Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

[GROTTO]

Sportsbet also shot themselves in the foot by manually accepting bets and also reducing odds as more bets came in.

Edit: It always astounds me how bad behaviour from bookmakers is so often excused.

That point you raised with SB is what IMO with limited knowledge legally by the way, is what I think will really hurt them if this goes forward into the courts.

Yes there is rather often poor behaviour at times form the bookmakers, this is like a feel good punting story to get warm and fuzzy about.

Ultimately the punter will pay though. They will make sure systems are in place (well they should) to never let this happen again. They will make it tougher for us in a nutshell to look for an edge in the market.

 

[GROTTO]

Under the definition I'm not sure SB can claim it to be an "obvious error", they just framed the market badly.

You have to wonder if there was a uni student on work experience at Sportsbet over the past week that doesnt have a job anymore.

 

[AvantGardener]

A big part of any normal business is dealing with income loss through stuff ups, why should betting agencies be any different. A truck driver rolls the truck, a painter uses the wrong colour, an accountant misses a tax deduction, a trader or robot put up wrong odds. Business needs to deal with the repercussions of these mistakes.

 

[chasbestos]

sportsbet settles at sauce odds and punters whine

If this was the UK, everything would be voided after the fact and nothing would come of it

 

[GROTTO]

A big part of any normal business is dealing with income loss through stuff ups, why should betting agencies be any different. A truck driver rolls the truck, a painter uses the wrong colour, an accountant misses a tax deduction, a trader or robot put up wrong odds. Business needs to deal with the repercussions of these mistakes.

Do you or anyone know how much books make per year?

 

[X_box_X]

A big part of any normal business is dealing with income loss through stuff ups, why should betting agencies be any different. A truck driver rolls the truck, a painter uses the wrong colour, an accountant misses a tax deduction, a trader or robot put up wrong odds. Business needs to deal with the repercussions of these mistakes.

It's in their T&Cs that they, at their sole discretion, can void bets. Significantly different to the examples you used.

 

[GROTTO]

Do you or anyone know how much books make per year?

Im quoting myself and answering my own question.

https://www.afr.com/business/gambling/sportsbets-australian-profits-surge-20170808-gxrgbc

Foreign-owned corporate bookmaker Sportsbet's revenue and customer numbers have far exceeded those of local giant Tabcorp and other competitors in the Australian market.

Sportsbet's underlying operating profit in the six months to June hit £46 million ($75.7 million) from almost £1.7 billion ($2.8 billion) staked via its digital wagering services and call centre, according to the interim financial results released by London-listed parent company Paddy Power Betfair on Tuesday evening.



Glory be.

 

[BG__]

It's in their T&Cs that they, at their sole discretion, can void bets. Significantly different to the examples you used.

If they are in breach of the NT gambling bodies definition though over what is deemed something that can be made void, their T+Cs won't mean much.

A bit like when a store says in their T+Cs they don't accept refunds, but if a product is faulty under the consumer law they need to provide a refund (and can cop big fines for breaching it)

 

[iluvparis]

As stated in one of the threads earlier - pricing a $1.11 shot at $1.70 is going to constitute a pricing error by any reasonable person.

 

[HeathySure]

Given how huge betting agencies are these days there really needs to be a Betting Ombudsmen. or make it part of financial or banking services. There needs to be a mediator in this which holds both ends accountable.

 

[BG__]

As stated in one of the threads earlier - pricing a $1.11 shot at $1.70 is going to constitute a pricing error by any reasonable person.

The $1.11 that they all got crunched to isn't actually accurate to what its usually meant to be, they just went that low because so many jumped on. Apparently its usually anywhere from around $1.25-1.65 (depending on the game) so the odds offered weren't necessarily that ridiculous.

 

[asanque]

As stated in one of the threads earlier - pricing a $1.11 shot at $1.70 is going to constitute a pricing error by any reasonable person.

Some parts of the multi had odds at $1.48.

Sportsbet paid out what they called actual odds at around $1.28 on average.

Where is the line drawn?

 

[54Dogs]

For a 100% market a $1-11 shot is 90% of the market, and a $1-70 shot is 58%. A 32% pricing error

For a 100% market a $5 shot is 20% of the market, and a $501 shot is <1%. A 20% pricing error.

$1-11 to $1-70 is a significant palp

 

[54Dogs]

The $1.11 that they all got crunched to isn't actually accurate to what its usually meant to be, they just went that low because so many jumped on. Apparently its usually anywhere from around $1.25-1.65 (depending on the game) so the odds offered weren't necessarily that ridiculous.

Even $1-25 to $1-70 is a significant palp

 

[Hamingja]

Is there a definition of "obvious error"?

seems to me that is too ambiguous a statement

Mispricing should not equal error.

Let's use the French Open as an example.

Muguruza started the tournament as a $35 chance to win outright.

She is a multiple GS winner including previously winning at the French.

Despite her average form if we are talking people capable of winning then I would have her on the third line of betting with Pliskova and behind Halep and Bertens. So say around $12-$15.

If Muguruza happens to win can the bookies just turn around and say that it was an obvious error that we put up $35 about a past champion, here take $12 instead!

 

[Hamingja]

If they can't keep on top of so many markets than they should just reduce their offerings to a manageable level.

 

[asanque]

After the fact, Sportsbet claim the correct odds should have been:
Syd v Pies $1.33
Hawks v Port $1.30
Dogs v Roos $1.30
Crows v WCE $1.53
Tigers v Dons $1.25
GC v Cats $1.13
Dees v GWS $1.33
Saints v Blues $1.22
Freo v Lions $1.33

Edit: At least try and use semi-accurate figures in your comparisons please.

Second Edit: The point being, would a casual punter have noticed the 'obvious error' in odds?

 

[banana_bus]

Except they didn't void the bets after the fact...

 

[asanque]

Except they didn't void the bets after the fact...

So is your argument that a bookmaker can unilaterally accept and cancel a bet before an event occurs, just because the odds change?

Edit: This appears to be 'mispricing' not a 'clear obvious error' as per the case previously cited.

 

[iluvparis]

After the fact, Sportsbet claim the correct odds should have been:
Syd v Pies $1.33
Hawks v Port $1.30
Dogs v Roos $1.30
Crows v WCE $1.53
Tigers v Dons $1.25
GC v Cats $1.13
Dees v GWS $1.33
Saints v Blues $1.22
Freo v Lions $1.33

Edit: At least try and use semi-accurate figures in your comparisons please.

Second Edit: The point being, would a casual punter have noticed the 'obvious error' in odds?

A casual punter might not have but a reasonable person would.

 

[banana_bus]

So is your argument that a bookmaker can unilaterally accept and cancel a bet before an event occurs, just because the odds change?

Edit: This appears to be 'mispricing' not a 'clear obvious error' as per the case previously cited.

I actually misread your previous post.

We all know that bookies are dodgy a.f, usually I'd side with the punters, but in this case the punters have found a clear error in pricing and tried to take advantage of it for a big amount of $.

 

[asanque]

A casual punter might not have but a reasonable person would.

Any reasonable person test is always based on the average bozo (i.e. casual punter).

 

[iluvparis]

Mispricing should not equal error.

Let's use the French Open as an example.

Muguruza started the tournament as a $35 chance to win outright.

She is a multiple GS winner including previously winning at the French.

Despite her average form if we are talking people capable of winning then I would have her on the third line of betting with Pliskova and behind Halep and Bertens. So say around $12-$15.

If Muguruza happens to win can the bookies just turn around and say that it was an obvious error that we put up $35 about a past champion, here take $12 instead!

Your compairson would have Mugu priced at 6% compared to 3%

The error we are talking about here was an event that should have been priced at 75% being priced at 58%

There two are nowhere near comparable.

 

[iluvparis]

Any reasonable person test is always based on the average bozo (i.e. casual punter).

And the fact so many casual punters jumped all over this and spread it through social media is all the evidence sportsbet needs that it was an obvious pricing error.

 

[asanque]

I actually misread your previous post.

We all know that bookies are dodgy a.f, usually I'd side with the punters, but in this case the punters have found a clear error in pricing and tried to take advantage of it for a big amount of $.

I get what you are saying

Arguably though, don't all punters think we have a clear edge on pricing and try to take advantage of it?

I'd say a obvious error is where they get the lines the wrong way around or have a typo around odds.

When a bet is manually accepted and odds continue to be taken despite going down. Looks like mispricing to me.

The reason I argue so strongly on this one, is it opens up a slippery slope when you give the bookmaker even more power to determine when a bet is valid or not.