bookmaker ethics - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



bookmaker ethics - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: bookmaker ethics  (Read 3490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Frankelmydear

  • Maiden
  • User 2951
  • Posts: 2
O.P. « 2020-Oct-27, 06:22 AM »
Bcareful of Bbet - they do not honour matched deposits, then demand you still turnover the money before you can close your account

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 28138
« 2020-Oct-27, 08:16 AM Reply #1 »
Another horror story.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17185
« 2020-Oct-27, 10:05 AM Reply #2 »
In my experience that's a common condition.

The biggest rort is when there's a late scratching you're on the winner and the price you took suffers big deductions and  the SP is better than what they bet you all you get is the reduced price....and they think that's fair 

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 4824
« 2020-Oct-27, 11:35 AM Reply #3 »
The biggest rort with bookies are the doubles betting. My mate backed Very Elegant for both Cups, Sir Dragonet for the Cox / Cup as well as another couple including Van Dyck Cup double and Russian Camelot Cox / Cup double. He also had combos for all of them too.

His odds of VE for CC was 6/1 and MC was 12/1 but instead of 72/1, he got around 45 ish /1 while Sir Dragonet was 15/1 and 25/1 but he got around 150ish. The argument from both corps was that if they won the first leg, then their odds will be drastically reduced. So he asked the question on the combos ie of odds lengthen on the non winners ie VE / Van Dyck then will he get the better price and answer was no.

I don’t get it and neither does he.

Offline Frankelmydear

  • Maiden
  • User 2951
  • Posts: 2
« 2020-Oct-27, 12:50 PM Reply #4 »
thanks for your responses peeps.  i know this is a common thing but we need to warn people about the particularly bad ones - the punter hasnt had a voice for too long.  im gonna continue to blog the unethical ones until they act lawfully and reasonably

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 20991
« 2020-Oct-27, 01:53 PM Reply #5 »
Wait until the Punters' Representative hears about this thread. He'll be all over it.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13068
« 2020-Oct-27, 02:45 PM Reply #6 »
Wait until the Punters' Representative hears about this thread. He'll be all over it.

Sorry those odds will be too long for him JWH and he doesn't concern himself with the backwater country racing that Victoria is  :p

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2874
« 2020-Oct-27, 03:21 PM Reply #7 »
The biggest rort with bookies are the doubles betting . . . . I don’t get it and neither does he.

Can't agree that 'same horse/ reduced quote' condition is a rort, in that it is always clearly pointed out . . It is not applied out of the blue . .

I think it has been the case 'for ever' and has certainly been enforced since Even Stevens gave doubles bookies a 'short-back-and-sides in 1963 . .

I am too lazy to look in search, but I'm sure that this very topic was given plenty of air, a couple of years back . .

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2874
« 2020-Oct-27, 03:29 PM Reply #8 »
Make that 1962 . . I am older than I thought . .

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11374
« 2020-Oct-27, 06:23 PM Reply #9 »
In my experience that's a common condition.

The biggest rort is when there's a late scratching you're on the winner and the price you took suffers big deductions and  the SP is better than what they bet you all you get is the reduced price....and they think that's fair 

Giddy Up :beer:


the deductions are set by the government ( the bookies don't have to but they are a bookie )

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11374
« 2020-Oct-27, 06:24 PM Reply #10 »
Can't agree that 'same horse/ reduced quote' condition is a rort, in that it is always clearly pointed out . . It is not applied out of the blue . .

I think it has been the case 'for ever' and has certainly been enforced since Even Stevens gave doubles bookies a 'short-back-and-sides in 1963 . .

I am too lazy to look in search, but I'm sure that this very topic was given plenty of air, a couple of years back . .

another rule imposed by the Government

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11374
« 2020-Oct-27, 06:25 PM Reply #11 »
in short , I'm from the government and i'm here to help you      :lol:

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2874
« 2020-Oct-27, 07:48 PM Reply #12 »
another rule imposed by the Government

I don't think that 'the govt' has the power to tell bookies what prices to bet . .

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13068
« 2020-Oct-27, 08:22 PM Reply #13 »
Can't agree that 'same horse/ reduced quote' condition is a rort, in that it is always clearly pointed out . . It is not applied out of the blue . .

I think it has been the case 'for ever' and has certainly been enforced since Even Stevens gave doubles bookies a 'short-back-and-sides in 1963 . .

I am too lazy to look in search, but I'm sure that this very topic was given plenty of air, a couple of years back . .

Just 'cause it was in before you were born arthur doesn't make it right.

I'm still yet to hear a logical reason for it to be imposed.  :what:

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11374
« 2020-Oct-27, 08:55 PM Reply #14 »
Racing Doubles Same Horse Selection
13/03/2018•
Racing Doubles Same Horse Selection

A reduction may be applied to the price offered when the same horse is selected in both legs of a Racing Double. This reduction will generally apply when, in the view of TAB Sportsbet, the price in the second leg race will subsequently be reduced as a result of that horse winning the first leg.

Where this occurs, the price of the Racing Double will be reduced by a percentage based on the WIN price for your runner in the 2nd leg. The percentage deduction to be applied is shown in the table below.
 
Price Range   Percentage Reduction
of 2nd Leg
1.01 - 4.00   25
4.01 - 6.00   30
6.01 - 8.00   35
8.01 - 11.00   40
11.01 - 15.00   45
15.01 - 18.00   50
18.01 - 23.00   55
23.01 - 31.00   60
31.01 - 51.00   65
51.01 - 71.00   70
71.01 - 101.00   72.50
101.01 - 251.00   77.50
251.01 - 501.00   82.50


So, for example if you selected:
Makybe Diva - Caulfield Cup @ price of $10.00
Makybe Diva - Melbourne Cup @ price of $8.00

The deduction applied in the Melbourne Cup would be 35% giving an amended price of $5.20.

Thus your Racing Double Price = $10.00 x $5.20 = $52.00

The majority of Racing Doubles will not be affected by this situation. However if you do select the same horse to win both legs of a Racing Double:
Cash customers must check their tickets to confirm the amended price and if you are unhappy with the reduction, request the operator to cancel the bet.
Phone customers must listen carefully to the operator calling back your bet and if you are unhappy with the reduction, request the operator to cancel the bet.
Internet customers must check the Bet Confirmation slip prior to submitting the bet. Submitted bets cannot be cancelled.

found this ? not sure it helps

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11374
« 2020-Oct-27, 08:59 PM Reply #15 »
this is at the start of that link

Betting Rules
28/07/2020•
Betting Rules
 
There are various rules & regulations which govern Tabcorp's wagering & betting operations:

Rules governing the operation of TAB Racing (NSW, VIC & ACT) -

NSW Totalizator Betting Rules (Racing)
VIC Totalizator Betting Rules (Racing)
Tabcorp ACT Pty Ltd Totalisator Rules (Racing)
Rules governing the operation of TAB Sportsbet (NSW, VIC & ACT) -

TAB Sportsbet (NSW) Betting Rules
TAB Limited Fixed Price Racing Betting Rules
TAB Sportsbet (VIC) Betting Rules
Tabcorp ACT Pty Ltd Sports Bookmaking Rules
Rules governing the operation of QLD, SA, NT and TAS -
Queensland Wagering Rule 
South Australian Betting Operation Rules 
NT Totalisator Licensing and Regulation Wagering Rules
Tasmanian Betting Rules 


i would assume these rules are imposed by the government ?

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2874
« 2020-Oct-27, 09:05 PM Reply #16 »
doesn't make it right.
I'm still yet to hear a logical reason

Whether it is right, wrong, or logical . . It is not a rort if you are aware of the conditions of the  agreement that you are freely entering into . .

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11374
« 2020-Oct-27, 09:06 PM Reply #17 »
the troubling paragraph is       :stop:

A reduction may be applied to the price offered when the same horse is selected in both legs of a Racing Double. This reduction will generally apply when, in the view of TAB Sportsbet, the price in the second leg race will subsequently be reduced as a result of that horse winning the first leg.

Where this occurs, the price of the Racing Double will be reduced by a percentage based on the WIN price for your runner in the 2nd leg. The percentage deduction to be applied is shown in the table below.

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2874
« 2020-Oct-27, 09:25 PM Reply #18 »
A reduction may be applied to the price offered when the same horse is selected in both legs of a Racing Double. This reduction will generally apply when, in the view of TAB Sportsbet, the price in the second leg race will subsequently be reduced as a result of that horse winning the first leg.

Seems logical . . Particularly 'a la' C-C/ M-C situation . . Initiated by bookmakers . . endorsed by regulators . .

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13068
« 2020-Oct-28, 07:40 AM Reply #19 »
Whether it is right, wrong, or logical . . It is not a rort if you are aware of the conditions of the  agreement that you are freely entering into . .

Ageed arthur.

Still there's no logical reason for it and saying " the price in the second leg race will subsequently be reduced as a result of that horse winning the first leg." simply doesn't wash.

I'm taking my bet now before either result is known. How that ever came to be accepted is disgraceful.  emthdown

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17185
« 2020-Oct-29, 08:36 PM Reply #20 »
Punter is at odds with TAB
STEPHEN DRILL


 
AN ANGRY punter is demanding the TAB pay him almost $200,000 for three successful multi-bets – revoked because they changed the odds.

Andrew Mercaldi (inset), a father of one from Melbourne’s west, placed three wagers on a Major League Baseball match for a total outlay of $50, including a $20 bonus bet.

The odds were 2001-1 for the multi-bets on a Boston v W a s h i n g t o n game on August 29, with a potential return of $184,892.30, and it got up.

“We were jumping around for joy,” Mr Mercaldi, 34, said.

The biggest bet, which returned $120,000, was deposited into his TAB account that day, according to screenshots. But when he tried to transfer the money into his bank account, the payment was stopped.

Later that day, his TAB account payouts were changed, with new odds giving him a $196 return for all three bets.

Tabcorp claimed the inflated odds were a “technical error”, which it argued it was allowed to change.

ENDS

Technical error...bloody BIG one payout reduced from 6 figures to $196 TAB including stake no value there TAB will undoubtedly rely on their get out clause in the small print ...when you place a bet you enter into a contract....whether one party can vary it without the consent of the other is the question ...personally I think it's unconsionable conduct... mistake in law or mistake in fact....... one is you are deemed to know the law the other bad luck if you stuff up...I hope the punter gets paid the big amount.
Giddy Up :beer:

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 7352
« 2020-Oct-29, 09:00 PM Reply #21 »
Arsenal,

If it is simply out by 100 times ( 2 decimal places ) then the TABS argument will be that it is manifestly wrong.

Pretty sure the manifestly wrong argumnt has been used in a British case about golf odds. Not so long after that case betting agencies ceased trying to argue that bet pay outs were not enforceable by law.

Fours

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2190
« 2020-Oct-30, 01:14 AM Reply #22 »
Over 2600/1  a 2/1 chance. Hes bigger than 2600/1 to win the challenge.

Its a clear error.

Not dissimilar to when a bank makes an error and puts money in your bank  account and reverses it when they realise there's an error.


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 22963
« 2020-Oct-30, 08:44 AM Reply #23 »
This guy has learnt the same lesson I've learnt twice.

You do not trust wagering operators in this country. Especially if you are betting for big returns as is the case here.

Wagering Operators in Australia operate under the auspices of the Northern Territory Government - in other words they operate unregulated.

They can do whatever they want as long as their "friends" in the Northern Territory are kept happy.

I've been welched on twice - once by Betfair and an awful welching by Sportsbet where, similar to the guy above, they paid me then took money out of my account after manufacturing a reason to do so.

You bet with Australian wagering operators at your own risk.

At least the TAB pari-mutuel pools cannot be corrupted - unless your operator is paying rebat......oh hang on.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13068
« 2020-Oct-30, 09:03 AM Reply #24 »
Over 2600/1  a 2/1 chance. Hes bigger than 2600/1 to win the challenge.

Its a clear error.

Not dissimilar to when a bank makes an error and puts money in your bank  account and reverses it when they realise there's an error.

Of course you are 'technically' right Anti but where's the customer service?

Instead of shitting on the bloke for 'your' mistake why didn't someone pick up the phone, talk to the bloke, explain the situation and turn it around into a positive by offering him some concessions like free bets etc which obviously won't cover his windfall but at least wouldn't leave the sour taste he obviously has now.

Something like that would have taken someone 15 mins to put to bed and it would have never made the 'news'


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap