ITV statement re Gareth Thomas

Do you think there's any chance of void on Outright bets on Gareth, JOT, given he withdrew on medical grounds & wasn't eliminated under usual circumstances?

Given that the case for paying out on him for elimination is strong and they are refusing to pay, the chances of them making an ex-gratia payment on the outright are slim to nil. Think we have to remember that as a rule they do their money on specials betting so virtually every account we have will be marked no favours a level playing field would be nice.

What puzzles me is this:

If the public vote was voided then Gareth should still be in the competition for a four way final and elimination bets would still stand.

Although votes were refunded, essentially the bottom two still stood - and as Gareth couldn't compete in the skate off Luke won by default.

I backed Luke to go and was fully prepared to take it on the chin.  In this instance I don't understand the rationale for voiding the market.  Gareth was next out - simple as that.

has it been confirmed that Luke was the other person in the skate off ?

whose rules are you questioning Dizzy - BF or the firms or both?

No reason to question BF surely.

Not to my knowledge Squares though its a fair assumption have tweeted Hills Fred and Paddies Ladbrokes and Sky paid on Gareth and voided the others I think.

ive told you my views on it already and the reason for voiding. Turns out you cant please everybody all the time.  In the future we will just payout the result which is the individual punters best result!. As for the rubbish that bookies dont win money on specials then thats one of the most stupid things ive ever heard on this forum

For once, I'm actually in agreement with the firms here.

These shows are, after all, designed for entertainment and not primarily for betting and due to all the intricacies and one-off incidents, events happen which stray away from the norm and make decisions relating to betting problematic.

As long as everyone knows (or should know) that if someone leaves a show and the normal process has not been adhered to for whatever reason elimination markets are void, that should be enough.

The trouble is with some firms settling markets by way of "goodwill" on occasions (paying "winners" and refunding "losers") people expect it all of the time there is the slightest deviation from the norm, and that's untenable.

C0ral have tweeted that they are refunding all Gareth OR and top male if that helps anyone.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the voiding (it actually worked in my favour in this instance).  What I find difficult to reconcile is the lack of consistency in the way the rules are applied across these shows.

Robster has rules in place to cover such eventualities and applies these consistently, so fair enough, but other firms have often blurred the boundaries by payout out / voiding / cancelling / carrying forward bets at their discretion.

There have been many instances when contestants have had to leave shows due to illness / injury etc. (Kelly Brook, Lucy Spraggans, Brian Conley are just three that spring to mind) but different firms have settled bets differently in each instance.

I accept that this is part of the perils that come with specials betting, but I would just like consistency.  I can understand JOT's frustration.

I backed Gareth for elimination with Paddies yesterday,and had the bet voided,but I find myself in agreement with squares assessment of the situation.Like many on here,as a former employee of a High St bookmaker,some of their rulings (such as the voiding of the IR Cotton bets recently)I find very questionable at best,however in this particular instance I don't disagree with the settlement.
As Dizzy says,it would be better all round if there was some kind of clarity/uniformity in the rules of all bookmakers,however in fairness,the very nature of Specials betting dictates that unusual circumstance will occur,and it is virtually impossible to have a set of rules in place which covers all eventualities to the acceptance of all parties.
Earlier in the series,as Oona was about to take part in the skate-off,her partner injured himself and was nearly unable to perform.He did of course continue,but if he had been unable to,this would have thrown up another "unusual" situation.I think as Special punters we have to accept the unpredictable .....sometimes it goes in our favour and sometimes it doesn't.
The only other point I feel worth making,and following on from JOT's original point,is if Gareth had avoided B2 last night,and therefore a skate-off had occurred,would bets on Gareth have been voided given the "if you can't win,you can't lose" mantra? Perhaps I'm being sceptical but I have a feeling bookies would have been slower to void Gareth bets in this instance,than they were last night.

Simple small print for tv betting shows that states 'bets will be refunded if a contestant has to withdraw due to ill health' might be a useful start.

Would also be useful if high st bookies added small print to their ts & cs that states 'if a customer sustains a healthy profit on tv betting over a sustained period, we will close/heavily restrict said account'.

So Coral is refunding on Outright & Top Male bets on Gareth - is anyone else?

Well at least Ive got some debate going, Corals voiding the outright does rub salt in the wound though as its complete left field and they were about the only firm I hadnt had an outright bet on with.
Must admit that whilst it is one that whichever way you do it someone will be unhappy I thought the case for paying on Gareth was quite compelling, but given the complex and unique situation I cant blame the books for settling as they have. So long as its done in good faith and theres some consistencey thats OK by me.

Was just talking to a mate who backed Gareth to be in bottom 2 with betvic and theyve voided that as well. Whilst it is unclear who was bottom 2 with, him surely they have to bite the bullet and pay on that one.

Yes, that market could be settled fairly - and all they need to do is wait a week until the %ages are published and then they can pay out on the other contestant who would have been in the skate off.

Cheers Squares hadnt thought of that tbh. He was happy enough when I told him Coral were refunding I was on with Hill Ladbroke Fred and Paddy there was a Coral close by but didnt want to back him each way so didnt bother.

I telephoned 365 and they have not voided Luke (next elimination) and will settle on Luke if he is next out next week.
This must be better than voiding since Luke is still most likely to be knocked out next... They seem to have voided on Gareth (next elim)...365 have often been more generous than other bookies in my experience...

Which does rather highlight the diffferent interpretations different people have made. 365 are in a way right if they bet on the next elimination or 9th elimination it could well be luke. I didnt have a bet with them but would be unaffected anyway.

fwiw that law of 'if you can't win you can't lose' has been withdrawn by the gambling commission.

The way itv played it, I suspect the bookies have done the right thing. It seems they tried to allow Gareth to 'save face' and cancelled the elimination. In the wide world it means nothing but I guess they wanted him to leave with some dignity, so he wasn't actually eliminated.

I have no problems with the way it was settled. I guess Gareth could have been treated as a NR and market settled on the next eliminated.