https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlementHad five euro on spain/villa at 14/1. Got back 18.75. So basically got worse odds than if i had of backed spain outright. I think spain outright where 4/1 at the start. Thats a disgrace. Only small money but feel sorry for those who had a few quid onhttps://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457484677#457484677Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:38:48 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457459925#457459925People need to realise that their bet is actually 3/4 losing bet and only 1/4 a winning bet. Staggering decision by Hills imo.Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:45:36 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457434329#457434329People do realise this is a dead heat??as well as Spain/Villa, you have Spain/Muller etc... thus odds lower than expectedThu, 15 Jul 2010 19:41:18 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457422697#457422697I BACKED SPAIN AND SNEIJDER AND WAS GIVEN 4/1 AND 100/1 AS IT WAS NOT A RELATED DOUBLE.I GOT BACK £631.25 FOR MY £5 DOUBLE, BUT I STILL FEEL EXTREMELY AGGRIEVED.THE REASON BEING THAT SPAIN/VILLA PUNTERS HAD THEIR ODDS GREATLY REDUCED BECAUSE THAT IThu, 15 Jul 2010 17:45:48 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457169669#457169669THIS is the exact reason why these bets are daft.. backing the actualy doubles especially when the goalscorer is proven at international level is far from stupid.. spain/villabrazil/fabianogermany/klose etc etcisnt stupid because its almost guaranteeWed, 14 Jul 2010 00:17:30 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457091269#457091269That's exactly what I'm saying. If you wanted that bet (a guaranteed 6/1 if he was one of the top 4 scorers) then you should have asked for it.14/1 is the price for him to be the top scorer. If he dead-heats for that then you lose a propoTue, 13 Jul 2010 13:27:26 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457090533#457090533No Bushy - even if Sneidjer had scored Villa would still be one of the top 4 scorers ie 2nd equalTue, 13 Jul 2010 13:21:52 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457087945#457087945Yes, you'd have been offered around 6/1, and you'd be on a winner. And you'd also be on a winner had (a) Villa scored one more goal (in which case the Spain/Villa double pays at 14/1) or (b) Sneijder scored one more goal (in which caTue, 13 Jul 2010 13:04:13 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457087769#457087769Whitburn, you would have backed 2 winners in that example. You can't change from a win bet to a place bet when it suits. Naturally in that example you would have had no chance of being paid at 14-1.Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:03:10 -0500https://community.betfair.com/world_cup/go/thread/view/107734/25354073/villa-spain-bookie-settlement?post_id=457086729#457086729If I had asked the bookmakers for a price (before the tournament started) for Villa to be one of the top 4 goalscorers and for Spain to win the World Cup I guess (if at all) I would have been offered 6/1 or thereabouts.I've been arguing with JoeTue, 13 Jul 2010 12:55:46 -0500