Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

BG__

All Australian
May 22, 2018
879
1,379
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:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2013
39,587
41,649
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sportsbet also shot themselves in the foot by manually accepting bets and also reducing odds as more bets came in.

Edit: It always astounds me how bad behaviour from bookmakers is so often excused.
That point you raised with SB is what IMO with limited knowledge legally by the way, is what I think will really hurt them if this goes forward into the courts.

Yes there is rather often poor behaviour at times form the bookmakers, this is like a feel good punting story to get warm and fuzzy about.

Ultimately the punter will pay though. They will make sure systems are in place (well they should) to never let this happen again. They will make it tougher for us in a nutshell to look for an edge in the market.
 

AvantGardener

All Australian
Mar 13, 2016
817
965
AFL Club
Carlton
A big part of any normal business is dealing with income loss through stuff ups, why should betting agencies be any different. A truck driver rolls the truck, a painter uses the wrong colour, an accountant misses a tax deduction, a trader or robot put up wrong odds. Business needs to deal with the repercussions of these mistakes.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2013
39,587
41,649
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A big part of any normal business is dealing with income loss through stuff ups, why should betting agencies be any different. A truck driver rolls the truck, a painter uses the wrong colour, an accountant misses a tax deduction, a trader or robot put up wrong odds. Business needs to deal with the repercussions of these mistakes.
Do you or anyone know how much books make per year?
 

X_box_X

King of September
Mar 15, 2001
19,497
4,741
DogLands
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
A big part of any normal business is dealing with income loss through stuff ups, why should betting agencies be any different. A truck driver rolls the truck, a painter uses the wrong colour, an accountant misses a tax deduction, a trader or robot put up wrong odds. Business needs to deal with the repercussions of these mistakes.
It's in their T&Cs that they, at their sole discretion, can void bets. Significantly different to the examples you used.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2013
39,587
41,649
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you or anyone know how much books make per year?
Im quoting myself and answering my own question. :drunk:

https://www.afr.com/business/gambling/sportsbets-australian-profits-surge-20170808-gxrgbc

Foreign-owned corporate bookmaker Sportsbet's revenue and customer numbers have far exceeded those of local giant Tabcorp and other competitors in the Australian market.

Sportsbet's underlying operating profit in the six months to June hit £46 million ($75.7 million) from almost £1.7 billion ($2.8 billion) staked via its digital wagering services and call centre, according to the interim financial results released by London-listed parent company Paddy Power Betfair on Tuesday evening.



Glory be.
 

BG__

All Australian
May 22, 2018
879
1,379
AFL Club
West Coast
It's in their T&Cs that they, at their sole discretion, can void bets. Significantly different to the examples you used.
If they are in breach of the NT gambling bodies definition though over what is deemed something that can be made void, their T+Cs won't mean much.

A bit like when a store says in their T+Cs they don't accept refunds, but if a product is faulty under the consumer law they need to provide a refund (and can cop big fines for breaching it)
 
Last edited:

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
26,859
18,862
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
As stated in one of the threads earlier - pricing a $1.11 shot at $1.70 is going to constitute a pricing error by any reasonable person.
 

HeathComeBack

Premiership Player
Mar 17, 2014
4,230
3,461
AFL Club
Collingwood
Given how huge betting agencies are these days there really needs to be a Betting Ombudsmen. or make it part of financial or banking services. There needs to be a mediator in this which holds both ends accountable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BG__

All Australian
May 22, 2018
879
1,379
AFL Club
West Coast
As stated in one of the threads earlier - pricing a $1.11 shot at $1.70 is going to constitute a pricing error by any reasonable person.
The $1.11 that they all got crunched to isn't actually accurate to what its usually meant to be, they just went that low because so many jumped on. Apparently its usually anywhere from around $1.25-1.65 (depending on the game) so the odds offered weren't necessarily that ridiculous.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,707
2,633
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
As stated in one of the threads earlier - pricing a $1.11 shot at $1.70 is going to constitute a pricing error by any reasonable person.
Some parts of the multi had odds at $1.48.

Sportsbet paid out what they called actual odds at around $1.28 on average.

Where is the line drawn?
 

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
6,945
1,627
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
For a 100% market a $1-11 shot is 90% of the market, and a $1-70 shot is 58%. A 32% pricing error

For a 100% market a $5 shot is 20% of the market, and a $501 shot is <1%. A 20% pricing error.

$1-11 to $1-70 is a significant palp
 

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
6,945
1,627
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The $1.11 that they all got crunched to isn't actually accurate to what its usually meant to be, they just went that low because so many jumped on. Apparently its usually anywhere from around $1.25-1.65 (depending on the game) so the odds offered weren't necessarily that ridiculous.
Even $1-25 to $1-70 is a significant palp
 

Hamingja

Brownlow Medallist
May 20, 2014
10,929
13,126
AFL Club
Geelong
Is there a definition of "obvious error"?

seems to me that is too ambiguous a statement
Mispricing should not equal error.

Let's use the French Open as an example.

Muguruza started the tournament as a $35 chance to win outright.

She is a multiple GS winner including previously winning at the French.

Despite her average form if we are talking people capable of winning then I would have her on the third line of betting with Pliskova and behind Halep and Bertens. So say around $12-$15.

If Muguruza happens to win can the bookies just turn around and say that it was an obvious error that we put up $35 about a past champion, here take $12 instead!
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,707
2,633
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
After the fact, Sportsbet claim the correct odds should have been:
Syd v Pies $1.33
Hawks v Port $1.30
Dogs v Roos $1.30
Crows v WCE $1.53
Tigers v Dons $1.25
GC v Cats $1.13
Dees v GWS $1.33
Saints v Blues $1.22
Freo v Lions $1.33

Edit: At least try and use semi-accurate figures in your comparisons please.

Second Edit: The point being, would a casual punter have noticed the 'obvious error' in odds?
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
26,859
18,862
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
After the fact, Sportsbet claim the correct odds should have been:
Syd v Pies $1.33
Hawks v Port $1.30
Dogs v Roos $1.30
Crows v WCE $1.53
Tigers v Dons $1.25
GC v Cats $1.13
Dees v GWS $1.33
Saints v Blues $1.22
Freo v Lions $1.33

Edit: At least try and use semi-accurate figures in your comparisons please.

Second Edit: The point being, would a casual punter have noticed the 'obvious error' in odds?
A casual punter might not have but a reasonable person would.
 

banana_bus

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 12, 2007
8,970
2,902
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
So is your argument that a bookmaker can unilaterally accept and cancel a bet before an event occurs, just because the odds change?

Edit: This appears to be 'mispricing' not a 'clear obvious error' as per the case previously cited.
I actually misread your previous post.

We all know that bookies are dodgy a.f, usually I'd side with the punters, but in this case the punters have found a clear error in pricing and tried to take advantage of it for a big amount of $.
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
26,859
18,862
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Mispricing should not equal error.

Let's use the French Open as an example.

Muguruza started the tournament as a $35 chance to win outright.

She is a multiple GS winner including previously winning at the French.

Despite her average form if we are talking people capable of winning then I would have her on the third line of betting with Pliskova and behind Halep and Bertens. So say around $12-$15.

If Muguruza happens to win can the bookies just turn around and say that it was an obvious error that we put up $35 about a past champion, here take $12 instead!
Your compairson would have Mugu priced at 6% compared to 3%

The error we are talking about here was an event that should have been priced at 75% being priced at 58%

There two are nowhere near comparable.
 
Top Bottom