Bet 365 Official Price Guarantee - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK   harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Bet 365 Official Price Guarantee - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Bet 365 Official Price Guarantee  (Read 2638 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline samatt

  • Listed
  • User 887
  • Posts: 405
O.P. « 2017-Jun-05, 12:53 PM »
I have only sparingly used Bet365 but their new official price guarantee is quite good. I backed Gun Case at $6 on Saturday but got payed out at $11  :beer: Bit of a game changer that allows you to bet with more freedom when early markets go up:

--

On all Australian Horse Racing, select Fixed Win and if the State Official Price (SOP) or Official Price (in the absence of an SOP) supplied by Dynamic Odds is greater - we will pay you out at the bigger odds. T&Cs apply.

For example, if Fixed Win pays $17.00 on your selection and the SOP pays $21.00, you will be paid at $21.00! More information on SOP.

If no Official Price is declared by Dynamic Odds at a particular track, for these meetings any winning bets will be paid at the Fixed Price taken at the time of bet placement.

If you select Fixed Place, Forecast or Tricast, you will receive the price taken at the time of bet placement.

With our Official Price Guarantee included in an extensive range of Horse Racing promotions, you can enjoy great value at bet365.

Enjoy the action!
The bet365 Team

Know when to stop. Don’t go over the top. Gamble responsibly. bet365 is committed to responsible gambling, for more information go to www.gamblinghelponline.org.au or call 1800 858 858.

Official Price Guarantee Significant Terms and Conditions

- On all Australian Horse Racing Fixed Price Win bets we will pay out at the best available price from either bet365’s Fixed Price at the time of bet placement or the State Official Price (SOP)/Official Price (in the absence of an SOP) supplied by Dynamic Odds. For example, if the Fixed Price pays $17.00 on your selection and the SOP pays $21.00, you will get paid at $21.00.
- If no Official Price is declared by Dynamic Odds at a particular track, for these meetings any winning bets will be paid at the Fixed Price taken at the time of bet placement.
- Fixed Price enhancement does not apply to Futures/Ante-Post prices, Concession (Cover) Bets or In-Play prices. In the event of a scratching, deductions may apply should the SP be the highest final price. Dead-Heat rules apply.
- On all Australian Horse Racing, if you select Fixed Place, Forecast or Tricast, you will receive the price taken at the time of bet placement.

--
« Last Edit: 2017-Jun-05, 12:55 PM by samatt »

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6241
« 2017-Jun-05, 01:40 PM Reply #1 »
Hmmmm,

The usual no generosity for place bets .....

If only the likes of Peter Mair thought about why.

Fours

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2761
« 2017-Jun-05, 03:02 PM Reply #2 »
How would this apply to bets made prior to scratchings eg the day before

I am often guilty of taking a worse price before scratchings that what is available after (I usally back roughies)

Sounds like a good safeguard for me

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7434
« 2017-Jun-09, 06:33 PM Reply #3 »
Before the restrictions and rule changes Bet365 used to have a tote guarantee on place bets.

If you took a place fixed odds bet in a field of 8 on Thursday night and the race had scratchings and ended up paying only 2 divys on the Saturday Tote - you still had your price (less deductions)  if it ran third but got payed the higher tote divy if it won or ran second - made betting the place early in 8 horse fields very attractive.   emthup

Offline westie

  • Group 1
  • User 8
  • Posts: 14782
« 2017-Jul-10, 07:34 PM Reply #4 »
Exclusive: Teenager takes bet365 to court over £1m 'won' on horse races
Nick Townsend and Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter - The Telegraph

A student is suing one of Britain’s biggest bookmakers for refusing to pay out £1 million on a winning bet on the horses. In a battle of David vs Goliath proportions, Megan McCann, who was just 19 when she placed the bet, has lodged a writ in the High Court in Northern Ireland against Hillside (UK Sports) LP, the company which operates bet365, an online betting company run by the UK’s wealthiest businesswoman.

Miss McCann, who lives near Belfast, claims that she is owed £1,009,960 (AU$1.7 million) by bet365, which was co-founded and run by Denise Coates, who is said to be worth £3.2 billion. Miss McCann staked almost £25,000 on 12 different horses in four relatively obscure races, winning £985,000 from the betting giant. But the betting company, whose chief executive is Ms Coates, has declined to honour the wager.

It has insisted that Miss McCann is in “flagrant breach” of its own terms and conditions because the firm is convinced the original betting stake was supplied by a ‘third party’. In legal letters from bet365’s lawyers, Miss McCann found herself accused of fraud and cheating. Miss McCann is understood to vehemently deny any wrongdoing.

The successful wager involved a total of 960 £13 each way ‘Lucky 15’ bets placed on 12 horses running in the 6.10 at Bath, the 7.20 at Kempton, and the 7.00 and 8.30 at Naas in Ireland on June 22 last year. ‘Lucky 15’ bets allow a combination of accumulated winnings. But rather than pay up, bet365 has withheld the sum as well as Miss McCann’s initial stake of £24,960. Exasperated at bet365’s refusal to pay up, she called in lawyers who issued a write in May in the High Court in Belfast.

The writ, seen by the Telegraph, accuses Bet 365 and its Gibraltar-based parent company of breach of contract and demands damages of £1,009,960.
A day after her ‘win’, Miss McCann contacted bet365 to withdraw her money. From documents seen by this newspaper, it is understood that a bet365 representative, via the website’s ‘live chat’ service, congratulated the customer and confirmed the request.

The following day, she received a telephone call from another staff member who asked a number of questions. These bizarrely included: “What is your star sign?” After answering all queries with regards to the bet and her identity apparently satisfactorily confirmed by the agent, Miss McCann was advised that the money would be processed within 48 hours. The money never materialised. Instead Miss McCann’s account was suspended, and then closed.

Even the £24,960 stake has not been returned. At the heart of bet365’s refusal to pay is the betting firm’s insistence that Miss McCann breached a ‘no third party’ rule, which insists the whole stake must be put up by the customer alone.

Miss McCann’s lawyers dispute that she agreed to such a rule, which are buried within terms and conditions which are “too lengthy, too complex and much too vague for the average customer to understand.” Such a rule might also effectively prevent syndicates from betting.

Her lawyers contend that the wording of such a ‘no third party rule’ clause effectively means that “the husband who puts a bet on the winner of X-factor for his wife, or on the winner of the Grand National, would have those winnings ‘robbed’ of him.” The case brought by Miss McCann could have profound implications for all customers betting online.

Misss McCann’s lawyers, in their correspondence to bet365, allege that its terms and conditions amount to “nothing more than a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ wish list”.
In one legal letter, seen by The Telegraph, her lawyers wrote: “Our client’s case is very straightforward. She placed a bet with your client. She won. She is entitled to her winnings.”
In one response, bet365’s lawyers replied: “You claim that this dispute is simply about your client placing a bet; and being entitled to winnings.

"This is wrong. it is a case in which your client has been operating the account... using the funds of and for the benefit of third parties, in flagrant breach of our client’s terms.”
The letter goes on: “Our client has reasonable grounds to suspect your client to be guilty of criminal offences including fraud by false representation; cheating or attempted cheating.”

The case has echoes of a previous dispute involving Barney Curley, an Irish gambler and racehorse trainer. In May 2010, accumulator bets on four horses running on the same day – three trained by Curley – netted a total of £3.9m. On that occasion, another online betting company refused – initially - to pay out £823,000 of the total winnings to Curley’s relatives.

After legal action was instigated, that company eventually paid out in full. Miss McCann has hired the same lawyer Andrew Montague, who represented Curley, to fight her case.
Mr Montague said: “This is something of a ‘déjà vu’ scenario for me, but as the case is now before the Belfast High Court, I am not in a position to comment further.”
A spokesman for bet365 said: “A full investigation has been carried out into the circumstances of the bet that was placed.

"Bet365 is entirely satisfied the circumstances are such that winnings are not payable in relation to it. "We expect this position to be upheld at trial. We are not prepared to comment further whilst litigation is ongoing.” Bet365 was launched in 2000 and has turned into one of Britain’s most profitable companies, based in Stoke but registered offshore in Gibraltar.
Ms Coates, 49, a mother-of-five launched the business with her brother John Coates. The company is now worth an estimated £4.5 billion and Ms Coates owns just over half. Forbes estimates her wealth at £3.2 billion.

The most recent company accounts show that she took home £117.5 million, making her Britain’s highest paid businesswoman.
Her basic pay of £54 million was topped up by a £63.5 million dividend. Ms Coates' father Peter is the chairman of Stoke City Football Club .
Bet365’s name has become familiar to sports fans during TV ad breaks at half-time of Sky’s Premier League games as actor Ray Winstone’s gravelly tones seductively remind them to make bets while matches are still being played.

The alleged refusal of online betting companies to honour wagers is now subjected to a joint investigation by the Gambling Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority. Sarah Harrison, Gambling Commission’s chief executive, has said: “Gambling operators must treat customers fairly – but some have been relying on terms that are unclear with too many strings attached.”  

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/exclusive-teenager-takes-bet365-to-court-over-%c2%a31m-won-on-horse-races/ar-BBE7pvW?ocid=spartandhp#image=1

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2761
« 2017-Jul-10, 08:23 PM Reply #5 »
A 'welsher' is a 'welsher' . . no matter the nationality

"You puts up your money and you takes your chances!" . . and you pay up if you lose  . . no matter which side of the betting fence you are on



How many 'boaties' benefit these  :censored:  . . yet they welsh if a couple go against them

No doubt the kid was betting for a third party . . probably one who had been banned . . but if 365 didn't have their radar up, and accepted the bets, they are morally (and hopefully) legally obliged to 'weigh in'


Same moral level as blackjack operators banning 'counters'

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2761
« 2017-Jul-10, 08:27 PM Reply #6 »
Golly the 'censor button' is a bit prudish . . I only said  :censored:  (g/r/u/b/s)

Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 19567
« 2017-Jul-10, 08:47 PM Reply #7 »
Arthur

I think maybe it's your censor that is prudish.


Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2761
« 2017-Jul-10, 09:35 PM Reply #8 »
Inclined to agree . .




And . . if

"A gentleman is one who owns up, pays up, and shuts up . .

These  :censored: are not gentlemen . . or in this case gentle-ladies
« Last Edit: 2017-Jul-10, 09:37 PM by arthur »

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10713
« 2017-Jul-10, 09:43 PM Reply #9 »
 :censored:        ?

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10713
« 2017-Jul-10, 09:44 PM Reply #10 »
:censored:        ?

mine got censored also Arthur ?

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7203
« 2017-Jul-10, 10:36 PM Reply #11 »
grubs

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20953
« 2017-Jul-10, 11:55 PM Reply #12 »
Welchers. I've been welched on twice by foreign bookmaking firms operating in Australia. One even apologised to me!!!

Unfortunately there appears to be zero consumer protection in Australia when it comes to foreign bookmaking firms - I'd like to call them English bookmaking firms but like Apple, Google, etc they are allowed by governments around the world to falsely claim that they are domiciled in some obscure country to avoid paying tax.

Government bodies like the ACCC will come out and stop ASX listed companies like Woolies and Coles giving their customers an extra 4 cents a litre off at the petrol station to protect and serve the German shareholders of Aldi, so I suppose you could forget about our governments - state and federal - ever giving a stuff about our wagering consumers if a similar thing happens here.

And people reckon I'm cynical in concluding that the "brown paper bag" economy is alive and well - whether it be direct payments to politicians or "donations" to the political parties they represent, or donations to media proprietors via advertising or heaven knows what other "donations" off the books.

Good luck to Miss McCann. If she wins she should get significantly more because it means Bet365 were being dishonest - but we all know that will never happen. She'll be lucky to get costs.

The Irish High Court.  That was the one that let Bob Trimbole stay in Ireland to avoid prosecution in Australia, wasn't it  :chin:


Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6241
« 2017-Jul-11, 01:03 AM Reply #13 »
legal outcomes,

1) terms and conditions do spell out no third party AND this is widely known in the betting 'community' so then we go to :-

a) are the terms capable of being thrown out by the court as unconscionable or unenforceable?
b)  is there a 3rd party ? if not demonstrated they lose

Most 19 year old students are rather broke albeit more commonly these days some attractive lasses earn oodles of money in the  sex industry.....

I am pretty sure the British courts recognise 'bets' as enforceable contracts these days and in any case they always should have when well documented as all of the elements of a contract are satisfied when bets are not legally deemed to be illegal.

Not returning the bet stake ...... The court should throw the book at them for this no matter what decision they make and charge punitive penalties in addition to interest at market rates.

Fours


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20953
« 2017-Jul-11, 01:08 AM Reply #14 »

Not returning the bet stake ...... The court should throw the book at them for this no matter what decision they make and charge punitive penalties in addition to interest at market rates.

Fours

Good point fours.

Hanging on to the stake whilst saying the bet is void?

Goes a long way to showing the true colours of these blokes.  emthdown

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6241
« 2017-Jul-11, 02:12 AM Reply #15 »
court arguments,

No doubt the company will want to see the money trail and argue the money was never hers.

No doubt the company will try to argue she is in fact a clueless 'agent' acting for a very clued in barred or limited  party.

They will argue that barring 3rd parties OR in this case more importantly limiting their risk as a bookmaker is a legitimate part of their business and there fore the terms are nt only conscionable but necessary to stay in business.

Fours
ps for those that don't remember Packer put a bookie out of business by doubling up until he finally won - beat him with scale rather than skill.

Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1123
« 2017-Jul-11, 12:44 PM Reply #16 »
Of course Bet365 will be going through their records and Voiding all (losing) bets that they suspect were placed for the benefit of 3rd parties?? They would obviously want to take the moral high ground and show that they wouldn't just be doing it for winners would they??

I actually tried to have a $20 bet with them last week and they cut me back to $1............the biggest bookie in the world?? gimme a break................what would Big Bill Waterhouse think?

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8637
« 2017-Jul-11, 04:00 PM Reply #17 »
Another successful horse race betting mate has been limited to a $5 bet with a corporate, no name no packdrill, on anything. Elections, Academy awards, you name it, he might be smart on horse race betting but knows little to nothing about politics etc , yet the still limit him to a $5 bet. They are a joke.

Offline westie

  • Group 1
  • User 8
  • Posts: 14782
« 2019-Dec-05, 06:51 PM Reply #18 »
In this sports betting company, the winners are called 'problem customers'

Author
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-05/bet365-whistleblower-says-winners-given-delays/11768486

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7203
« 2019-Dec-07, 06:04 PM Reply #19 »
I don't see how Bet365 is doing anything that much wrong.

And the more I think about it my bet is the complainant is simply doing the bidding of Fletcher (back with a vengeance after walking free) or someone of his ilk.

Something very fishy about those punters able to consistently beat Corporates in in-play betting.

The ABC should have instead been investigating Tabcorp who is a far bigger offender.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5034
« 2019-Dec-07, 08:45 PM Reply #20 »


Nothing wrong with 'Fletcher' -- plenty wrong with corporates, especially TABs, and administrators

In an industry that basks in the glow of 'smoking stings', the idea that some of the smokers would let a professional in on the game is hardly cause for complaint.

I am keen to see the beneficiaries of 'unexpected' winners asked to explain 'who told them what'.

Until integrity embraces disclosure it is an ephemeral thing.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap