Villa spain bookie settlement.

I had 18/1 with WH and they've offered 6/1 as a payout.

6/1 seems fair. I had the bet with **** and knew they would settle that way. Jokers.

how did they "offer" 6-1, do you mean in a local bookie or via the net?

Basically spoilsports paid out at 2.75/1 on spain/villa when spain it think to win the tournament outright where 4/1. Total joke.

That sounds atrocious - surely you could query that, even with IBAS etc, though not really worth it for a small stake.

It would have to surely equate to at least the price for Spain win??

my bet has yet to be settled, waiting with interest

I put £2 on Villa to be op goalscorer and Spain to win aswell last week at 7/1 or 8/1, anyway I checked my statement and I have been paid 10p for it? Can someone please explain this?!lol! Also I bet on Spain to win, £20 on and apparently I lost!? Either Betfair  have made a mistake or they offer a very misleading bet on the football main page!!

With five goals each, four players including David Villa tied as top goalscorer in the World Cup so we had to settle that market as a four-way dead-heat. This has led to some confusion as to how to settle the Top Goalscorer/Tournament winner market.
It didn’t seem fair to enforce the dead-heat rule because many of the bets on Villa/Spain would have actually resulted in customers’ bets being a shorter price than Spain were to just win the tournament at the time.

So we’ve taken the decision to settle the market according to table below which results in every bet returning higher winnings.

For example:
If you placed £10 on Villa/Spain at 18/1 your settlement with this method will be £70.Enforcing a 4-way dead heat rule (Your stake is divided by the total number of players tied and then paid at the full odds), your bet would have been settled as £47.50.

Here is the table explaining how we will settle your bet but please accept our apologies as this is being completed manually and should be done by the end of today.


hills message via net

Razzer I work it out you should have got £1.50 for your Villa/Spain bet, and probably your £20 on spain was in 90mins?!

there as no table available for me to view tho

But it was only a 4-way dead heat for half of the bet, the other side should be a full win.

I think they are being very sly with that, and I haven't bet on that market either.

shrewdbury Joined: 25 Sep 09
Replies: 3205 12 Jul 10 13:21   
But it was only a 4-way dead heat for half of the bet, the other side should be a full win.


You are fishing I presume?

Very very sly!! Thats what i thought clyde_conn! But only got paid 10p so I have sent an email! I also think its a bit of a joke when on the main page it says Spain to win or Holland to win, no mention of 90 minutes, you pick who you think will win, it comes in and you lose!makes me laugh.

have you checked what matched and at what price, also have you checked the individual bet or are you looking at the overall mkt settlement figure if you had other bets in the same mkt

elsie - local bookie phoned HO to query the bet, they came up with 6/1. Agreed on the spoilsports payout. Jokers :(

im looking at individual bets.:/

cheers dickie, i found the message in my hills account when i logged in having seen your first post

for thr record, hills have settled and have paid more than i calculated the bet to be worth

think they have been very fair

Lol muggins bet all the way.

from info i have garnered, the state of play is.....

Hills and Fredbet - settled at new odds reflected by dead heat of goalscorer market (Quite Fair)
3 6 5, slybet, lads, spoils and PP paid at 1/4 the stake for double (Unfair - joke)
no info on koral, Sids, vic or nanny

Lol of course it should be paid at 1/4.

bookies making up random rules now to appease mug punters?  who'd have thunk it

I had £10 on at 14/1 with Korals. Tonight they offered me £35 which I flatly refused. Have spoken with their Customer Service and await their reply with interest.

Personally I would have thought 7/1 or thereabouts fair for the combined as if I had asked for a bet of "Spain to win and Villa to be one of the top 4 scores" I would have expected between 6/1 and 8/1 as the best are related

I'm really flipping angry at their initial offer. Outrageous

£35 plus your £2.50 stake is correct. stop beng a crybaby, and stop backing mug bets at muggier prices.

Is this thread genuine? Do people really think that the following doubles should all be paid in full? Spain/Mueller, Spain/Forlan, Spain/Sneijder, Spain/Villa? I guess it must be a wind up......

No they should not be paid out in full. But to pay 2.75/1 on the double is so wrong. How can spain/villa be 2.75/1 when spain to win outright was 4/1. Makes no sense. About 6/1-7/1 would be fair. You cant pay the double at less than the odds the single was in fairness.

You have backed the double @ 14-1, if Spain were 4-1 you are taking 2-1 Villa in the double, on the basis that if Spain win it Villa will have played 7 games etc. If you back a 2-1 winner in a DH of 4, that is a losing selection (effectively -1 to 4) and will reduce the value of the other selection. On that basis you can't expect to get paid at 4-1.

So baz what your saying i should get worse odds than what the single should have been. I dont agree with that. I do agree it should not be 14/1 thats obvious. But surely its a double. The single is 4/1 that won. I didnt back an each way double. So one part of the double is up. The other is a four way dead heat. My double as i said cant be settled less than the single. It was but thats wrong. Even taking the bookies rules into account its wrong.

Just for eg, if you back a double of 4-1 (winner) and evs and the even money chance dead heats with 3 other selections, would you still expect the double to pay at least 4-1? Naturally it wouldn't, it's a case of what price you consider Villa in the double. If the Villa/Spain double were 25-1, you would be paid at 11-2 (bigger than the 4-1 Spain were).

this is all bull - by the minge bags bookies - I took 20's for the double with hills ans they're now offering 7's. how do they work yhis con price out - villa 8's & spain 4's in the first place is a 44/1 double and they more than half it in the 1st place (i know the one affects the other and all that) and then dont even quote spain/forlan, spin/muller etc and then proceed to 1/3 their minge bag price further - its out of order at the very least i should be on for £1125 at the least for a ton stake ie £100 on 4/1 then a 1/4 of my stake on villa @ 8's but they come up with this obscure 7/1 price - i'm going all the way with this one to IBAS

^^^^^ had to lol at this one :-)

Spain/Villa at 14/1? What an awful, awful bet.

get your head round how the nanny are settling the bet.     
divide the price taken for the double by the price of spain to give a reduced price for the top goalscorer. the stake will then be divided by the number of dead heats involved [4] then multiplied by the reduced top goalscorer price multiplied by the actual price of spain.           
       
simples.

PMSL at this thread, not sure who are the biggest mugs, punters wanting paying out at full prices or Hills for not settling at 1/4 odds!!

some sharp minds on here.

IMO BF settled it correctly.

all this of it eing 2 bets etc is rubbish when it comes to exchange betting. I took 1 price on Villa/Spain and if dead heated expected to get 1 quater of my stake at the odds i took. low and behold i did!

Corbiewood - lol so true

All this poxy abuse on here is alod of bolllixx. People saying taking 14/1 on villa/spain is a mug bet etc etc. Look all i said at the start of the thread was it seems wrong that a bet on a double pays less than the single when the fukkking single has come up. If i had bet spain from the start i would have got more from doing spain/villa. To me that seems wrong. I never said it should be full odds. But i think it should be more than the price of spain. Thats all.

Spain/Villa at 14/1? What an awful, awful bet. Maybe the price was a bit thin but it won or should i say jointly won. So to say it was an awful bet shows what a complete tosspot some people are on here.

Anyone who thinks the double should pay less than the single on spain really haven't grasped the maths at all. People like Baz really need to think about it before they come on these threads spouting rubbish. It's not like a normal double because the odds have already been reduced drastically due to the related contingency. It's hard to come up with a defining answer but the hills price of 6/1 seems about fair in the circumstances.

How about using the same table they use to calculate these prices in the first place to calculate the price for a 4/1 (Spain win WC) and a 2/1 (Villa at 1/4 odds) shot combined (or whatever their prices were).

Will probably come out at around 11/2.

Don't bet on scorer/winner combos with the bookies, ever.

NAP

If you don't understand the rules, you should not be placing bets. simples.

Don't bet on scorer/winner combos with the bookies, ever. Another stupid cunnnt. Theres alot of people out there who just like a bet on big events for a bit of interest. So they do these type of bets for small stakes. Whats wrong with that. As for not understanding the rules. I do but this one seems to make the rules like shitt. If the bookies where to be fair 11/2-6/1 would be about the correct price. 2.75/1 on the double when the single was 4/1 is not fair and i dont care what anyone says on that. Its just the bookies been poxxy greedy. The same way they ripped punters off on the grand national when they shortened most of the field ten minutes before the off. Piddys/Boyles give money back specials or specials when it suits there pocket but because spain won(fav) and spain/villa (fav) both came in they would have lost a bit on this. So they decided to be tight prikkks and pay out to their rules which on this bet make no sense.

It's not a scam by the bookies, it's just a situation where there is a possibility of a dead heat, and dead heat rules need to apply or they would be paying out on everyone. Unfortuante that the sh1t price people took on spain/villa made the payout less than spain alone, but anyone placing their bets must have been happy with the horrendous price or they wouldn't take it.

Asparagus, please do yourself and look at this example. I have never 'spouted rubbish' on here and the ignorance on this thread is mindblowing.

Just for eg, if you back a double of 4-1 (winner) and evs and the even money chance dead heats with 3 other selections, would you still expect the double to pay at least 4-1? Naturally it wouldn't, it's a case of what price you consider Villa in the double. If the Villa/Spain double were 25-1, you would be paid at 11-2 (bigger than the 4-1 Spain were).

If you don't understand a really basic example like this, maybe betting is not for you.

Asparagus, the following is complete nonesense.

Anyone who thinks the double should pay less than the single on spain really haven't grasped the maths at all.

Should read nonsense not nonesense.

Anyone who thinks the double should pay less than the single on spain really haven't grasped the maths at all.

It seems to be you who hasn't grasped the maths.

Of course it can pay less than the single, because only 1/4 of the 2nd leg has won, and 3/4 has lost.  If Villa is priced [implictly] at less than 3/1 in the event of a Spain victory then that leg of the bet is a net negative, so the double pays less than a single on Spain.  Whether the 3/1 is a decent price or not is not the point - if you backed it, you accepted it.

There are four winners: Spain/Villa, Spain/Muller, Spain/Forlan and Spain/Sneijder so it is clearly a four-way dead heat, even if some of those weren't quoted ("others on request").

Bushy, of course, spot on.

If 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 Joe Koral's aned they hide behind teir own, wrong, rules

Ridculous

Whitburn, 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.

Yes, 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 case the Spain/Villa double loses).  It's not the same bet.

No Bushy - even if Sneidjer had scored Villa would still be one of the top 4 scorers ie 2nd equal

That'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 proportion of your stake and get the remainder paid at 14/1.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that 10 players - including Villa - all finish with 5 goals.  Would you still expect the "Spain/Villa top GS" double to pay out more than the Spain single?

THIS 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/villa
brazil/fabiano
germany/klose

etc etc

isnt stupid because its almost guaranteed that when the scorer bangs in 4-5+ then their teams will go well for that comp.. especially when its a stronger country that doesnt just rely on that one player.. the goals can get shared around a bit more. but the player still notches regularly..

oh fk it i may have typed that incorrectly but you all get me..

i dont do them myself but as a rule they arent the stupidest bets and THIS situation (when there is a dead hear) is when it can really fk you over..

I 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 IS A RELATED CONTINGENCY, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHERE YOU BET A PLAYER FROM AN OPPOSING TEAM SHOULD YOUR ODDS NOT BE INFLATED?

SEEMS LIKE THE BOOKMAKERS WANT IT ALL WAYS.

THERE TEAM TO WIN/TOP SCORER DOUBLE BOOK PROBABLY WORKS OUT AT OVER 200% BEFORE SHAFTING US WITH THE RELATED CONTINGENCIES!

I'M SURE INSTEAD OF GETTING JUST OVER 500/1 MY DOUBLE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 550/1 AT LEAST

ANY VIEWS

People do realise this is a dead heat??

as well as Spain/Villa, you have Spain/Muller etc... thus odds lower than expected

People need to realise that their bet is actually 3/4 losing bet and only 1/4 a winning bet. Staggering decision by Hills imo.