Betting Dispute

[pacoluna]

Hi Guys just looking to see your views..

Placed an accumulator online on saturday at around 10am, one of the teams in my acca were priced at 5/6. Two hours before kick off market for this game was suspended and prices were revised, their new price was 14/5!

The acca came in for £802.75. I went through their complaints procedure saying the price change should have been reflected in my acca. There lame excuse was that the price change was due to team line ups! Surely then the original odds of 5/6 should be classed as the bookie trading mistake! and I should have been giving the correct price of 14/5.

I believe I should have won £1663.88 with revised odds and have taking it to the gambling commission.




What's your opinions?

edit: I made contact with them regarding price change before the game had kicked off, telling them as the market had been closed and revised I felt I was with in my rites to look at the revised market and take new price.

[McSwanky]

Hi Guys just looking to see your views..

Placed an accumulator online on saturday at around 10am, one of the teams in my acca were priced at 5/6. Two hours before kick off market for this game was suspended and prices were revised, their new price was 14/5!

The acca came in for £802.75. I went through their complaints procedure saying the price change should have been reflected in my acca. There lame excuse was that the price change was due to team line ups! Surely then the original odds of 5/6 should be classed as the bookie trading mistake! and I should have been giving the correct price of 14/5.

I believe I should have won £1663.88 with revised odds and have taking it to the gambling commission.


What's your opinions?

My opinion is that you don't have a leg to stand on. You accepted the price of 5/6 on your coupon. Unfortunately the 'palpable error' rule only ever gets used one-way and that's in the bookie's favour.

Good luck with it if you try and appeal it, but I don't fancy your chances.

(Oh, and well done with your win!)

[pacoluna]

My opinion is that you don't have a leg to stand on. You accepted the price of 5/6 on your coupon. Unfortunately the 'palpable error' rule only ever gets used one-way and that's in the bookie's favour.

Good luck with it if you try and appeal it, but I don't fancy your chances.

(Oh, and well done with your win!)

Thanks
I accept prices fluctuate however this is not example, This is a trading mistake surely. revising odds due to team line ups , in this case I should be able to revise my bet and add them to the acca at their revised price.

[Killiehibbie]

Your bet stands at the prices you took at the time.

[pacoluna]

Your bet stands at the prices you took at the time.
Yes in fluctuating markets like horse racing, Not a match between two teams. 5/6 to 14/5 is an alarming price change. They knew something I didn't so they weren't transparent.

[Pretty Boy]

It will be deemed a palpable error and the ruling will go in the bookies favour.

Whether I agree with that or whether the decision would go in your favour if the roles were reversed is neither here nor there sadly.

[Killiehibbie]

Yes in fluctuating markets like horse racing, Not a match between two teams. 5/6 to 14/5 is an alarming price change. They knew something I didn't so they weren't transparent.Agreed it's a big swing but if they feel it was justified after hearing team news that's their prerogative. Would you have still backed them having seen team selection and price change?

[lord bunberry]

Unless it's guaranteed odds then you get the price you got when the bet was placed. If the odds had changed to 1/2 you would have been paid out on the original price.

[Speedy]

Hi Guys just looking to see your views..

Placed an accumulator online on saturday at around 10am, one of the teams in my acca were priced at 5/6. Two hours before kick off market for this game was suspended and prices were revised, their new price was 14/5!

The acca came in for £802.75. I went through their complaints procedure saying the price change should have been reflected in my acca. There lame excuse was that the price change was due to team line ups! Surely then the original odds of 5/6 should be classed as the bookie trading mistake! and I should have been giving the correct price of 14/5.

I believe I should have won £1663.88 with revised odds and have taking it to the gambling commission.


What's your opinions?

£802.75 is correct imo.

Out of interest, what game was it?

[pacoluna]

Unless it's guaranteed odds then you get the price you got when the bet was placed. If the odds had changed to 1/2 you would have been paid out on the original price.

Not if the boomaker says there was a palpable error as mentioned before with the odds, which there was.

[pacoluna]

£802.75 is correct imo.

Out of interest, what game was it?
Helsingborg against odense.

[Killiehibbie]

Not if the boomaker says there was a palpable error as mentioned before with the odds, which there was.No palpable error just, I imagine, a reversal of prices on the 2 teams after line ups were announced. Seems prices were roughly 9/4 Helsinborg and 11/10 Odense come kick off time.

[Speedy]

Helsingborg against odense.

Looks like it was a friendly. Did the winning team start with lots of reserves perhaps?

[northstandhibby]

Unless it's guaranteed odds then you get the price you got when the bet was placed. If the odds had changed to 1/2 you would have been paid out on the original price.

As much as I hope you win your argument which I do, I suggest this just about nails it because you would have expected the 5-6 to have been the betting price if the odds had decreased to 4/6 or 1/2 for example post bet. You would definitely have won the argument the 5/6 should stand if they had decreased the odds after your bet had already been transactioned.

Hope you win it but can't see it bud. Enjoy the cash.

Glory Glory

[Sir David Gray]

If I buy a pair of trainers for £50 and the next day the shop is selling them for £30, I wouldn't be due any refund.

There's not much difference here. You could just as easily have benefitted from a change in the odds and the bookies would have had to suck it up.

You are basically entering into a contract between yourself and the bookmaker, when you place a bet. It's unfortunate that the odds changed dramatically but I don't see there's anything that you'll be able to do about it.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Hi Guys just looking to see your views..

Placed an accumulator online on saturday at around 10am, one of the teams in my acca were priced at 5/6. Two hours before kick off market for this game was suspended and prices were revised, their new price was 14/5!

The acca came in for £802.75. I went through their complaints procedure saying the price change should have been reflected in my acca. There lame excuse was that the price change was due to team line ups! Surely then the original odds of 5/6 should be classed as the bookie trading mistake! and I should have been giving the correct price of 14/5.

I believe I should have won £1663.88 with revised odds and have taking it to the gambling commission.


What's your opinions?

Enjoy your £802.75.

[pacoluna]

If I buy a pair of trainers for £50 and the next day the shop is selling them for £30, I wouldn't be due any refund.

There's not much difference here. You could just as easily have benefitted from a change in the odds and the bookies would have had to suck it up.

You are basically entering into a contract between yourself and the bookmaker, when you place a bet. It's unfortunate that the odds changed dramatically but I don't see there's anything that you'll be able to do about it.

A lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact it was a trading error though their own admittance, the price didn't change due to an open market it changed due to a palpable error.

[pacoluna]

Agreed it's a big swing but if they feel it was justified after hearing team news that's their prerogative. Would you have still backed them having seen team selection and price change?
if its their prerogative to change the odds so drastically after revising the team news, the punter should be able to revise his selection.

[easty]

if its their prerogative to change the odds so drastically after revising the team news, the punter should be able to revise his selection.

Did they stop you revising your selection?

[pacoluna]

Did they stop you revising your selection?
yes which is my dispute, there was no transparency, as mentioned before odds are open to fluctuation, however this wasn't the case, they made a palpable error at pricing them at 5/6.

[McSwanky]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but if they'd somehow managed to advise you that the odds had moved from 5/6 to 14/5, and offered you the chance to 'edit your bet,' would you still have included that selection on your accumulator?

[Killiehibbie]

yes which is my dispute, there was no transparency, as mentioned before odds are open to fluctuation, however this wasn't the case, they made a palpable error at pricing them at 5/6.
If it was so obviously the wrong price why did you include it in the first place? I don't think you'd have backed them at 1/2 even if you thought they'd win.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

yes which is my dispute, there was no transparency, as mentioned before odds are open to fluctuation, however this wasn't the case, they made a palpable error at pricing them at 5/6.

I'm not sure why you asked for advice in the OP, it seems you just want someone to tell you that you should be paid out the higher amount, the consensus seems to be that that outcome is highly unlikely.

IBAS may also be worth contacting to help with your case, the bookies MIGHT end up offering a discretionary sum somewhere between the two amounts you mentioned.

[xyz23jc]

Agree with most on here that you'll be very lucky to get a 'result' against the bookies in this particular instance. However, if your luck and skill is anything to go by, then definitely worth a shout!! Who knows, you may 'shame' them into some sort of 'concessionary' payment whilst admitting no liability of course! Best of luck amigo. Cracking user name BTW! :thumbsup::agree::greengrin

[northstandhibby]

A lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact it was a trading error though their own admittance, the price didn't change due to an open market it changed due to a palpable error.

I understand my earlier post agreed with a poster stating you may not win your argument however I gave it a bit more thought and I came to the conclusion you indeed may have a valid argument based on the fact there are many cases of other punters having had their winnings vastly reduced upon Bookmakers realising the punter had been given wrongfully inflated odds at the time the bet was struck.

On that basis you certainly appear to have a case that the deflated odds you were given at the time of the struck bet were also wrongful and any winnings should therefore be increased.

The Bookmakers appear to have no qualms over reducing winnings if they think the odds were wrongfully inflated therefore I would argue the same should apply in the punters case of his/her bet when being struck the odds were wrongfully deflated.

Therefore I think you have a valid case but it could go either way as there are no guarantees the commission will agree with you as the Bookmakers may have had good reasons for dramatically increasing the odds post your bet being struck due to circumstances I'm not aware of.

However you appear to have a primae facie case.

Glory Glory

[Speedy]

yes which is my dispute, there was no transparency, as mentioned before odds are open to fluctuation, however this wasn't the case, they made a palpable error at pricing them at 5/6.

Was there actually a palpable error though?

What were the team line ups, were they first team players?

[WeeRussell]

A lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact it was a trading error though their own admittance, the price didn't change due to an open market it changed due to a palpable error.

You said in your OP that it was due to lineups. That's not a palpable error. That's them recognising that the price should be changed according to information that has come to light and them doing so. If you took a price in the bookies on a horse, and shortly the owner announced that Christian Nade would be riding said horse - the price would no doubt be adjusted based on this new learned information.. you wouldn't be entitled to the better price.

Had you filled-in the coupon which displayed the old price, and taken it to the counter AFTER the price had been adjusted... it would have been flagged and your server would have informed you "there's been a price-change" and you would have had the opportunity to edit your selections. (I appreciate there may not have been any counters or assistants involved but the same applies to an online slip). But you didn't.. the price-change came after you had chosen your selections and struck your bet.

You bet on a fixed odds coupon, and got the odds you selected. As much as I like to see the bookies fought against, I'm with the majority in that I can't see you having any grounds for appeal, based on the info you've given. Having said that, in my experience having a moan in any case sometimes earns you a free bet/some other form of gesture as it saves them hassle :greengrin

[northstandhibby]

You said in your OP that it was due to lineups. That's not a palpable error. That's them recognising that the price should be changed according to information that has come to light and them doing so. If you took a price in the bookies on a horse, and shortly the owner announced that Christian Nade would be riding said horse - the price would no doubt be adjusted based on this new learned information.. you wouldn't be entitled to the better price.

Had you filled-in the coupon which displayed the old price, and taken it to the counter AFTER the price had been adjusted... it would have been flagged and your server would have informed you "there's been a price-change" and you would have had the opportunity to edit your selections. (I appreciate there may not have been any counters or assistants involved but the same applies to an online slip). But you didn't.. the price-change came after you had chosen your selections and struck your bet.

You bet on a fixed odds coupon, and got the odds you selected. As much as I like to see the bookies fought against, I'm with the majority in that I can't see you having any grounds for appeal, based on the info you've given. Having said that, in my experience having a moan in any case sometimes earns you a free bet/some other form of gesture as it saves them hassle :greengrin

As you rightly refer to it may come down to the Bookmakers reasons for dramatically altering the odds post the mans bet. If there are no compelling reasons for the dramatic altering of the fixed odds he has a good case.

Glory Glory

[WeeRussell]

A lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact it was a trading error though their own admittance, the price didn't change due to an open market it changed due to a palpable error.

You said in your OP that it was due to lineups. That's not a palpable error. That's them recognising that the price should be changed according to information that has come to light and them doing so. If you took a price in the bookies on a horse, and shortly the owner announced that Christian Nade would be riding said horse - the price would no doubt be adjusted based on this new learned information.. you wouldn't be entitled to the better price.

Had you filled-in the coupon which displayed the old price, and taken it to the counter AFTER the price had been adjusted... it would have been flagged and your server would have informed you "there's been a price-change" and you would have had the opportunity to edit your selections. (I appreciate there may not have been any counters or assistants involved but the same applies to an online slip). But you didn't.. the price-change came after you had chosen your selections and struck your bet.

You bet on a fixed odds coupon, and got the odds you selected. As much as I like to see the bookies fought against, I'm with the majority in that I can't see you having any grounds for appeal, based on the info you've given. Having said that, in my experience having a moan in any case sometimes earns you a free bet/some other form of gesture as it saves them hassle :greengrin

[pacoluna]

You said in your OP that it was due to lineups. That's not a palpable error. That's them recognising that the price should be changed according to information that has come to light and them doing so. If you took a price in the bookies on a horse, and shortly the owner announced that Christian Nade would be riding said horse - the price would no doubt be adjusted based on this new learned information.. you wouldn't be entitled to the better price.

Had you filled-in the coupon which displayed the old price, and taken it to the counter AFTER the price had been adjusted... it would have been flagged and your server would have informed you "there's been a price-change" and you would have had the opportunity to edit your selections. (I appreciate there may not have been any counters or assistants involved but the same applies to an online slip). But you didn't.. the price-change came after you had chosen your selections and struck your bet.

You bet on a fixed odds coupon, and got the odds you selected. As much as I like to see the bookies fought against, I'm with the majority in that I can't see you having any grounds for appeal, based on the info you've given. Having said that, in my experience having a moan in any case sometimes earns you a free bet/some other form of gesture as it saves them hassle :greengrin

I don't expect to win this appeal through IPAS, but I am giving it a go. Other than it not being a palpable error its the lack of transparency that angers me:grr:. its as if the bookmaker can do what ever the hell they want. The base of my point is if there is a material change of the circumstances (as the SNP would say) the customer should be able to revise their selection and in this case i wanted the revised odds as it seemed fair giving the fact the price didn't change due to fluctuating market, but rather their inside knowledge that they didn't share with customer.

[Future17]

I would say part of the gamble of the bookies offering/punter taking odds before the line-ups are announced, is that you don't know what the line ups will be. In this case, the punter knew the odds that were being offered and knew the line-ups were not known to him/her. Those circumstances formed the basis of the bet.

If we accept the OP's position, that the bookie should have paid out on the enhanced odds which were made available at a later time, then we would have to accept that a bookie would be entitled to pay out at lower odds when the odds have been reduced after the bet was placed. I doubt anyone, including the OP, believes that should be the case.

[CapitalGreen]

I don't expect to win this appeal through IPAS, but I am giving it a go. Other than it not being a palpable error its the lack of transparency that angers me:grr:. its as if the bookmaker can do what ever the hell they want. The base of my point is if there is a material change of the circumstances (as the SNP would say) the customer should be able to revise their selection and in this case i wanted the revised odds as it seemed fair giving the fact the price didn't change due to fluctuating market, but rather their inside knowledge that they didn't share with customer.

What inside knowledge?

[northstandhibby]

I would say part of the gamble of the bookies offering/punter taking odds before the line-ups are announced, is that you don't know what the line ups will be. In this case, the punter knew the odds that were being offered and knew the line-ups were not known to him/her. Those circumstances formed the basis of the bet.

If we accept the OP's position, that the bookie should have paid out on the enhanced odds which were made available at a later time, then we would have to accept that a bookie would be entitled to pay out at lower odds when the odds have been reduced after the bet was placed. I doubt anyone, including the OP, believes that should be the case.

You make a fair point however when fixed odds are dramatically changed as is the case of the man posting on here then there is a case to answer as per what were the fundamental reasons for the Bookmakers altering them in such a manner.

The fixed odds in this case were greatly altered and the man deserves to know why and if he may have a case against the Bookmakers for wrongfully assuming the fixed odds were 5/6 when post his struck bet the fixed odds had very unexpectedly become 14/5.

It will depend on what reasons the Bookmaker puts forward to the commission for them greatly altering the fixed odds price.

Very interesting dispute here and while I think the man has a valid case it could go either way depending on the reasons put forward.

Glory Glory

[pacoluna]

Hi Guys just looking to see your views..

Placed an accumulator online on saturday at around 10am, one of the teams in my acca were priced at 5/6. Two hours before kick off market for this game was suspended and prices were revised, their new price was 14/5!

The acca came in for £802.75. I went through their complaints procedure saying the price change should have been reflected in my acca. There lame excuse was that the price change was due to team line ups! Surely then the original odds of 5/6 should be classed as the bookie trading mistake! and I should have been giving the correct price of 14/5.

I believe I should have won £1663.88 with revised odds and have taking it to the gambling commission.


What's your opinions?


edit: I made contact with them regarding price change before the game had kicked off, telling them as the market had been closed and revised I felt I was with in my rites to look at the revised market and take new price.

[northstandhibby]

edit: I made contact with them regarding price change before the game had kicked off, telling them as the market had been closed and revised I felt I was with in my rites to look at the revised market and take new price.

Changes the situation and argument slightly.

If you accept they were correct to change the price accordingly as per the circumstances of the match then your argument would be they refused you the opportunity to offer you the revised price prior to kick off or prior to no more bets allowed to be struck before kick off. They would have to give their reasons of why you were refused the new revised price as the circumstances of the match had inexorably changed the team's odds you had bet on. If you contacted them in a timely manner I can't see why they should not have afforded you the opportunity to amend the bet to the inflated odds due to the change of circumstances even if they have a rule on it.

An interesting dilemma.

Glory Glory

[Killiehibbie]

edit: I made contact with them regarding price change before the game had kicked off, telling them as the market had been closed and revised I felt I was with in my rites to look at the revised market and take new price.When they changed the prices do you think it would be fair for them to tell everybody who backed the other team that they should now accept a much lower price?

[pacoluna]

When they changed the prices do you think it would be fair for them to tell everybody who backed the other team that they should now accept a much lower price?
No I think they should be transparent and open the market for betting when they know what they are laying!

[Magnus]

If you contacted them in a timely manner I can't see why they should not have afforded you the opportunity to amend the bet to the inflated odds due to the change of circumstances even if they have a rule on it.

Because every bookie in the land and online would be inundated with punters (who didn't take BOG) wanting their bets amended as their selection had drifted in the market.

[pacoluna]

Because every bookie in the land and online would be inundated with punters (who didn't take BOG) wanting their bets amended as their selection had drifted in the market.

It didn't drift it was amended.

[Killiehibbie]

No I think they should be transparent and open the market for betting when they know what they are laying!There would be very few bets offered if that was the case, you'd be surprised how little they actually know about many of the bets they offer.

[RyeSloan]

There would be very few bets offered if that was the case, you'd be surprised how little they actually know about many of the bets they offer.

Exactly. Their story of the reason behind the change seems a bit of a stretch to me. I doubt they monitor the line ups and make huge price changes on such a match.

But I get the argument that the bet is placed on a fixed odds coupon...the price you take is the price you get.

[McD]

I don't expect to win this appeal through IPAS, but I am giving it a go. Other than it not being a palpable error its the lack of transparency that angers me:grr:. its as if the bookmaker can do what ever the hell they want. The base of my point is if there is a material change of the circumstances (as the SNP would say) the customer should be able to revise their selection and in this case i wanted the revised odds as it seemed fair giving the fact the price didn't change due to fluctuating market, but rather their inside knowledge that they didn't share with customer.


Is is the team lineup inside knowledge? Could you have found the same info yourself? (Not being smartarsed btw)

if the 'material change of circumstance' had been in your favour (for example, if you bet on Alloa to win at parkhead, and got good odds, then the lineups came out and Celtic were playing a reserve /youth team, therefore making your bet a good deal more likely to come up in your favour), would you offer the bookie a chance to revise the odds they'd given you prior?

[northstandhibby]

Because every bookie in the land and online would be inundated with punters (who didn't take BOG) wanting their bets amended as their selection had drifted in the market.

You're referring to normal betting markets when for instance a horses price drifts in or out normally dependent of money laid on it and it is up to the punter if they ask for the price its currently at when they put the bet on.

The man's fixed odds football bet we're discussing is a markedly different matter.

Glory Glory

[northstandhibby]

Is is the team lineup inside knowledge? Could you have found the same info yourself? (Not being smartarsed btw)

if the 'material change of circumstance' had been in your favour (for example, if you bet on Alloa to win at parkhead, and got good odds, then the lineups came out and Celtic were playing a reserve /youth team, therefore making your bet a good deal more likely to come up in your favour), would you offer the bookie a chance to revise the odds they'd given you prior?

The Bookies would have already factored into their price the likelihood of Celtic playing their reserves against Alloa. They have expert odds-checkers factoring in the likelihoods.

They're not rich by accident.

Glory Glory

[pacoluna]

Exactly. Their story of the reason behind the change seems a bit of a stretch to me. I doubt they monitor the line ups and make huge price changes on such a match.

But I get the argument that the bet is placed on a fixed odds coupon...the price you take is the price you get.
This was their email regarding price change..
Thank you for contacting BetBright.

Further to your recent call, please find below the response from our colleagues in Trading with regards to the selection in your acca placed:

"All prices are subject to fluctuation. The price has drifted alarmingly but this is a friendly match so the team he backed may be putting out a weakened team hence the price drift another explanation could be a change of venue and we will check to see if this is the issue. we will give customer option of either voiding or reselecting the chosen team at revised odds if this is the case but otherwise the bet will stand."

?I escalated again*to request your odds change enquiry , but as of yet this has not been confirmed. They have advised that they are looking to find out if there has been a venue change, and if there has been, we will give you option of voiding selected team or reselecting chosen team at revised odds. If this is not the case, the bet will stand.*

Unfortunately, we cannot be held liable for teams perhaps starting a weakened team, as appears to be the case here. Bets have been placed and accepted on all three selections*for this match, as as it currently stands these all remain as pending within the system, unless we possibly get confirmation of a venue change.*

Please don't hesitate to contact us again, should you have any further queries.

Kind regards,

Emma
Customer Service Quality Assurance

BetBright Support

[RyeSloan]

This was their email regarding price change..
Thank you for contacting BetBright.

Further to your recent call, please find below the response from our colleagues in Trading with regards to the selection in your acca placed:

"All prices are subject to fluctuation. The price has drifted alarmingly but this is a friendly match so the team he backed may be putting out a weakened team hence the price drift. another explanation could be a change of venue and we will check to see if this is the issue. we will give customer option of either voiding or reselecting the chosen team at revised odds if this is the case but otherwise the bet will stand."

?I escalated again*to request your odds change enquiry , but as of yet this has not been confirmed. They have advised that they are looking to find out if there has been a venue change, and if there has been, we will give you option of voiding selected team or reselecting chosen team at revised odds. If this is not the case, the bet will stand.*

Unfortunately, we cannot be held liable for teams perhaps starting a weakened team, as appears to be the case here. Bets have been placed and accepted on all three selections*for this match, as as it currently stands these all remain as pending within the system, unless we possibly get confirmation of a venue change.*

Please don't hesitate to contact us again, should you have any further queries.

Kind regards,

Emma
Customer Service Quality Assurance

BetBright Support

So basically they gave no firm reason for the change...

Good luck with your challenge but I'm not putting any money on you winning [emoji6]

[pacoluna]

So basically they gave no firm reason for the change...

Good luck with your challenge but I'm not putting any money on you winning [emoji6]
They are being deceitful, the price never drifted. market was closed then revised

[Speedy]

They are being deceitful, the price never drifted. market was closed then revised

That's what happens in football. If someone puts out their reserves then odds are revised accordingly because the likely result changes dramatically.

[McSwanky]

Out of interest, can you tell us all the selections on your accumulator?

[Killiehibbie]

The Bookies would have already factored into their price the likelihood of Celtic playing their reserves against Alloa. They have expert odds-checkers factoring in the likelihoods.

They're not rich by accident.

Glory Glory
They have expert odds compilers for major leagues and events but it's quite common nowadays to have junior staff looking after whole countries football betting with a basic algorithm and a comparison site for his knowledge. As for Betbright they are a bit of a joke.

[McSwanky]

Here's a scenario:

Say I put a tenner on Little Mix to be Christmas number one this year (I haven't) and the bookies give me odds of 3/1.

Then Paul McCartney dies on the 15th of December. His estate re-releases the all-time classic Frog Chorus song in time for the Christmas charts, which will clearly go to number one (for two reasons - Macca is deid, and the song is absolutely ****ing awesome). Paul McCartney jumps from 50/1 to 1/50, Little Mix go out to 100/1.

Should the bookies offer me the opportunity to cancel my bet, or take the new price? Or should my original bet stand?

[Killiehibbie]

Here's a scenario:

Say I put a tenner on Little Mix to be Christmas number one this year (I haven't) and the bookies give me odds of 3/1.

Then Paul McCartney dies on the 15th of December. His estate re-releases the all-time classic Frog Chorus song in time for the Christmas charts, which will clearly go to number one (for two reasons - Macca is deid, and the song is absolutely ****ing awesome). Paul McCartney jumps from 50/1 to 1/50, Little Mix go out to 100/1.

Should the bookies offer me the opportunity to cancel my bet, or take the new price? Or should my original bet stand?
They should treat every bet struck as a winner and get a young Mariah Carey lookalike to deliver your winnings.

[LustForLeith]

I hope you get a winner mate.

Bookies often move the goal posts and always in their favour.

I had a situation recently which while different from yours angered me just as much.

I had an 11/1 winner and tried to withdraw my money. I was then told I couldn't take out all the winnings in cash, some would need to be in the form of bonus cash that I hadn't played through enough plays to take out.

When I queried this they eventually paid out fully in cash as I placed the bet fully in cash. It wasn't part cash/part bonus funds.

Then I had another winning bet with the same bookie. I tried to withdraw my winnings but didn't get anything. When I cantacted them they said the bet had been settled and I wasn't a winner. I then went back with proof on the terms and condictions on the bet which showed I was a winner. They then took ages to settle it, claiming that it had been passed ot a third party. When I told them I was going to the gambling commission they suddenly paid out.

[McSwanky]

They should treat every bet struck as a winner and get a young Mariah Carey lookalike to deliver your winnings.

:scarf::hilarious

I'll pay it all back if they deliver the second part of the bargain!

[northstandhibby]

Here's a scenario:

Say I put a tenner on Little Mix to be Christmas number one this year (I haven't) and the bookies give me odds of 3/1.

Then Paul McCartney dies on the 15th of December. His estate re-releases the all-time classic Frog Chorus song in time for the Christmas charts, which will clearly go to number one (for two reasons - Macca is deid, and the song is absolutely ****ing awesome). Paul McCartney jumps from 50/1 to 1/50, Little Mix go out to 100/1.

Should the bookies offer me the opportunity to cancel my bet, or take the new price? Or should my original bet stand?

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

[McSwanky]

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 prior to being released 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 promoted song.

The Bookmakers revise their odds to reflect the Little Mix Xmas song is now nowhere near as good as the one thought 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 not challenging Xmas No 1 with the original promoted song and are have released another different song not thought to be anywhere near as good?

Glory Glory

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?

[northstandhibby]

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?

No-one said the Bookmakers should contact individuals directly.

The Punter in this case contacted the Bookmakers themselves prior to the event taking place to seek the change of circumstances revised odds and argue the new odds should also apply to their bet in light thereof.

Glory Glory

[McSwanky]

No-one said the Bookmakers should contact individuals directly.

The Punter in this case contacted the Bookmakers themselves prior to the event taking place to seek the change of circumstances revised odds and argue the new odds should also apply to their bet in light thereof.

Glory Glory

See, this is the bit I don't get. He struck a bet at a price which he and the bookies agreed on. Circumstances changed. Prices changed. That's the way it goes. That's why it's called gambling, you don't know what's going to happen in the future.

If it had been the other way round, he'd struck the bet at 14/5, the odds changed to 5/6 and the bookie phoned him up to ask if he'd mind if they edited the bet to reflect the new odds, he'd have (rightly) told them to bolt.

And I still haven't had an answer as to whether he would have actually still placed the bet given that the price had jumped so dramatically! If it was me, I would have probably removed the selection from my slip, but then I don't know Swedish football very well!

[pacoluna]

See, this is the bit I don't get. He struck a bet at a price which he and the bookies agreed on. Circumstances changed. Prices changed. That's the way it goes. That's why it's called gambling, you don't know what's going to happen in the future.

If it had been the other way round, he'd struck the bet at 14/5, the odds changed to 5/6 and the bookie phoned him up to ask if he'd mind if they edited the bet to reflect the new odds, he'd have (rightly) told them to bolt.

And I still haven't had an answer as to whether he would have actually still placed the bet given that the price had jumped so dramatically! If it was me, I would have probably removed the selection from my slip, but then I don't know Swedish football very well!

I stated before I wanted the revised odds not the selection to be voided. The bookies wouldn't phone me up they would refuse to pay out on original price on the basis of it being a palpable error that's a cert. The rules are in place to favour them.

[McSwanky]

I stated before I wanted the revised odds not the selection to be voided. The bookies wouldn't phone me up they would refuse to pay out on original price on the basis of it being a palpable error that's a cert. The rules are in place to favour them.

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?

[pacoluna]

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.

[McSwanky]

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!

[Future17]

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.

[Magnus]

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/topic/jockey-changes-should-you-have-option-to-void-your-bet/

[northstandhibby]

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

[Future17]

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. :greengrin

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!

[northstandhibby]

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

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

[lord bunberry]

Little mix are pish

[Speedy]

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.

[northstandhibby]

Little mix are pish

You prefer Girls Aloud?

:greengrin

Glory Glory

[Sir David Gray]

Little mix are pish

Joe Garner thinks so too.

[Future17]

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.


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.

[northstandhibby]

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

[Future17]

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.

[northstandhibby]

[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

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

FFS! Give it a rest with the Little Mix stuff.

[Future17]

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!


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

Agreed. :aok:


FFS! Give it a rest with the Little Mix stuff.

Not a fan? :greengrin

[northstandhibby]

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. :aok:



Not a fan? :greengrin

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

[Speedy]

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?

[HibernianJK]

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.