GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,732
- 89,519
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wouldnt a fair compromise be if the Tigers leg was removed?
The Lawyers fees probably ~ having the Tigers leg in the multi compared if it wasnt.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
AFL 2019 - Grand Final
- Thread starter targett
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Wouldnt a fair compromise be if the Tigers leg was removed?
The Lawyers fees probably ~ having the Tigers leg in the multi compared if it wasnt.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Yeah or some degree of shaved odds
Bookie was beteasy.
From what I've read it's the standard Dusty Norm Smith, Richmond premiership dependent legs not being picked up by their software. So knowingly exploiting. But....
The punter enquired about the multi before placing it and had the useless live chat monkey's confirm the bet would stand. He also shared the bet with a mate who got on with a smaller stake and was paid out in full.
From what I've read it's the standard Dusty Norm Smith, Richmond premiership dependent legs not being picked up by their software. So knowingly exploiting. But....
The punter enquired about the multi before placing it and had the useless live chat monkey's confirm the bet would stand. He also shared the bet with a mate who got on with a smaller stake and was paid out in full.
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,732
- 89,519
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Good. From what you have stated is true. The Bookie will have to payout.
Im presuming he would have gone with a legal firm that said "No Win, No Fee."
Still you have to wonder if Beteasy offered a payout without the Tigers leg and he has to cop a legal fee, if it was really worth the hassle in the end.
Beteasy was happy to take the bet because the Tigers weren't even in the granny at the time, wonder if there are any people who had a Cameron, tigers win and houli multi, would love to know if they got voided.
I reckon they wouldn't have
I reckon they wouldn't have
gutsroy
Brownlow Medallist
How does beteasy define ‘related’?
Do they state criteria or do they just point to it being in their discretion?
In terms of the bet:
Cameron Coleman, Tigers GF win, D Martin Norm Smith.
They only paid out two of three legs to him (assume Martin Norm Smith dropped out as that would reduce the payout more?).
They paid out 5k-odd in full to his friend, presumably due to a threshold value not being hit in that case.
Is that right?
They point to reserving the right to void bets with related legs in the T&Cs, I guess because the software doesn’t always pick up ‘related’ bets. If he had placed it in person and a staff member had not picked it up, would that be different?
Do they state criteria or do they just point to it being in their discretion?
In terms of the bet:
Cameron Coleman, Tigers GF win, D Martin Norm Smith.
They only paid out two of three legs to him (assume Martin Norm Smith dropped out as that would reduce the payout more?).
They paid out 5k-odd in full to his friend, presumably due to a threshold value not being hit in that case.
Is that right?
They point to reserving the right to void bets with related legs in the T&Cs, I guess because the software doesn’t always pick up ‘related’ bets. If he had placed it in person and a staff member had not picked it up, would that be different?
Judging on previous experiences with Beteasy the fact that all of them have an 'R' in them is enough to be related.
Similar threads
