hibs.net Messageboard

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 80 of 80

Thread: Betting Dispute

  1. #61
    Testimonial Due pacoluna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Leith
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by McS****y View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Did the odds also shift with other bookies do you know? Or was it just BetBright?

    I'm confused as to why you added the selection at 5/6 in the first place - did you not notice that it wasn't good value, or were you just picking teams based on their league position/recent record and odds?
    I thought 5/6 was a reasonable price giving the fact I thought they would be playing a strong team as did the bookies. Difference is when they found out the line ups they revised the odds however I didn't have a chance to revise the bet. I'm not sure with regards to other bookies prices.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #62
    @hibs.net private member McSwanky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by pacoluna View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought 5/6 was a reasonable price giving the fact I thought they would be playing a strong team as did the bookies. Difference is when they found out the line ups they revised the odds however I didn't have a chance to revise the bet. I'm not sure with regards to other bookies prices.
    So in my opinion that's a change in circumstances (not dissimilar to you placing an in play bet in a football match just before a goal is scored against the team you back) - not a palp. The odds were correct at the time the bet was placed.

    I hope you have some joy with this, I always like to see the bookies getting stuffed by the punter, but I really don't think you've got a case here.

    Good luck!

  4. #63
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Probably a better analogy using your example would be if the punter had bet a tenner on Little Mix with their new Xmas song that had been promoted prior to being released into the charts and the punter was offered the odds of evens on the understanding it was that particular song that was being released.

    Then Little Mix dump the song that had been promoted as their new Xmas song and release an entirely different song that is now generally regarded as being nowhere near as good as the prior song.

    The Bookmakers revise their odds to reflect the Little Mix Xmas song is now nowhere near as good as the one thought was going to be released and are now offering 20/1 on Little Mix being the Xmas no 1.

    The Punter then contacts the Bookmakers upon learning of the new hugely inflated odds and seeks the odds on his coupon be updated as the betting has been revised as per the changed circumstances.

    Should the Punter be offered the new odds of 20/1 in light of the Bookmakers altering the odds upon learning Little Mix are now not challenging Xmas No 1 with the original promoted song and have released another different song not thought to be anywhere near as good?

    Glory Glory
    I think a better analogy would be if a punter had bet on Little Mix being Christmas Number One before the punter knew what song they would be releasing around that time. The punter placed the bet hoping they would release the best song from their album, but he knew this was not guaranteed to be the case. The punter was offered and accepted odds of 5/6 on the understanding that Little Mix would be the group, but the song was unknown.

    Little Mix don't release the best song from the album and, instead, release a different song which is regarded as not being as good. The bookmakers revise their odds on Little Mix being Christmas Number One to 14/5 to reflect what they considered is a decreased likelihood of Little Mix being Christmas Number One. Should the punter be offered the revised odds for his bet? In my opinion, no.

  5. #64
    The line-ups have a major impact on the result of the game and with it the market.
    That's why it's not uncommon for the markets to be suspended and restarted when they are announced. Same thing happens in horse racing at final decs or if there is a horse supplemented. In running, the markets will be suspended if there is a goal scored or a pen given. Because all these things have a direct effect on the chance, therefore price of a selected outcome. Team line ups are a fixed announcement. If you choose to go in before they happen you are aware of what may happen.
    On a slightly similar theme is an old thread on a racing forum discussing whether bets should be revised following a jockey change: http://theracingforum.co.uk/forums/t...void-your-bet/

  6. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think a better analogy would be if a punter had bet on Little Mix being Christmas Number One before the punter knew what song they would be releasing around that time. The punter
    placed the bet hoping they would release the best song from their album, but he knew this was not guaranteed to be the case. The punter was offered and accepted odds of 5/6 on the understanding that Little Mix would be the group, but the song was unknown.

    Little Mix don't release the best song from the album and, instead, release a different song which is regarded as not being as good. The bookmakers revise their odds on Little Mix being Christmas Number One to 14/5 to reflect what they considered is a decreased likelihood of Little Mix being Christmas Number One. Should the punter be offered the revised odds for his bet? In my opinion, no.
    There is a major flaw in your analogy that the Bookmakers would have to factor into the price the song was unknown at the time the bet was struck and I'm quite certain odds of 5/6 would be very poor odds and the bet would not be considered by any reasonable punter on the fact of that unknown element.

    In that case I would surmise far greater odds would be offered on the account of the unknown element of what song was being released whereby the punter would have no argument when a lesser song was chosen.

    Glory Glory
    Last edited by northstandhibby; 01-02-2017 at 03:00 PM.

  7. #66
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is a major flaw in your analogy that the Bookmakers would have to factor into the price the song was unknown at the time the bet was struck and I'm quite certain odds of 5/6 would be very poor odds and the bet would not be considered by any reasonable punter on the fact of that unknown element.

    In that case I would surmise far greater odds would be offered on the account of the unknown element of what song was being released whereby the punter would have no argument when a lesser song was chosen.

    Glory Glory
    I don't think that's a flaw; I think that corrects the flaw in your previous analogy.

    The song is unknown in the same way the team line-ups are unknown. Little Mix could release any song from their album; the football club could select any players from their squad.

    I don't understand why you think the bookie would offer greater odds because of the unknown element. To continue the analogy, the circumstances are such that the song to be released is unknown but it could be the best song. Accordingly, to protect their interests, the bookie would offer the odds of Little Mix being Christmas Number One on this scenario, as this is most likely to happen. However, both the bookie and the punter know that the bet is on Little Mix to be Christmas Number One and the song they will release is currently unknown.

    If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, you think the bookies should offer higher odds on Little Mix being Christmas Number One, to reflect the element of uncertainty about the song choice. I disagree. That would (potentially) reward the punter for two gambles in one bet. The first gamble is that they release the best song and the second is that the song reaches number one for Christmas. Whilst there is an element of jeopardy for the punter in that the best song may not be the one chosen, their bet is not a loser as there's still a chance the song which is release will be Christmas Number One. Essentially, there would be two markets at play here; "Which Little Mix Song Will Be Released Before Christmas?" and "Will Little Mix be Christmas Number One?"

    To break out from the analogy here, it is possible to place bets in a football context on two markets with one bet (i.e. scorecasts, wincasts etc). However, these rely on a relatively narrow (and known) set of variables, for example, the likelihood of a certain player scoring and a certain match outcome. In reference to the OP's bet, this would require a massive numbers of markets for every game as the implication is the punter only wishes to take certain odds if specific players are selected to play. I'd wager (pardon the pun) that there would be zero appetite for such a bet facility amongst punters and certainly not enough to justify the massive logistical outlay this would likely require from the bookie.

    Of course, the facility to bet on a match outcome based on the line-ups already exists to a limited extent. It just requires the punter to wait until the line-ups are announced before deciding whether to bet. I don't mean that disrespectfully to the OP, as I understand that was not the most feasible option for his acca!

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think that's a flaw; I think that corrects the flaw in your previous analogy.

    The song is unknown in the same way the team line-ups are unknown. Little Mix could release any song from their album; the football club could select any players from their squad.

    I don't understand why you think the bookie would offer greater odds because of the unknown element. To continue the analogy, the circumstances are such that the song to be released is unknown but it could be the best song. Accordingly, to protect their interests, the bookie would offer the odds of Little Mix being Christmas Number One on this scenario, as this is most likely to happen. However, both the bookie and the punter know that the bet is on Little Mix to be Christmas Number One and the song they will release is currently unknown.

    If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, you think the bookies should offer higher odds on Little Mix being Christmas Number One, to reflect the element of uncertainty about the song choice. I disagree. That would (potentially) reward the punter for two gambles in one bet. The first gamble is that they release the best song and the second is that the song reaches number one for Christmas. Whilst there is an element of jeopardy for the punter in that the best song may not be the one chosen, their bet is not a loser as there's still a chance the song which is release will be Christmas Number One. Essentially, there would be two markets at play here; "Which Little Mix Song Will Be Released Before Christmas?" and "Will Little Mix be Christmas Number One?"

    To break out from the analogy here, it is possible to place bets in a football context on two markets with one bet (i.e. scorecasts, wincasts etc). However, these rely on a relatively narrow (and known) set of variables, for example, the likelihood of a certain player scoring and a certain match outcome. In reference to the OP's bet, this would require a massive numbers of markets for every game as the implication is the punter only wishes to take certain odds if specific players are selected to play. I'd wager (pardon the pun) that there would be zero appetite for such a bet facility amongst punters and certainly not enough to justify the massive logistical outlay this would likely require from the bookie.

    Of course, the facility to bet on a match outcome based on the line-ups already exists to a limited extent. It just requires the punter to wait until the line-ups are announced before deciding whether to bet. I don't mean that disrespectfully to the OP, as I understand that was not the most feasible option for his acca!
    Your flaw in no way corrects my analogy.

    The Bookmakers would shorten or lengthen the odds upon knowing what song was being released. Therefore they would have to factor into their odds the fact they do not know which song it was that was being released.

    If they knew what song it was and it was a song they thought had a decent chance of winning the Xmas no 1 spot they would apply the odds accordingly.

    If they knew what song it was and it was a song they thought did not have a decent chance of winning the Xmas no 1 spot they would apply the odds accordingly.

    If they did not know what song was being released they would apply the odds accordingly.

    In each of these cases a punter would be satisfied the correct odds were given according to the variable circumstances.


    A football team normally has at least 6 or 7 known starters. The Bookmaker would I surmise already have assumed the line up will be more or less similar to the week before save for 2-3 possible changes being brought in and the odds will normally reflect quite accurately who should be favourites or not or if a draw was the most likely outcome.

    There is not normally such huge fluctuations in fixed odds football coupons as far as I'm aware and the man had every right to ask why there was such a one on a game that took place on his winning coupon.

    Glory Glory
    Last edited by northstandhibby; 02-02-2017 at 04:37 PM.

  9. #68
    @hibs.net private member lord bunberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    9,829
    Little mix are pish

  10. #69
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,598
    Quote Originally Posted by McS****y View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In a word, no. If the punter has placed a bet on Little Mix being Christmas number one and has accepted the odds offered at that point, the bet stands. It's a gamble after all... If the bet was on a particular song reaching number one, then that's an entirely different story. Things happen, circumstances change.

    How about if I place a bet on Liverpool to win a home match against Sunderland at 1/3, then both their goalies bizarrely get injured in the warm up, meaning they have to play an outfield player in sticks? Would you expect the bookies to contact everyone who placed a bet on Liverpool advising them of this dramatic news and asking if they would like to place their bet again at the new odds of 4/6? Or if said outfield player then chucks one in his own net in the first minute of the game, meaning the odds jump out to 2/1? What degree do we go to?
    This pretty much sums it up.

    There wasn't an error in original price, the circumstances changed and the price was changed accordingly.

    In horse terms; as the odds were taken at the time rather than starting price then it's tough luck.

  11. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by lord bunberry View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Little mix are pish
    You prefer Girls Aloud?



    Glory Glory

  12. #71
    I only want to say the Scottish Cup is in the bag... Sir David Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    29,668
    Quote Originally Posted by lord bunberry View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Little mix are pish
    Joe Garner thinks so too.
    HIBERNIAN F.C. - SCOTTISH CUP WINNERS 2016

    21.05.2016

  13. #72
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Bookmakers would shorten or lengthen the odds upon knowing what song was being released. Therefore they would have to factor into their odds the fact they do not know which song it was that was being released.
    Why? They expect the best song to be released, so they set the odds based on that expectation. If the bookies wanted to take bets on which song would be released, they'd open a separate market. Doing otherwise would just increase their risk level unnecessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If they knew what song it was and it was a song they thought had a decent chance of winning the Xmas no 1 spot they would apply the odds accordingly.

    If they knew what song it was and it was a song they thought did not have a decent chance of winning the Xmas no 1 spot they would apply the odds accordingly.

    If they did not know what song was being released they would apply the odds accordingly.

    In each of these cases a punter would be satisfied the correct odds were given according to the variable circumstances.
    This is correct, but incomplete. If they didn't know what song was being released, but expected it to be the best song, they would offer odds based on the best song being the one that is released. Doing anything else is increasing their risk level unnecessarily. Punters and the bookies have the same expectation (that the best song will be released) so increasing the odds serves no purpose for the bookie.

    If a different song is released, the odds may lengthen when that is announced, but it doesn't change the circumstances of any bets placed previously.

  14. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why? They expect the best song to be released, so they set the odds based on that expectation. If the bookies wanted to take bets on which song would be released, they'd open a separate market. Doing otherwise would just increase their risk level unnecessarily.



    This is correct, but incomplete. If they didn't know what song was being released, but expected it to be the best song, they would offer odds based on the best song being the one that is released. Doing anything else is increasing their risk level unnecessarily. Punters and the bookies have the same expectation (that the best song will be released) so increasing the odds serves no purpose for the bookie.

    If a different song is released, the odds may lengthen when that is announced, but it doesn't change the circumstances of any bets placed previously.
    If a song by Little Mix and their management team had been promoting a specific song to be their Xmas No 1 and a betting market was opened on Little Mix being No 1 on the strength of that song with 5/6 as the price because its regarded as very good and a punter bets say 100 at 5/6, then to everyone's amazement they then release a regarded not so good song with the Bookmakers reacting by markedly lengthening the odds to 3-1 wouldn't the punter be within his rights to ask if he too could now have the 3-1 on offer?

    I would suggest of course the punter should be able to seek the bigger odds now on offer due to the markedly different circumstances of the bet.

    glory glory
    Last edited by northstandhibby; 06-02-2017 at 05:06 PM.

  15. #74
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If a song by Little Mix and their management team had been promoting a specific song to be their Xmas No 1 and a betting market was opened on Little Mix being No 1 on the strength of that song with 5/6 as the price because its regarded as very good and a punter bets say 100 at 5/6, then to everyone's amazement they then release a regarded not so good song with the Bookmakers reacting by markedly lengthening the odds to 3-1 wouldn't the punter be within his rights to ask if he too could now have the 3-1 on offer?

    I would suggest of course the punter should be able to seek the bigger odds now on offer due to the markedly different circumstances of the bet.

    glory glory
    I think the question you're asking isn't an appropriate analogy for the OP's football bet.

    To try and answer it, I'm going to assume that by "on the strength of that song" you don't mean the bet is specifically that Little Mix would be Christmas Number One with that song. I'm assuming the bet remains simply that Little Mix will be Christmas Number One. If that's the case, I think the answer to your question is no. I mean, the punter would be within their rights to ask, but I would expect the bookie to decline the request (legitimately). Ultimately, the bookie and the punter had the same information when the odds of 5/6 were offered and accepted.

    However, to bring this back to being an appropriate analogy for the OP's football bet, there's no indication that the club he/she bet on indicated they would be putting out a strong line-up (or a weak one for that matter). Regardless of what the OP may have expected, the bet was placed in the knowledge that the line-up was unknown.

  16. #75
    [QUOTE=Future17;4935474]I think the question you're asking isn't an appropriate analogy for the OP's football bet.

    To try and answer it, I'm going to assume that by "on the strength of that song" you don't mean the bet is specifically that Little Mix would be Christmas Number One with that song. I'm assuming the bet remains simply that Little Mix will be Christmas Number One. If that's the case, I think the answer to your question is no. I mean, the punter would be within their rights to ask, but I would expect the bookie to decline the request (legitimately). Ultimately, the bookie and the punter had the same information when the odds of 5/6 were offered and accepted.

    However, to bring this back to being an appropriate analogy for the OP's football bet, there's no indication that the club he/she bet on indicated they would be putting out a strong line-up (or a weak one for that matter). Regardless of what the OP may have expected, the bet was placed in the knowledge that the line-up was unknown.[/QUOTE

    The key question is - was the punter wrongfully refused the opportunity of being offered the revised fixed odds when he requested them due to a material change of circumstances regarding the match the Bookmakers had markedly lengthened the fixed odds on?

    As I have stated previously it will depend on the reasons given to the commission by the Bookmakers of the material change causing the revised fixed odds and why they decided to refuse what would at first glance appear to be a reasonable request by the punter prior to kick off to be offered the new revised fixed odds.

    It will be interesting to hear back from pacoluna as to the reasons offered up by the Bookmakers and the commission.

    glory glory

  17. #76
    Coaching Staff HUTCHYHIBBY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    EDINBURGH
    Age
    46
    Posts
    13,875
    FFS! Give it a rest with the Little Mix stuff.

  18. #77
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The key question is - was the punter wrongfully refused the opportunity of being offered the revised fixed odds when he requested them due to a material change of circumstances regarding the match the Bookmakers had markedly lengthened the fixed odds on?
    I would see the argument for that if a known fact, at the time of betting, had proven to be false. However, all that appears to have happened here is that an unknown changed to a known when the line-up was named and the bookie reacted. To suggest that the punter should be entitle to change their bet in these circumstances seems crazy to me.

    What that would effectively mean is that bookies would require to allow punters to renegotiate their odds every time odds lengthened, but would not be entitled to shorten the odds on existing bets. The bookies would go bust!

    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It will be interesting to hear back from pacoluna as to the reasons offered up by the Bookmakers and the commission.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    FFS! Give it a rest with the Little Mix stuff.
    Not a fan?

  19. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would see the argument for that if a known fact, at the time of betting, had proven to be false. However, all that appears to have happened here is that an unknown changed to a known when the line-up was named and the bookie reacted. To suggest that the punter should be entitle to change their bet in these circumstances seems crazy to me.

    What that would effectively mean is that bookies would require to allow punters to renegotiate their odds every time odds lengthened, but would not be entitled to shorten the odds on existing bets. The bookies would go bust!



    Agreed.



    Not a fan?
    I used to bet on fixed odds football coupons and have never encountered a situation similar to pacolunas when a 5/6 favourite was revised to near enough 3-1 outsiders.

    Either the Bookmaker made a palpable error as to the original odds or there was such a material change similar to a switching of first team to a near reserve team being put out instead and in that case the punter has every right to question why he was refused access to the new revised odds of 3-1 outsiders instead of 5/6 favourites.

    glory glory

  20. #79
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,598
    Quote Originally Posted by northstandhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I used to bet on fixed odds football coupons and have never encountered a situation similar to pacolunas when a 5/6 favourite was revised to near enough 3-1 outsiders.

    Either the Bookmaker made a palpable error as to the original odds or there was such a material change similar to a switching of first team to a near reserve team being put out instead and in that case the punter has every right to question why he was refused access to the new revised odds of 3-1 outsiders instead of 5/6 favourites.

    glory glory
    What if it is the other way round?

    Say Hibs were playing Barca in a friendly, we were 25-1 a week before the game.

    If Barca played their u18s and we won, would you accept being paid out less?

  21. #80
    Sorry to say but it's your own fault putting the bet on before the teams were released. Bookies are entitled to amend the price based on circumstances you should have waited until all the circumstances were known.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved