Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

Aug 4, 2016
1,723
1,841
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Everton
There is some serious cringe going on on that twitter page. They might be able to push hard enough to gain some form of compensation but there is no chance of having the bets paid. Sportsbet would’ve seriously considered things before voiding. For example if their biggest VIP down $10 million places the same bet as a brand new account, they have to void both bets regardless. They either void or pay every bet on the market, there is no picking and choosing.

I suspect this will go the same way as Melbourne cup day last year, and Sportsbet ignore it until it goes away.
 
This will go the same way as a multi I had in 2013.

I got odds between $7 and $8 for the option "Player who wins first set will win match" for all four legs of Tennis matches of a tournament played in Belgium. Odds of $3584. The bet was a winner, but my $10 multi was voided, as were my single bets involving those markets.

I fought and fought to no avail. I pursued avenues by speaking to the CEO of Centrebet, the Prime Minister of Belgium, the President of the ATP and the Dalai Lama, and I still didn't get my $40,000.
 
This isn't a saga.

This is a whole bunch of punters that all communicated the same error in the odds through social media.

Betting agencies have rules about errors to protect themselves for this exact thing.

They will quite easily be able to prove in a court of law that the actual odds of no player getting 40 touches in a round is much lower than 150/1.
 
Mar 19, 2016
1,487
5,288
AFL Club
Richmond
This isn't a saga.

This is a whole bunch of punters that all communicated the same error in the odds through social media.

Betting agencies have rules about errors to protect themselves for this exact thing.

They will quite easily be able to prove in a court of law that the actual odds of no player getting 40 touches in a round is much lower than 150/1.

Did they offer 150-1?
 

Jugada

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 5, 2012
10,702
12,655
AFL Club
West Coast
Were the bets voided before or after the event? Massively dodgy if they were just planning on freerolling punters. You couldn't pretend you weren't aware of a potential $9 million payout
 
Were the bets voided before or after the event? Massively dodgy if they were just planning on freerolling punters. You couldn't pretend you weren't aware of a potential $9 million payout

Before
 
717a1d716d8adc1bca7960adaba06d655a1ec50d238265d60a4d9cbf05e713d0.jpg
 
Apr 12, 2010
14,674
23,284
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Then they have no chance.

Case closed.

I think the only leg you'd have to stand on is if the market price moved a lot in your favour in that time, due to something like weather or a Tom Mitchell type being a late out. Again, you'd only be looking to realistically claim the according shift in price.

To sum up though, yes they are no chance.
 

BG__

Club Legend
May 22, 2018
2,931
4,316
AFL Club
West Coast
I think there is actually a bit of a case here, and apparently some precedent with a similar case being paid out. I've had bets void in the past for obvious errors, but this one is pretty interesting. Market had been up for a couple of days apparently. Wednesday night there is a big plunge on the market. Some fluctuation in odds occurs. By Thursday morning odds are lower in thr market but the bets made at original odds are still valid. Around Thursday evening (i believe after teams came out) nearly 24hrs after the plunge bets start appearing as void. Friday morning emails sent out telling customers bet is void.

Few things that are interesting to me:

-Odds were generous but its not like any individual leg was mistakenly made a typo (like $110 instead of $1.10.)

-Its hard to accidentally get odds wrong across all 9 games like that and be an 'obvious' error.

-Odds fluctuated and bets were still valid for nearly 24hrs after the plunge. In the past in my experience 'errors' bets seem to be void pretty quick (somtimes within minutes) if its a mistake and the market taken down immediately instead of staying up with fluctuations for a day.

-In the freo game for example by bounce down on sunday arvo the 'ANY player to get 40+' was nowpaying $6, however they had (approx) Neale $4.30, Fyfe $6.50, Mundy $8.50 and so on which doesn't make sense and was more in line with their original odds. The same thing happened across a number of games.

The way i see it, some generous yet still pretty reasonable odds (not a typo or something) were put out there, someone was smart and worked out you can get a very nice multi out of it. Word gets out and a massive plunge occurs in a short period. Markets odds change with plunge as normal. Then they start realising the next day "oh ****" and just how much money they are holding on it what the damage could be to their bank account and decide to just void all bets. They were probably praying it wouldn't win to avoid a **** storm but then this happened. In hindsight its an error by them because of how badly they were outsmarted, but not sure they can claim it as a palpable error across a 9 leg multi.

Someone on twitter has posted documents from a previous case where a bookie had to payout because they couldn't play the "palpable error" card because while odds of some legs were a bit generous, it wasn't unreasonable or an 'obvious error' (eg $150 leg typo instead of $1.50, accidentally getting odds for teams reversed, etc)

If the payout is 'only' $9mil they'd almost be better off just paying it out to keep customers happy. Part of their marketing is about how they try and be the bookie that is punter friendly with things like early payouts, justice payouts, justice refunds etc. 2000 accounts flooding their social media can damage their brand a far bit. Half of the punters would lose it straight back to SB anyway
 
Back