Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

Remove this Banner Ad

99 Problems

Premium Gold
Aug 4, 2016
695
699
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hamingja

Brownlow Medallist
May 20, 2014
14,703
18,324
AFL Club
Geelong
$9 million / 2,000 = $4,500. That's a pretty big amount. Were they able to multi "40+ disposal - no" for every game or something. What would the odds usually be for that market on an average game.
 

X_box_X

King of September
Mar 15, 2001
19,903
7,910
DogLands
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
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.
 

Papa Juggs

Hall of Famer
May 10, 2007
30,766
13,229
South Brisbane
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Liverpool
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.
 

Trucker Tiger

Club Legend
Mar 19, 2016
1,053
3,720
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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jugada

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 5, 2012
5,856
6,580
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
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2013
45,583
52,331
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Didnt SB recently void a bet for the Suns to score a 40+ win over the Power at ~$500

That bet was voided before the game. No one complained. I wonder if its because Port won 1-39.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
8,488
11,281
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
2,245
3,222
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
 

Top Bottom