Sky Bet

[moDtheGod]

It’s properly wank. It’s the 500 THEN to 150 that gets me. Clear and obvious my arse.

That's already been explained to you though. Automated risk management. It's a computer doing it. The original palp would have been picked up later and rectified.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Rule4 is reasonable, as the terms of the original bet have changed - outside the control of either party. However, when a company whose business is to offer odds is allowed to not honour those odds because “they made a mistake”, then that’s a flagrant and fundamentally insulting breach of contract. Incompetence.

There's no breach of contract as the terms and conditions are available at the time of the initial odds offer. Take the bet, you're abiding by those. "I didn't know" doesn't constitute a breach.

The R4 comment was in relation to a post suggesting bookies could use the rule to change something that didn't suit them, i.e. A big odds winner example rather than a serious point about gambling. Where, incidentally, big losses tend to occur on short price favourites rather than the rare 100/1 shot.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I was watching the build up to the golf the other week and they said one punter had put an 83k bet on Tiger which was the biggest they'd ever had and that William hill were saying the bet had been placed in error but they were refusing to refund him. Luckily for him tiger won but just goes to show the bookie won't cancel your bet if it's an obvious error.

Not quite the story.

Someone bet $85,000 on Tiger Woods winning his fifth green jacket—and the payout would be historic

Masters 2019: An $85,000 wager on Tiger Woods to win was placed at a William Hill sportsbook, the culmination of a Masters "betting tsunami"

www.google.co.uk

Winner of mega Tiger Woods bet revealed! | Sport

The lucky punter who waged $85 000 on Tiger Woods winning this year's Masters to win $1.19 million, has been revealed.

m.sport24.co.za

 

[S5Blade]

I was watching the build up to the golf the other week and they said one punter had put an 83k bet on Tiger which was the biggest they'd ever had and that William hill were saying the bet had been placed in error but they were refusing to refund him. Luckily for him tiger won but just goes to show the bookie won't cancel your bet if it's an obvious error.

Absolutely bollocks on all fronts, 83k is not the biggest bet they have ever had, not by a long way. Who has a random 83,000 to place a bet in error? I reckon more likely is he changed his mind and wanted to cancel it, but it wasnt an obvious error and in line with his usual activity etc.

Source: I used to work for William Hill and have been working in the industry for 15 years.

Edit after Sean did about 5 seconds of detective work to debunk the entire thing. The 83k was the biggest in William Hill U.S history which isnt surprising given how new the entire business is and is a land based sports book.

 

[Ted Danson]

Not quite the story.

Someone bet $85,000 on Tiger Woods winning his fifth green jacket—and the payout would be historic

Masters 2019: An $85,000 wager on Tiger Woods to win was placed at a William Hill sportsbook, the culmination of a Masters "betting tsunami"

www.google.co.uk

Winner of mega Tiger Woods bet revealed! | Sport

The lucky punter who waged $85 000 on Tiger Woods winning this year's Masters to win $1.19 million, has been revealed.

m.sport24.co.za

Absolutely bollocks on all fronts, 83k is not the biggest bet they have ever had, not by a long way. Who has a random 83,000 to place a bet in error? I reckon more likely is he changed his mind and wanted to cancel it, but it wasnt an obvious error and in line with his usual activity etc.

Source: I used to work for William Hill and have been working in the industry for 15 years.

Edit after Sean did about 5 seconds of detective work to debunk the entire thing. The 83k was the biggest in William Hill U.S history which isnt surprising given how new the entire business is and is a land based sports book.

Just going on what they said on telly. I too was wondering how you manage to place an 83k bet by accident as he'd have had to accidently deposit 83k first or be daft enough to have that amount sitting in his account

 

[S5Blade]

Just as an FYI, anyone who thought 200/1 wasnt an error, William Hill has us at 9/1 to get over 49.5 points, so basically 50 points. Far cry from the 200/1

 

[guancheblade]

I've always thought the odds were fixed once you laid the bet; so after the first Blade sticks his fiver on at 500-1 they twitch and dump it to 100-1 another lad fancies that and sticks a fiver on so they drop it to 16-1. What's to stop them taking 10 grand at 500-1 and then doing the 'it was a mistake' BS? And BTW those free bets are usually a load of cock too, you're never allowed to withdraw the cash you win from them only gamble again until it's gone (in my experience).

That is true but what Skybet is saying here is that the original 200-1 odds weren't legitimate and due to a "glitch" in their system.

 

[Slug]

The 500/1 was clearly an error but if they have then cut it a few times to get down to 150/1 then they can’t claim it was a palpable error.
If anyone wanted to take this case to IBAS then I’m pretty sure they would win due to the above.

 

[jt64]

The 500/1 was clearly an error but if they have then cut it a few times to get down to 150/1 then they can’t claim it was a palpable error.
If anyone wanted to take this case to IBAS then I’m pretty sure they would win due to the above.

Except that'll have been done automatically, and the new price is still palp worthy

 

[8lade]

That is true but what Skybet is saying here is that the original 200-1 odds weren't legitimate and due to a "glitch" in their system.

These glitches seem to happen fairly regularly these days; this must be the only industry where they can pretty much change the price after they have your money based on T&Cs. Imagine walking away with 5 bananas for a quid then being asked for another four quid once you've paid and the supermarket pointing to a set of T&Cs, then you have to pay you can't just give the product back!

 

[BettingBlade]

Bookies essentially have the right to alter most things regarding your betting account. Whether you agree with that or not, it’s kind of just the way it is. I’m sure it wouldn’t have been that difficult to work out whether that 500/1 was an anomaly or not. Quick search on odds checker would have told you that.

I’ve already been banned from Betfairs offers for doing the promotions too often. (Probably doesn’t help that I use their exchange to lay off other bookies promos tbf). It’s well known that after a couple of big wins people find their accounts restricted because they are not profitable for the bookie.

I tend to use the exchanges now anyway for most of my betting. The odds are far better and you’re not actually betting against the bookie you’re betting against another punter, which means you aren’t likely to get your bet cancelled as an ‘error’ because of how exchanges work.

 

[guancheblade]

These glitches seem to happen fairly regularly these days; this must be the only industry where they can pretty much change the price after they have your money based on T&Cs. Imagine walking away with 5 bananas for a quid then being asked for another four quid once you've paid and the supermarket pointing to a set of T&Cs, then you have to pay you can't just give the product back!

Perhaps the consumer has the right to compel discovery of information proving that the glitch existed in the first place.

 

[blackydog]

It's a cop out by them and I'm not sure how legally they can change the odds of an already placed bet. If it's a clear error then maybe they would have a case and whilst 200/1 would have seemed very generous, it's not outrageous enough to be an obvious error to me. Get onto Martin Lewis or Watchdog, they love stuff like this

Too long ago now, just don't use them anymore.

 

[blackydog]

I thought that gambling was a “debt of honour” and not actionable through the courts? Mugs game anyway.

It can be but there's nothing wrong with a Sat footy accumulator or a day at the races is there?

 

[Sean Thornton]

These glitches seem to happen fairly regularly these days; this must be the only industry where they can pretty much change the price after they have your money based on T&Cs. Imagine walking away with 5 bananas for a quid then being asked for another four quid once you've paid and the supermarket pointing to a set of T&Cs, then you have to pay you can't just give the product back!

That's not really the same is it?

 

[Slug]

Except that'll have been done automatically, and the new price is still palp worthy

I can categorically say it will not have been done automatically

 

[Nick Jansky]

It can be but there's nothing wrong with a Sat footy accumulator or a day at the races is there?

The place I work at takes in retired racehorses and seeing the state some of them arrive in I’d say there possibly is.

 

[Sean Thornton]

The place I work at takes in retired racehorses and seeing the state some of them arrive in I’d say there possibly is.

The Crab, now we know who the competition is.......

 

[The Crab]

The Crab, now we know who the competition is.......

I'll make him an offer he can't refuse......

 

[Nick Jansky]

I'll make him an offer he can't refuse......

Oh, I can.....

 

[S5Blade]

I can categorically say it will not have been done automatically

Yes, it will have. 100%

 

[Slug]

Yes, it will have. 100%

I appreciate that you may work in the industry (Not the only one ) and have experience in this sort of thing but it sounds like not every online bookmaker works the same from what you’re saying so we’ll have to agree to disagree

 

[S5Blade]

I appreciate that you may work in the industry (Not the only one ) and have experience in this sort of thing but it sounds like not every online bookmaker works the same from what you’re saying so we’ll have to agree to disagree

Companies dont employ traders anymore, they employ people to watch various systems which feed, monitor and adjust bets accordingly. If it was a manual process for a silly little specials market like Sheffield United to get over 50 points, whoever was responsible for "trading" said market, would have noticed the error when the 200/1 was filled in, they wouldnt have dropped the odds to 150/1 etc - Its common sense, as I said further up, William Hill have us at 9/1 to get over 49.5 points, anyone with any experience at betting, never mind someone who works in the industry would be aware that 200/1 for 50 points is absurb and would have rightly had a bet on it, in case the bookmaker in question didnt notice and just let the odds keep tumbling.

People should be happy they got a free bet and an apology, we never even used to offer a free bet, just an apology and a link to the rules......

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

The place I work at takes in retired racehorses and seeing the state some of them arrive in I’d say there possibly is.

Racehorses are arguably the best treated animals in the World.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Companies dont employ traders anymore, they employ people to watch various systems which feed, monitor and adjust bets accordingly. If it was a manual process for a silly little specials market like Sheffield United to get over 50 points, whoever was responsible for "trading" said market, would have noticed the error when the 200/1 was filled in, they wouldnt have dropped the odds to 150/1 etc - Its common sense, as I said further up, William Hill have us at 9/1 to get over 49.5 points, anyone with any experience at betting, never mind someone who works in the industry would be aware that 200/1 for 50 points is absurb and would have rightly had a bet on it, in case the bookmaker in question didnt notice and just let the odds keep tumbling.

People should be happy they got a free bet and an apology, we never even used to offer a free bet, just an apology and a link to the rules......

Do you not think that the punter should be allowed to cancel the bet?
After all, they only made the bet because they were attracted by the generous odds.

Theoretically, a bookie could deliberately offer a big price, wait until a load of bets roll in, then slash the price citing the rules.
I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case but the rules do seem to allow that if there is no void bet option.

 

[S5Blade]

Do you not think that the punter should be allowed to cancel the bet?
After all, they only made the bet because they were attracted by the generous odds.

Theoretically, a bookie could deliberately offer a big price, wait until a load of bets roll in, then slash the price citing the rules.
I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case but the rules do seem to allow that if there is no void bet option.

100% you are within your rights to cancel the bet if the odds are wrong / palpable error has occured and I dont think Skybet would have refused anyone this option, as long as they contacted them in a reasonable timescale (i.e. not at Christmas when we only have 2 points on the board ) - I imagine if they didnt allow the bet to be cancelled then IBAS would have a field day with them.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

100% you are within your rights to cancel the bet if the odds are wrong / palpable error has occured and I dont think Skybet would have refused anyone this option, as long as they contacted them in a reasonable timescale (i.e. not at Christmas when we only have 2 points on the board ) - I imagine if they didnt allow the bet to be cancelled then IBAS would have a field day with them.

Fair enough then.
It would be better customer service if they mentioned that option in their email about the odds being reduced.