Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

[asanque]

And the fact so many casual punters jumped all over this and spread it through social media is all the evidence sportsbet needs that it was an obvious pricing error.

Mug punters jump on anything.

All you need is a rumour saying X is a sure thing from Tom Waterhouse, and a plunge occurs.

It doesn't necessarily mean there is a pricing error.

Funnily enough, if Brad Crouch got one more possession on the weekend, Sportsbet would be breathing a sigh of relief.

 

[GROTTO]

And the fact so many casual punters jumped all over this and spread it through social media is all the evidence sportsbet needs that it was an obvious pricing error.

A reasonable person would see $1.10 odds v $1.70 odds as Probability of ~90% v ~60% and a pricing error.

A casual punter would see Melbourne's odds to make the 8 at $11 as value, without appreciating the variables. Liked they are f*ked this year.

 

[BG__]

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 $.

Yeah its definitely a mistake that they made and if they have to pay out in full its going to be because of all these loopholey and technical things in the punters favour. There seems to be a fair few of these though they might get caught out on.

I'm loving it though lol. I'm fairly happy with the payout i got @10, but loving the David v Goliath mentality of all the punters taking down the bookies for a change and using all the fine print to the punters advantage for once. Not going to feel bad for SB at all (also wouldn't mind getting a 5 figure payout lol)

 

[asanque]

A reasonable person would see $1.10 odds v $1.70 odds as Probability of ~90% v ~60% and a pricing error.

A casual punter would see Melbourne's odds to make the 8 at $11 as value, without appreciating the variables. Liked they are f*ked this year.

It was never that much of a discrepancy.

I posted the Sportsbet actual odds above (although that's what they claim AFTER the event).

 

[Jugada]

And the fact so many casual punters jumped all over this and spread it through social media is all the evidence sportsbet needs that it was an obvious pricing error.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The fact that so many yobbos jumped on and passed it around all their mates online to the point where Sportsbet were exposed for $9 million should be a good indicator that even the Twitter window lickers knew it was obviously a mistake

 

[2121]

The biggest problem i have with this whole issue is they resulted a guys multi that took the yes option as a loss until he posted it to twitter, 5 minutes later its resulted as a void, clearly shows sports bet were happy to take peoples money untill it spread like wild fire across twitter and facebook and they sh*t themselves and voided it aswell.

 

[asanque]

For analytics sake, I wonder how they got to the actual odds they posted to begin with anyway (i.e. $1.70).

Odds look too short for <30.

Maybe it was for <35?

 

[GROTTO]

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The fact that so many yobbos jumped on and passed it around all their mates online to the point where Sportsbet were exposed for $9 million should be a good indicator that even the Twitter window lickers knew it was obviously a mistake

A similar situation of wrong odds posted by SB only happened a couple of weeks ago.

Suns were paying ~$500 to win by 40+ v Power at AO.

It was posted on the forum here, the news spread. Bets were voided before the game.

The only issue why this didnt become a drama is because the Power won.

 

[GROTTO]

It was never that much of a discrepancy.

I posted the Sportsbet actual odds above (although that's what they claim AFTER the event).

Sorry I was being facetious.

The main issue I have in all of this is what you posted if it is true. Which Im assuming it is, which is this.

"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."

 

[iluvparis]

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The fact that so many yobbos jumped on and passed it around all their mates online to the point where Sportsbet were exposed for $9 million should be a good indicator that even the Twitter window lickers knew it was obviously a mistake

Post of the year nom

 

[asanque]

Im quoting myself and answering my own question.

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.

Wow there are a lot of mug punters out there.

I wonder if Sportsbet will start restricting the accounts of all those that jumped on this multi

 

[burge13]

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.

Find @trendbettor on twitter. He has posted a table proving these markets aren't supposed to be as low as $1.10 using Sportsbet's own odds on individual 40+ pricing

 

[Jugada]

The only thing using Sportsbets 40+ markets as a reference shows is just what gross under those markets are set at. You will regularly see a player like Brad Crouch paying like $4-5 to get 40+ and then the any player to get 40 touches option paying like $6

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Fascinating thread, thanks to the many posters who offered interesting contributions.

I didn't know about this until after the fact. Definitely would have jumped on at 120-1.

I had to deal with Sportsbet customer service over a voided bet last weekend, ended up getting a decent payout on a market where my bet would have lost if they hadn't voided it.

Seems to me that they know they are doing something wrong when they post generous odds, then allow more bets, and the odds keep coming in, and then when overexposed simply 'void' it. They know this is wrong. They know they are abusing the 'error' line.

If only more customers would arc up when stooged. Apathy allows companies like this to get away with it.

I'm a mug punter, most seasons I end up down by the end of grand final day, only relatively small amounts, they wouldn't miss me or my turnover, but if enough tiny fish deserted them, I think that would hurt their bottom line. Will that ever happen though? I doubt it.

 

[TheExtractorFactor]

The biggest problem i have with this whole issue is they resulted a guys multi that took the yes option as a loss until he posted it to twitter, 5 minutes later its resulted as a void, clearly shows sports bet were happy to take peoples money untill it spread like wild fire across twitter and facebook and they **** themselves and voided it aswell.

Next you'll tell me they ban punters who win and offer incentives to those who lose.

 

[FallingLiefs]

i still don't think they can fall back on obvious error clause.

a) the total market percentage looked ok
b) the OVER odds represent the weight of bets normally on the "over" side. so they offer huge unders week to week hoping mugs back their faves at unrealistic price.
c) i saw a horse go $1.70 to $1.08 on saturday with no bets voided. i also remember bet365 going up 100:1 about... off the top of my head english, off trial form and SP'd huge amount shorter. 365 went up with a correct market percentage, they just got it wrong.
d) as a punter when i price something at $1.60, and back it when it opens up at $5, i can't sit there and withdraw my bet when it SP's $40 on betfair. bookmakers are basically punters on the other side of the tape. typographical errors, no problems. if they typed in $1.80 and meant $1.08 i genuinely have no problem voiding these bets, but theres no obvious error like that. this is a trader who just put up the complete wrong market probably thinking they'd clean up on the huge unders they were offering on over 40+"

 

[Lensen]

Find @trendbettor on twitter. He has posted a table proving these markets aren't supposed to be as low as $1.10 using Sportsbet's own odds on individual 40+ pricing

in an ocean of contenders, that tweet might be the worst take on this entire saga

 

[FallingLiefs]

it's going to be hard to win, i don't think they even can. i just don't think they should be able to hide behind "obivous error" type rule.

 

[burge13]

in an ocean of contenders, that tweet might be the worst take on this entire saga

It highlights that it isn't an "obvious error" though IMO. That is the crucial part of whether punters get paid out or not...

 

[burge13]

Market open for 3 days
Odds fluctuated for 3 days
Price vs individual odds

Do people really think this is an "obvious error" and punters arent deserving of anything or do people agree they are deserving and just know they won't get it anyway?

 

[FallingLiefs]

Market open for 3 days
Odds fluctuated for 3 days
Price vs individual odds

Do people really think this is an "obvious error" and punters arent deserving of anything or do people agree they are deserving and just know they won't get it anyway?

to me it's an obvious error, i mean they allowed $1.30-$1.80 for an event that's got up 9 times this year from 81 attempts. it's just i don't see how they hide behind the precedent of typographical errors.

 

[54Dogs]

Any reasonable person test is always based on the average bozo (i.e. casual punter).

Would the average punter have considered Winx a pricing error if it came up $1-70 for any of it's last 4 runs, rather than $1-10?

Absolutely

 

[HeathComeBack]

Would the average punter have considered Winx a pricing error if it came up $1-70 for any of it's last 4 runs, rather than $1-10?

Absolutely

i would argue that the average punter has no clue about correct odds. Thats why i have a big issue with "obvious error"

 

[AvantGardener]

It's in their T&Cs that they, at their sole discretion, can void bets. Significantly different to the examples you used.

Laws need to change so that term doesnt stand up in court

 

[54Dogs]

Laws need to change so that term doesnt stand up in court

Happy for them to have the rule, just needs to be more clearly defined so not grey.

Punters don't have to bet with them if they don't like it