Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

99 Problems

Team Captain
Aug 4, 2016
336
266
AFL Club
Sydney
I’ve been told today Sportsbet did two things the NTRC don’t like. 1. They accepted bets that referred to their intercept (a big no in the industry) and 2. They gradually decreased the offered odds. I’m told that’s a robotocised process for them though so they’d still be in the clear on that front. The NTRC will be looking for human acknowledgement by a trader that the prices were known and a referred bet was accepted.

I’d still have Sportsbet as a short price favourite if this goes further, but it does make things interesting.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
6,943
1,624
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Sportsbet to run a full sweep of limiting for everyone on that market would be my guess
 

bato

The Quarterly ⭐️ UBL_fp
Oct 7, 2011
7,234
7,233
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Denver Nuggets, Novak Djokovic
They paid me out at like odds of 25. I’ll take it.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,706
2,632
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I am a big punter's advocate and this case has caught my attention.

I have a friend who has been impacted also.

On brief review of the material, I think that affected customers have quite a good shot at this one.

No clear obvious error in the odds.

Odds were gradually decreased and bets accepted after operator referral.

If Sportsbet have paid out already at 10-1, you also have nothing to lose by going to the NT Regulator.

I suspect that this may even get to the courts if there are enough affected customers.

I helped with the Sports Alive saga, have gone through the dispute process before and am more than happy to give some guidance to anyone that would like some tips about the process.

Just my quick 2 cents.

Edit: There were even players on 38 and 39 disposals on the weekend, so the odds were close enough.
 

Gibbsy

Moderator
Oct 12, 2009
22,023
23,086
Geelong
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Manchester City, Victory, Cavs
I’ve been told today Sportsbet did two things the NTRC don’t like. 1. They accepted bets that referred to their intercept (a big no in the industry) and 2. They gradually decreased the offered odds. I’m told that’s a robotocised process for them though so they’d still be in the clear on that front. The NTRC will be looking for human acknowledgement by a trader that the prices were known and a referred bet was accepted.

I’d still have Sportsbet as a short price favourite if this goes further, but it does make things interesting.
One punter’s defence:

 

99 Problems

Team Captain
Aug 4, 2016
336
266
AFL Club
Sydney
I think the no clear obvious error in the odds has already been disproved right? There is no way they should have been paying 1.70 a game on this.
PointsBet offering the same multi at $5.50 for next round as a $50 max bet enhanced odds promo certainly doesn’t help people claiming ‘no obvious error’ after taking $120 with Sportsbet
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

IKnowtheDog

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 25, 2016
6,003
4,722
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Seattle Seahawks
Its moments like this that the contribution of our esteemed leader is missed
 

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
6,943
1,624
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
PointsBet offering the same multi at $5.50 for next round as a $50 max bet enhanced odds promo certainly doesn’t help people claiming ‘no obvious error’ after taking $120 with Sportsbet
Amusing promo and a nice dig at SB.

Especially after those disputing just got paid at $10
 

BG__

All Australian
May 22, 2018
867
1,369
AFL Club
West Coast
PointsBet offering the same multi at $5.50 for next round as a $50 max bet enhanced odds promo certainly doesn’t help people claiming ‘no obvious error’ after taking $120 with Sportsbet
The ultimate troll would have been offering the full @150 odds for it with a max bet of like $1
 

banana_bus

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 12, 2007
8,955
2,888
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Surely this is dead and buried now, if you can't see that a $3 multi getting priced at $120 is an obvious error then you have rocks in your head.

Sportsbet more than generous enough to pay out at 10's.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,706
2,632
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Surely this is dead and buried now, if you can't see that a $3 multi getting priced at $120 is an obvious error then you have rocks in your head.

Sportsbet more than generous enough to pay out at 10's.
It isn't quite that simple.

Firstly, Sportsbet themselves acknowledge that the real multi should have been at 10's and thus have paid out on this basis.

However, that figure is completely arbitrary.

Most of the odds were out by a bit, but would not have been obvious to a casual punter.

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

They also apparently kept money from bets that lost on similar markets.

If taken in isolation, getting $1.50 or so for no player under 40 in a match, isn't a wild stretch (i.e. no obvious error) from a casual perspective.

However, the multiplying effects of a bet that has odds thereabouts makes the payout large.

Take brownlow betting and the big multis there.

Imagine if Sportsbet could simply cancel a large brownlow multi as they decide that after putting markets up, that they had simply priced the market incorrectly.

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

BG__

All Australian
May 22, 2018
867
1,369
AFL Club
West Coast
Is there a definition of "obvious error"?

seems to me that is too ambiguous a statement
Someone posted the NT gambling commissions guidelines on Twitter (I'll try find them again). But they basically said an "obvious error" is something like accidentally offering $230 odds instead of $2.30 due to a typo, OR accidentally getting the line wrong due to a similar typo (+100.5 instead of +10.5), OR getting the teams odds mixed up like for example having Blues @1.10 and Geelong @6.

They specifically state that "generous odds" (like the $1.50-2 each leg SB were offering instead of around $1.30-1.60) cannot count as an "obvious error" as generous odds often can dictate where a person decides to gamble.

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