 27.95s

Final Result
1
5
Droopys Glam(b - wbk)
Best: 27.66s | Last: 27.95s | T: P Milner
6/4
Time: 27.95s | Mid-Wide,EP,ALed(HT)
2
3
1
Keady China(b - bd)
Best: 27.70s | Last: 28.19s | T: P Prior
3/1
Time: 28.19s | Rls,ClrRun(HT)
3
1
6
Rapido Liz(b - bk)
Best: 27.73s | Last: 28.27s | T: V L Clark
9/2
Time: 28.27s | Wide,BlkRunIn(HT)
4
½
3
Blitz Of Snow(d - bk)
Best: 27.79s | Last: 28.31s | T: M Haythorne
16/1
Time: 28.31s | Mid,BmpRunIn(HT)
5
1 ½
2
Lindrick Niall(d - bkw)
Best: 27.80s | Last: 28.43s | T: D Calvert
7/4
Time: 28.43s | Mid-Rls,SAw,FcdToCk3(HT)
Race Details

    Winning Trainer:
    P Milner
    Winning Time:
    27.95s
    Runners:
    5 ran
    Distances:
    3, 1, ½, 1 ½
    Off Time:
    18:04:22
    Forecast:
    £7.66
    Tricast:
    £0.00

Good spot wonders , looks like it's all down to the false third place given then , so take the matter as far as you need to go   

Nov 27, 2024 -- 3:48PM, wondersobright wrote:

place only betting is offered some races eg 3.49 towcester prices are T1...1/12T2...8/11T3...2/7T4...5/4T5...2/7T6 vacant

Clearly those prices are for 2 places only, check the overround - 211%

No the wonder I never win 350% (at those prices) - so has to be 3 places, my apologies

Yes they do, and so do some others, offer 3 place bets in 5 dog races. This was 11/4 3 places for a 20/1 shot. As Hayden says, all down tofalse 3rd place. to be honest, I'll probably spend more than £80 worth of my time to sort it out. But very poor customer service from SktBet and they lose me as the mug punter I am, so their loss too. :D

I can't see what Skybet have done wrong here, they've settled according to the official result, the same as all bookies do.

Your gripe should be with the judge who needs sacking.

Think that's a fair call swifty , they've unofficially weighed in or whatever it is in greyhound racing so like horse racing connections would have to appeal i reckon , bearing in mind the prize money for the winner was only a £Pony i'd imagine this result may well remain in the archives.

swifty - many bookmakers are smart enough to hold on to their clients when they can see that an error has been made. T3 was a half length clear in 3rd and the video evidence is in the public domain. It's just good business sense to do the right thing. i.e. review the evidence and pay out. But we all have different ideas of what is fair and reasonable.

That said though it doesn't alter the poor reaction to the complaint from Skybet and any company worth their salt after reviewing the race ( if they ever will ) would make the necessary ex-gracia payment.

Sorry didn't see your response shooda.

so if i know the judge at a greyhound track, i have £20k on Trap 6.

it finishes 3rd beaten 2 lengths, but he says it won.  the bookies must pay me out cos that's the official result ??

think we might be onto a winner ere lads ...

shooda, I agree with you completely but unfortunately the days of 'bookmaker and discretion' appearing in the same sentence are long gone, the people who work for them don't know the front end of a horse or dog from their rrrs, they just settle from data feeds.

But how the judge doesn't get pulled up for that, as hulk says, it does beg some questions.

The Sport of Greyhound racing has become a total Farce

You are lucky if you see a photo Finnish Print of most races

2024

The Live replays we now have if a Dog wins by a few lenghts the Video Stops ,So if its tight 2nd or 3rd ,you dont see that as it stops with the winner on the Line

thats PGR

not sure what THE OP does here , To get the result rectified and paid out ?

If RPTV was still going One of us could have emailed in , They would have least have had a Look and passed on their Findings

The £80 is better in your pocket than Skys

ill post it on the Dog Forum tomorrow for you , Im sure someone will respond , there all Types that Read and dont post on there

if the result is rectified  Sky will Pay ,as stated its not Down to them

worth a try

The problem is that the replay stops before the third place can be determined on the screen accurately as shown here.

Replay ends here at 44 secs.

Unfortunately this thread should have been posted on the Greyhound forum as well as here. As nanny says there are some people on there who could be of great help in this matter.

Sparrow , use the race link posted by wondersbright yesterday and pause it on the line for yourself......

https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#result-video/race_id=2095542&track_id=66&r_date=2024-11-26&videoFileName=3cb4beba-d228-5d67-b455-f1b81b3fa586.mp4&video_id

I will try that hayden.

The link stops at the same place hayden on 44 seconds. I need a link that carries on to around 50 secs.

jamee posting yesterday at 1348 is the key but where has this photo come from as the timing says 31secs of 44 secs?

A definite difference between the replay film shown and the actual live film.

You don't really , when it gets to 31 secs pause it manually yourself as the T3 & T6 dogs are crossing the line.

The winning time was 27.95 secs so why do you need beyond 44 secs , pause it on 31 secs

When you pause it around 31 secs it looks clear to me that the T3 is around half a length ahead of T6 which coincidentally is the official winning distance given between the 3rd and 4th finishers , so clearly a numbers mix up by the judge , as there was no tricast dividend due to it being a 5 dog race nobody has bothered flagging it up aside from any backers of the extended place terms with bookmakers , the only ones ( albeit very few you'd imagine ) coming out of it well so far are the backers of T6 in the three place market who understandably will keep quiet and be thankful for the judges error.

......also just to add the prize money ( pitiful as it is ) is   1st £160, Others £40 Race Total £320

So you can understand why connections of T3 couldn't be bothered querying the result , waste of time and nothing to gain.

they probably don't even know hayden, except for 3pl bets nobody is affected

Agree wonders   

I think the OP also needs to remember that in the 3 places market Sky will have already paid out on anyone who backed trap 6. Those handful of punters (and their will be a few) have bee paid out on a loser. Swings and roundabouts...

Of course, the bookie should show some goodwill here but they do have to be guided by the official result.

However, I fear this one is going to end badly...

just had a look over their rules...

Bets are settled on the official result called by the judge and any subsequent amendments or disqualifications will be ignored for settlement purposes.

based on that an official correction won't help & the only chance is a justice payout...utterly farcical

you could maybe try shinners
for 60 pound if you have account that they want makes sense to pay imo

Managed at last, thank you.  No doubt at all now.

there was never any doubt sparrow. 

if you or anyone else thinks trap 6 finished 3rd in that race you need your fkng head examined.

he's not only got trap 6 down as 3rd, he's got it down as 3rd by half a length

not even close

I never ever thought that hulk but needed proof from a photo rather than just talk.

Been told thats the official result it cant be changed days after , Crazy situation ,3 is obviously 3rd

Remember years back wrong resukt was given for 1st place , it was like an optical illusion , but that was changed on the night

and we've also had them voiding races after the weighed in signal has been given
to suit themselves
eg that swindon race last year when the A4 bitch ran in an A9 & won @ 16/1

belle vue sky card that 1 case?

I do slightly get it - you get (eg) horses DQ'd days or months after the race for doping - do you resettle all the bets or do you just stand by "all bets are settled on the official result"?

I think there was a bit of a kerfuffle about Formula One a few months ago - rules say settled on podium, but podium "winner" later DQ'd (for underweight, I think, but i's not a sport I follow).

All it needs is someone in authority to admit a mistake was made and take responsibility but people these days don't like accepting they could be wrong on occasions.

It's ok guys. I'm over it. I've lost over a million in my lifetime but was lucky to have it to lose. I'll just give to the woman at Bet 365 instead of the Sky mob. It's all one.

Well, unexpected surprise, and thought only fair to credit them:

Having spoke with the traders, they have stated that they will speak with our provider but ultimately we would always settle from official sources.

Based on the information provided and as stated above, I'm afraid I am unable to uphold your complaint.

However, I can see that you do bet regularly with us, and as such, I have added the winnings of £82.50 on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill. I do hope that this at least goes some way towards restoring your faith in our services and that you continue to enjoy using our products moving forward.

We believe this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, and you have now reached the end of our internal complaints process. If you wish to escalate the matter further, you can ask for your complaint to be looked at by the Independent Betting Adjudication Service, which is a free service.

Good to hear

Great stuff, and good to see that they've finally listened.

Just goes to show, but most would give up, and it is
the principle of the thing,...

They listened alright and refused to accept that anyone had made a mistake and decided that they would do you a great favour and pay you out.

Great stuff shooda , pleasing outcome eventually   

Still worrying that an official result can be wrong, and remain wrong, even when obviously wrong.

Exactly, stu. They obviously did not want to revisit their mistake.

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.

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...?

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".

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.

Yes, pretty poor cases indeed - though hopefully not so many modern ones...?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Yeh, likely small numbers or bets for sure in this case. But still potentially 'industry wide' if offered.

Yes official result, good idea.  Never mind whether is correct or not just accept it.

you cant just start ignoring official results and payout of your unofficial decision....the legal world would have a field day.

*on your

Rubbish, aberdonia. Had that been a fancied runner in a more important event you would never have heard the end of it on here.

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..

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.

The point is as far as we know that nobody took responsibility to check if the result was correct or not.

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?

I did post the screenshot myself cagliari of the finish and it can be seen earlier on this thread as did the poster jamee.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

The Dealer has summed it up perfectly.

Technology did give the right result, it was the judge who got it wrong

I'm clearly wasting my time with this.

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.

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.

You are Sparrow, because you are wrong.

Well said Tom   

I'm still waiting for someone who backed T6 in the 3 place market to enter the thread     

Yes hayden, very amusing I'm sure.

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...

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

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 ....

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

To give some equity, I suppose there have been some paralells in other sports such as football.

I recall at least one or two where goals have been given or not, when the truth was entirely the opposite - and no recourse was given.

However, which animal crosses a line in front should (in theory) be a bit easier to determine exactly.