Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Aside from the fact that McBeth reckons I'm a Judas... I put money on Portugal to win, so whatever the result I'd be happy - and the buggers wont pay up. Portugal didn't win according to William Hill. Surely this is fraudulent practice?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Aside from the fact that McBeth reckons I'm a Judas... I put money on Portugal to win, so whatever the result I'd be happy - and the buggers wont pay up. Portugal didn't win according to William Hill. Surely this is fraudulent practice? Do you not bet often?
Head Honcho Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Aside from the fact that McBeth reckons I'm a Judas... I put money on Portugal to win, so whatever the result I'd be happy - and the buggers wont pay up. Portugal didn't win according to William Hill. Surely this is fraudulent practice? Unless you stated on your bet that you wanted Portugal to qualify for the next round then you have backed a loser. The result of the match was a draw and all bet will be settled as such!
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 Do you not bet often? Never - I've always said it was a mugs game ... and it looks like I was right about one thing!
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 Unless you stated on your bet that you wanted Portugal to qualify for the next round then you have backed a loser. The result of the match was a draw and all bet will be settled as such! No, I wanted to back Portugal to win which is why I wrote 'Portugal to win' on it, which they did if the rioting was anything to go by. If they want to operate some shady rules to con non-gamblers like myself out of money then they should at least print a disclaimer on the slip surely - there was nothing, no one said anything - so how on Earth am I reasonably expected to know?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Never - I've always said it was a mugs game ... and it looks like I was right about one thing! This comes up quite a lot. Basically you're betting on 90 minutes, else people who say it's a draw would win and people who say Portugal to win and they win the tie (be it in extra time or on penalties) would also win. The odds have to be weighed in such a favour that the bookie always wins. Obviously if you could bet on a team to qualify it's a choice of two whereas match odds always include the draw so it's a choice of three and the odds will be worse accordingly. Same as what the other guy put really.
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 No, I wanted to back Portugal to win which is why I wrote 'Portugal to win' on it, which they did if the rioting was anything to go by. If they want to operate some shady rules to con non-gamblers like myself out of money then they should at least print a disclaimer on the slip surely - there was nothing, no one said anything - so how on Earth am I reasonably expected to know? If in doubt ask, if you dont bet often tell them that, simply going up to them and telling them "i want Portugal to win" would have led them to ask "in 90 min?"
Head Honcho Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 No, I wanted to back Portugal to win which is why I wrote 'Portugal to win' on it, which they did if the rioting was anything to go by. If they want to operate some shady rules to con non-gamblers like myself out of money then they should at least print a disclaimer on the slip surely - there was nothing, no one said anything - so how on Earth am I reasonably expected to know? Every football bet taken is for 90 minutes play and I'm afraid every bookies I was in on Saturday(Corals and Laddy's) had a note up saying so, also if you'd have placed the bet on a world cup coupon it would have been on that too. It's unfortunate but that's the rules. The odds you got for a Portugal win over 90 minutes would have been much better than for Portugal to win through to the next round. You probably got around 2/1 for a Portugal win in 90 mins, but it would have been around 13/8 to progress to the semi's.
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 If in doubt ask, if you dont bet often tell them that, simply going up to them and telling them "i want Portugal to win" would have led them to ask "in 90 min?" I wasn't in doubt tho', I knew what 'I' meant. No one said any different whcih is why I feel well cheated now. I understand what you were all saying but why should I have to assume that my bet isn't a valid one when it conforms to the English language. I bet on Portugal to win, they won, I should get my money. I can't help but think a load of other betting virgins got their cherries well and truly pricked too. I reckon it is smart practice and is wrong. If they will only pay out on 90 minutes then it should have said so on the betting slip, and if it didn't then they should have clarified it at the time the bet was placed. Anything less than that is well dodgy in my book...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 I wasn't in doubt tho', I knew what 'I' meant. No one said any different whcih is why I feel well cheated now. I understand what you were all saying but why should I have to assume that my bet isn't a valid one when it conforms to the English language. I bet on Portugal to win, they won, I should get my money. I can't help but think a load of other betting virgins got their cherries well and truly pricked too. I reckon it is smart practice and is wrong. If they will only pay out on 90 minutes then it should have said so on the betting slip, and if it didn't then they should have clarified it at the time the bet was placed. Anything less than that is well dodgy in my book... Thing is, you didn't bet on Portugal to win the tie, you bet on them to win in 90 minutes. So they didn't win in the category you placed a bet on. It's a shame for people who don't bet often when they think they've won in this situation, I agree there should be more notice of it - my mate had the same thing happen to him. But to be honest unless you're absolutely sure what you're putting money on, you shouldn't be putting money on anyway...? That sounds harsh but I'm going to stick by it and hope it makes sense.
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 Thing is, you didn't bet on Portugal to win the tie, you bet on them to win in 90 minutes. So they didn't win in the category you placed a bet on. It's a shame for people who don't bet often when they think they've won in this situation, I agree there should be more notice of it - my mate had the same thing happen to him. But to be honest unless you're absolutely sure what you're putting money on, you shouldn't be putting money on anyway...? That sounds harsh but I'm going to stick by it and hope it makes sense. I agree with you entirely if there is clear notice - my bet was accepted on a white slip of paper that I have since been told is only for horses or something or other - so they have to be duty bound to clarify the bet surely? Anyway, the small claims court beckons - so we'll see then...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 I agree with you entirely if there is clear notice - my bet was accepted on a white slip of paper that I have since been told is only for horses or something or other - so they have to be duty bound to clarify the bet surely? Anyway, the small claims court beckons - so we'll see then... If you've been told it's only for horses then yes, you have a claim. And I hope you win.
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 It says it there? What? So I was meant to look online first before placing a bet? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
Head Honcho Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 I wasn't in doubt tho', I knew what 'I' meant. No one said any different whcih is why I feel well cheated now. I understand what you were all saying but why should I have to assume that my bet isn't a valid one when it conforms to the English language. I bet on Portugal to win, they won, I should get my money. I can't help but think a load of other betting virgins got their cherries well and truly pricked too. I reckon it is smart practice and is wrong. If they will only pay out on 90 minutes then it should have said so on the betting slip, and if it didn't then they should have clarified it at the time the bet was placed. Anything less than that is well dodgy in my book... Every World Cup betting slip states quite clearly that you are only betting on 90 minutes, so I really don't understand why your so pissed off! The bookie's don't hide the rules, most shops have a huge rules board for all to read before placing a bet. I'm not trying to be a smart arse or anything but you wouldn't sign a contract without reading it first and that is basically what you do when you put a bet on, enter into a contract.
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 Every World Cup betting slip states quite clearly that you are only betting on 90 minutes, so I really don't understand why your so pissed off! The bookie's don't hide the rules, most shops have a huge rules board for all to read before placing a bet. I'm not trying to be a smart arse or anything but you wouldn't sign a contract without reading it first and that is basically what you do when you put a bet on, enter into a contract. I, as stated, didn't bet on a "World Cup betting slip" - whatever that is...
The Don Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 To be honest, you didn't have to put the bet on the world cup betting slip - any white slip in there would do. The betting slip is usefull as you can take it away, do your acumilators, they also have odds for 1st goalscorer and correct score on there. All in all very useful as there is so much to bet on. but it is quite acceptable to put a bet on with a sheet of paper. If your bet was made on the back of a fag packet, i reckon they would still pay out as all bets now are photocopied and stored on the system. The bookies are perfectly right in not giving you the money. Portugal didn't win the match they, won through to the next round on penalties. Bookies will have disclaimers all throughout there officies cos you arn't the 1st person this has happened to. Next time, before you bet ask someone experienced.
Head Honcho Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 I agree with you entirely if there is clear notice - my bet was accepted on a white slip of paper that I have since been told is only for horses or something or other - so they have to be duty bound to clarify the bet surely? Anyway, the small claims court beckons - so we'll see then... Your wasting your time, but have a word with these fella's before the small claims court http://www.ibas-uk.com/
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 Your wasting your time, but have a word with these fella's before the small claims court http://www.ibas-uk.com/ Thanks, will do Fortunately I have time to waste
macbeth Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 the slip should have warned you it was for horses only........not donkeys and the judas jibe was t in c .......sorry you didn't get your winnings
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 the slip should have warned you it was for horses only........not donkeys and the judas jibe was t in c .......sorry you didn't get your winnings I thought it was a cunning plan, to rival any cunning plan, of Bladrician proportions. Dammit. What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?
Rincewind Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Did you know beforehand what the price was? The odds would be displayed in newspapers and on the boards in the bookies. Was the price put on the receipt? All prices for football matches. For games involving extra time there are different prices and you have to specify that you want the bet on the result and not just 90 minutes. That is why you get shorter odds because you are covered both ways. Over 90 minutes you will receive slightly better odds. I think I have this right, not an expert and don't visit the bookies often. If it was me I'd have looked for a special coupon to check on the prices. Putting it down on one of these means that if the England squad had been stricken with food poisoning 30 minutes before kickoff I would still receive the odds on the betting slip and not the new price when the bookies are flooded with bets on Portugal. Ok, unlikely but this way of thinking is based on horse racing and i was trying put forward a similar situation in this case. Basically the bookies do not lose. They cover themselves by carefully selecting the odds. One thing the bookies do not like though is bad publicity. In some situations they make a 'gesture' and pay up. Whether this is one of those situations remains to be seen Play the ignorant and wrong slip card. See if they will call the bluff. If you were a little old lady you may have a chance. Time to get your dress out the wardrobe or have a word with your gran.
Bert Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Ladbrokes are the best bookmakers anyway. They have a variety of specials and you can always ask for teams to win on penalties etc.
Head Honcho Posted 3 July 2006 Posted 3 July 2006 Ladbrokes are the best bookmakers anyway. They have a variety of specials and you can always ask for teams to win on penalties etc. Like I did on Friday with Germany 10/1 in Ladbrokes but only 17/2 with William Hill
Daggers Posted 3 July 2006 Author Posted 3 July 2006 Did you know beforehand what the price was? The odds would be displayed in newspapers and on the boards in the bookies. Was the price put on the receipt? All prices for football matches. For games involving extra time there are different prices and you have to specify that you want the bet on the result and not just 90 minutes. That is why you get shorter odds because you are covered both ways. Over 90 minutes you will receive slightly better odds. I think I have this right, not an expert and don't visit the bookies often. If it was me I'd have looked for a special coupon to check on the prices. Putting it down on one of these means that if the England squad had been stricken with food poisoning 30 minutes before kickoff I would still receive the odds on the betting slip and not the new price when the bookies are flooded with bets on Portugal. Ok, unlikely but this way of thinking is based on horse racing and i was trying put forward a similar situation in this case. Basically the bookies do not lose. They cover themselves by carefully selecting the odds. One thing the bookies do not like though is bad publicity. In some situations they make a 'gesture' and pay up. Whether this is one of those situations remains to be seen Play the ignorant and wrong slip card. See if they will call the bluff. If you were a little old lady you may have a chance. Time to get your dress out the wardrobe or have a word with your gran. I have no price on my slip - didn't know I needed one. Play ignorant? I couldn't be more ignorant on this issue...I know nothing about betting. All I know is what I meant, but that's not good enough apparently. I will leave gambling to you folks that seem to have a much better grasp on it than me but I'll be damned if I let the bookies get away with it without a decent earfull!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.