Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,762
2,807
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
22,367
23,995
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

Premium Gold
Aug 4, 2016
618
610
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Everton
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.)

BG__

Club Legend
May 22, 2018
2,175
3,112
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
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,762
2,807
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__

Club Legend
May 22, 2018
2,175
3,112
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:

BG__

Club Legend
May 22, 2018
2,175
3,112
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
I think this is the bit that could screw SB. If the market was simply a single of "no player to get 40+ in this round @120" (the non boosted odds price people use) they could claim it was an obvious error and meant to be @12. But since it was actually 9 legs that when looked at individually can be described as "generous odds" they might not be able to claim it as an abvious error.

(Along with the fact they continued to change odds and counted 'yes' bets as losses)
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom