Ladbrokes tight bastards

[mickn]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4841315.Bookmaker_only_pays_out___31_on___7_1m_snow_bet/

 

If I don't win on my footie bets at the weekend can I go back and tell them I shouldn't have placed the bet and get my money back?

[Ponty]

I don't get it. What was his bet and why was it "wrong"?

[mickn]

Apparently he bet on what dates and in what towns/areas it would snow and was correct.

[Hatch]

Ladbrokes are correct.

[mickn]

Ladbrokes are correct.

 

Why?

[Rut]

One of his accys was that it would snow in:

 

1. Newcastle upon Tyne

2. Durham

3. Darlington

4. Bradford

5. Harrogate

6. Leeds

7. Wakefield

8. Huddersfield

9. Halifax

10. Cleveland

11. York

12. Derby

13. Stockport

 

Not sure of what the wording would be but these are obviously what they call 'linked bets'. If it snows in Newcastle it will probably snow in Durham.

 

A bit like what they now called 'scorecasts'. Say Saints are 7/1 to win 1-0. Lambert is 4/1 to score 1st. A double at 4/1 and 7/1 would pay 39/1. They won't be giving you 39/1 though - you'd get, what? 22/1 praps? Whatever - way less than 39/1. Basically if one happens it increases the chance of the other one happening so they cut the odds. Scorecasts are the biggest rip off going, sure they flash up great odds but they are nowhere near the true odds of it happening.

 

It's harsh on the guy in question - what he did was actually pretty smart thinking - but I doubt very much if he'll get his millions. There will be some small print to go with the 'snow bets' to stop this sort of bet.

 

I bet Ladbrokes have taken loads of these over the years though - wonder if they will be refunding all the invalid ones. Or will they claim that once the bet is placed it turns into singles like this bloke is now being paid out on.

 

Never mind all that though - imagine his face when he found out it had snowed in all those places. Calculator out - I'M F***** RICH!!!! Um - no you're not. Gutted.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Ladbrokes well in the wrong here IMO and should fork out at least half of it! It is not the blokes fault that the cashier got it wrong, and Ladbrokes should suck it up and honour his bet, they have more than enough in the bank I'm sure!! Betting companies really are scum, much like those who own casinos.

Edited 8 January, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Jillyanne]

Christ, I know him, he used to drink in my nans pub (The Corner Post).

[Wurzel]

Perfect explanation from Rut above.

 

It comes down to common sense really. Assume all the towns are priced individually at 5/1. Would you really expect to still get 5/1 on Durham once it is known that it is snowing in Newcastle? I doubt you'd even expect 1/10. That's why those sort of bets can't be included in accumulators, the result of one happening has a direct bearing on the result of (and subsequently odds offered) of another event happening.

[Hatch]

Do bookies still have a max payout as well,

 

Used to be about £100,000 last time I looked.

[trousers]

Simple solution to this one....

 

Every regular punter boycotts Ladbrokes until they pay this chap his winnings. They would soon lose more than the payout.

 

[KK the 2nd]

Ladbrokes well in the wrong here IMO and should fork out at least half of it! It is not the blokes fault that the cashier got it wrong, and Ladbrokes should suck it up and honour his bet, they have more than enough in the bank I'm sure!! Betting companies really are scum, much like those who own casinos.

 

I disagree. The guy is taking the p*ss. It's a ridululous bet and clearly can't be paid out on. It's a bit like having an acca on a single football match to end 0-0 at 8/1, no goalscorer at 8/1, the match to be a draw at 3/1, a draw half time and full time at 5/1. All the ourcomes are related and it's the same with this bet. You can write what you want on a betting slip but don't expect to be paid on daft bets like this. We'd all be millionaires and the bookies would be bust within weeks. BTW Rut's explanation is probably better.

Edited 8 January, 2010 by KK the 2nd

[Lord Duckhunter]

My understanding is a bet is a debt of honour and not enforcable by law. Bookies can't sue you to pay a gambling debt but they dont have to pay out on anything.They obviously pay out 99.9999% of the time, otherwide people wouldn't use that firm. However, this guy has no chance of winning through the courts.He may get something to make the bad publicity go away, but he wont win the fukll amount or anything near it.

[St_Tel49]

Simple solution to this one....

 

Every regular punter boycotts Ladbrokes until they pay this chap his winnings. They would soon lose more than the payout.

 

 

Big boss Ladbroke, or whoever he is, cannot be present for every transaction carried out by an employee. Some of them are not the sharpest tacks in the box and that is why the betting rule book exists and will over-ride errors made by an employee's negligence. Simples. Sad for the punter but there you go.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Ladbrokes well in the wrong here IMO and should fork out at least half of it! It is not the blokes fault that the cashier got it wrong, and Ladbrokes should suck it up and honour his bet, they have more than enough in the bank I'm sure!! Betting companies really are scum, much like those who own casinos.

 

In today's independant they were actually moaning that, due to the snow curtailing the horse racing, the bookies are being severely hit on their normal turnover of £80M a day!

 

You never meet a poor bookie.

[moon monkey]

It's gutting, the guy is my step aunties brother. He has been placing these bets for years and as soon as it happens, the cruelist of blows.

[scotty]

In today's independant they were actually moaning that, due to the snow curtailing the horse racing, the bookies are being severely hit on their normal turnover of £80M a day!

 

You never meet a poor bookie.

 

If a small independent bookie gets caned with a big loss he just legs it anyway. There was a guy in north baddesley, cant remember his name, (well I can but maybe shouldnt mention it;) ,) one of his punters struck lucky on a bet that should have paid a five-figure sum. The bookie just disappeared never to be heard from again

[saintjinksie]

Do bookies still have a max payout as well,

 

Used to be about £100,000 last time I looked.

 

i think its £1m because some matey had put a bet on the 2007 rugby world cup whic would have paid out £2.5m the bookies said their max is £1m. turns out, it was the same scenario, the bet should not have been allowed as an accumulator

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I think the law needs to be changed on all of this. Bookies need to be made more accountable for this type of mistake, the system should be water-tight and totally transparent in the 21st century, not all of these seedy 'behind closed doors' type rules.

[stuey]

Perfect explanation from Rut above.

 

It comes down to common sense really. Assume all the towns are priced individually at 5/1. Would you really expect to still get 5/1 on Durham once it is known that it is snowing in Newcastle? I doubt you'd even expect 1/10. That's why those sort of bets can't be included in accumulators, the result of one happening has a direct bearing on the result of (and subsequently odds offered) of another event happening.

 

But surely the odds are fixed at the time of the bet? Agreed if it snows in Newcastle then the odds of it snowing in Durham will be better. But our man has no forewarning that it will snow in either location. He can just as easily lose out if it DOESN'T snow in Newcastle, as the odds are it won't snow in Durham.

 

If you place an accumulator on the gee gees, you get the odds for each horse at the time you place your bet. If for example the favourite in the third race pulls out and the odds on your horse shorten dramaticly, your accumulator bet is unaffected. Same for the snow bet, he gets 5/1 on all towns fixed at the time of the bet.

[Wurzel]

But surely the odds are fixed at the time of the bet? Agreed if it snows in Newcastle then the odds of it snowing in Durham will be better. But our man has no forewarning that it will snow in either location. He can just as easily lose out if it DOESN'T snow in Newcastle, as the odds are it won't snow in Durham.

 

If you place an accumulator on the gee gees, you get the odds for each horse at the time you place your bet. If for example the favourite in the third race pulls out and the odds on your horse shorten dramaticly, your accumulator bet is unaffected. Same for the snow bet, he gets 5/1 on all towns fixed at the time of the bet.

 

Not really the same thing. Depending when a horse pulls out odds on others can still be reduced. But the scenario is sill different, Horse A winning has absolutely no effect on Horse B winning in a different race so the winnings from A can then be placed on B (accumulated).

In the snowing scenario the odds were given to snow in those places specifically. Snow in in one area would have an effect on the likelihood of it snowing in a neighbouring area. By including them all in an accumulator he was effectively making one bet on it snowing over the whole region that included those towns, the odds of which, if individual towns were quoted at say 5/1, would be unlikely to be more than about 7/1, if any higher at all.

[stuey]

Not really the same thing. Depending when a horse pulls out odds on others can still be reduced. But the scenario is sill different, Horse A winning has absolutely no effect on Horse B winning in a different race so the winnings from A can then be placed on B (accumulated).

In the snowing scenario the odds were given to snow in those places specifically. Snow in in one area would have an effect on the likelihood of it snowing in a neighbouring area. By including them all in an accumulator he was effectively making one bet on it snowing over the whole region that included those towns, the odds of which, if individual towns were quoted at say 5/1, would be unlikely to be more than about 7/1, if any higher at all.

 

My point is that the odds will always change, but do they ever change the odds on your accumulator at the time its placed?

 

As to the region debate.. well i know of many days we had snow in Basingstoke but not in Winchester (about the same distance apart as Newcastle and Durham).

[Wurzel]

My point is that the odds will always change, but do they ever change the odds on your accumulator at the time its placed?

 

Yes, wouldn't matter if the bet was a one off or part of an accumlator, odds would drop in accordance with Rule 4C if a runner pulls out of a race after odds are declared.

 

As to the region debate.. well i know of many days we had snow in Basingstoke but not in Winchester (about the same distance apart as Newcastle and Durham).

And in that case his accumulator would have lost. But again using the 5/1 assumption, you may have felt £1 on it to snow in Winchester @ 5/1 = win £6 if it does, £0 if it doesn't AND £1 on it to snow in Basingstoke @ 5-1 = win another £6 if it does £0 if it doesn't were worthwhile bets, surely you wouldn't expect odds of 35/1 and win £72 for a £2 bet(if done as an accumulator) because it snows in BOTH, (unless you reckon that for every 6 days it snows it Basingstoke it only snows one one of them in Winchester, or vice versa , which I would guess is unlikely)

[stuey]

Yes, wouldn't matter if the bet was a one off or part of an accumlator, odds would drop in accordance with Rule 4C if a runner pulls out of a race after odds are declared.

 

 

And in that case his accumulator would have lost. But again using the 5/1 assumption, you may have felt £1 on it to snow in Winchester @ 5/1 = win £6 if it does, £0 if it doesn't AND £1 on it to snow in Basingstoke @ 5-1 = win another £6 if it does £0 if it doesn't were worthwhile bets, surely you wouldn't expect odds of 35/1 and win £72 for a £2 bet(if done as an accumulator) because it snows in BOTH, (unless you reckon that for every 6 days it snows it Basingstoke it only snows one one of them in Winchester, or vice versa , which I would guess is unlikely)

 

But aren'e we talking about just one GIVEN day???? If it snows, win, if not lose. Therefore if it snows in Winchester but not in Basingstoke, all money is lost? I guess the punter in question thought he was getting the accumulator odds, hence £7.1m?

 

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, i genuinely don't get it!

[hamster]

If you do a 1st, 2nd, 3rd place bet on the geegees, and the chances of each coming in is increased by the others coming in ie if you get the first one right their ids one less horse in with a chance of finishing second and if that one come sin there must be TWO less horses in with a chance of finishing third ergo the odds should be shorter by me reckoning.

 

have I got that wrong?

[CB Saint]

I suppose the question is this.

 

If the bloke concerned had lost the accumulator bet and had returned to the bookies to get a refund what would Ladbrookes have done?

 

If they would have refunded the bet then fair dos, however,

 

If they would have refused to pay up, then they should pay the man the £7.1m.

 

It does seem wrong that they won't honour the bet. Surely they have to put these bets in a computer system which would flag the issue in the first place. The online guys can do it.

[irishsaint83]

I suppose the question is this.

 

If the bloke concerned had lost the accumulator bet and had returned to the bookies to get a refund what would Ladbrookes have done?

 

If they would have refunded the bet then fair dos, however,

 

If they would have refused to pay up, then they should pay the man the £7.1m.

 

It does seem wrong that they won't honour the bet. Surely they have to put these bets in a computer system which would flag the issue in the first place. The online guys can do it.

 

Different Bookies have different ways of doing things. Most Inshop bets placed are not flagged unless the stake is £50 + (Some calculate the exposure vs' the probability based on the odds of each event as would be in an accumulator).

If he had 10 5/1 bets in the accumulater and I believe the bookies would calculate the probability of that event at being about 0.000002% which is minute and thus they probably would not take much notice of it. (If they were all even money, that would be about 0.1%)

This snow bet was a Singles only bet and so an accumulator was void. I do believe all bookies have T&C which which allows them to correct a bet, after it is placed if it is incorrect.

 

They could have refunded his £5 stake or as I believe they did do, they paid out on his first selection.

 

The best value bet I see out is on boyle sports online betting. They offer odds of 3/1 on Ricki Lambert to score and Southampton to win, its not a scorecast. Its not offered every week, but it is most weeks, worth checking out because they have been giving close to 2/1 for Tevez to score and City to win the last few weeks. That'd be a nice £20 double each week!!