One punter’s defence: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.
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 SportsbetI 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.
Amusing promo and a nice dig at SB.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 $1PointsBet 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
It isn't quite that simple.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.
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.Is there a definition of "obvious error"?
seems to me that is too ambiguous a statement
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.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.