Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

(Log in to remove this ad.)

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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
Why are you being disingenuous by using odds which are clearly wrong and shown to be wrong in earlier posts?

Edit: Sportsbet deliberately have their rule grey to give themselves more wriggle room.

Most average punters have no idea about the real odds and that's why I believe this case has such a high chance of success.

Sportsbet obviously do too given their payout at 10-1 already.
 

iluvparis

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 1, 2005
28,788
20,740
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Why are you being disingenuous by using odds which are clearly wrong and shown to be wrong in earlier posts?

Edit: Sportsbet deliberately have their rule grey to give themselves more wriggle room.

Most average punters have no idea about the real odds and that's why I believe this case has such a high chance of success.

Sportsbet obviously do too given their payout at 10-1 already.
I've done the same comparison using your 'real' odds - it would still come out as a pricing fail (probably by some automated system) in any case.

I don't know why you think that the claim 'average punters have no idea about real odds' is an argument worth making either. As I highlighted (and you ignored) - if they DIDN'T know why was every mug plastering the bet over twitter last week.

The case has very little chance of success.
 

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
7,201
1,996
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Why are you being disingenuous by using odds which are clearly wrong and shown to be wrong in earlier posts?

Edit: Sportsbet deliberately have their rule grey to give themselves more wriggle room.

Most average punters have no idea about the real odds and that's why I believe this case has such a high chance of success.

Sportsbet obviously do too given their payout at 10-1 already.
Happy to roll with yours.

$1-28 = 78% of a 100% market. $1-70 = 58% of a 100% market. Therefore 20% market error.

$10 priced in error @ $1001 = 10% market error

$5 priced in error @ $501 = 20% market error

$20 priced in error @ $201 = 5% market error


Does a casual punter know that a $1-28 shot has been incorrectly priced at $1-70? Absolutely. That's why it gets plastered all over twitter and smashed by everyone and multied across all options.

Those who got on had their bet voided before the round started so if someone hit 40 touches they lose nothing. They then get a freeroll and get paid out at $10 when it wins.
 
Last edited:

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I've done the same comparison using your 'real' odds - it would still come out as a pricing fail (probably by some automated system) in any case.

I don't know why you think that the claim 'average punters have no idea about real odds' is an argument worth making either. As I highlighted (and you ignored) - if they DIDN'T know why was every mug plastering the bet over twitter last week.

The case has very little chance of success.
Let's agree to disagree here.

Bookmakers aren't in the habit of giving away free money.

There is no way they would have paid out at 10-1 if they weren't really worried.

Time will tell, but I expect the NT Gaming Commission to rule in favour of punters (at least if they put together their submission well).

This has also hit the media and that will help customers in this case.

The argument is not based on 'average punters have no idea about real odds', the argument is based on citing a case that sets out the criteria for what constitutes an 'obvious error'.

Edit: And I am speaking as someone who has been successful in numerous submissions to the regulators.
 
Last edited:

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Happy to roll with yours.

$1-28 = 78% of a 100% market. $1-70 = 58% of a 100% market. Therefore 20% market error.

$10 priced in error @ $1001 = 10% market error

$5 priced in error @ $501 = 20% market error

$20 priced in error @ $201 = 5% market error


Does a casual punter know that a $1-28 shot has been incorrectly priced at $1-70? Absolutely. That's why it gets plastered all over twitter and smashed by everyone and multied across all options.

Those who got on had their bet voided before the round started so if someone hit 40 touches they lose nothing. They then get a freeroll and get paid out at $10 when it wins.
Okay, let's try another example.

Saints v Blues

Placed odds $1.44

Supposed real odds from Sportsbet (after the fact) $1.22

Is a casual punter really going to know the difference between the two?

Not uncommon for AFL market odds to come in that much in the course of a few days.

It is not an 'obvious error' and as per my post above, there is no doubt this matter will go further.

The fact that multiple people got on this wager via twitter has little relevance.
 

TheExtractorFactor

Club Legend
Nov 27, 2012
2,697
11,227
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Knicks // NY Giants
Let's agree to disagree here.

Bookmakers aren't in the habit of giving away free money.

There is no way they would have paid out at 10-1 if they weren't really worried.

Time will tell, but I expect the NT Gaming Commission to rule in favour of punters (at least if they put together their submission well).

This has also hit the media and that will help customers in this case.

The argument is not based on 'average punters have no idea about real odds', the argument is based on citing a case that sets out the criteria for what constitutes an 'obvious error'.
They are when it suits them and they think it will result in them coming out infront longterm, which is why they have early payouts, ‘loyalty’ bonuses etc. designed to attract and keep customers.

A lot of these bogans would just be thankful there was some money put back in their account so they could punt on the South African gallops that same night.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
They are when it suits them and they think it will result in them coming out infront longterm, which is why they have early payouts, ‘loyalty’ bonuses etc. designed to attract and keep customers.
That is exactly why they have paid out in this instance.

It was creating negative media exposure and there were calls for a class action.

They made a commercial decision to pay out at reduced odds to get rid of the majority of affected punters.

They are banking on over 75% taking the money (which is not inconsiderable) and running.

They will then try and settle the balance of the cases (the bigger wagers) on a confidential basis.

I can't see Sportsbet wanting to fight this at the commission.

Edit: Having said that, there are some really large wagers out there and would be great to see a test case on this issue.
 

BG__

Club Legend
May 22, 2018
1,466
2,092
AFL Club
West Coast
FYI anyone with a claim needs to lodge it within 14 days of the bet being made

You would have thought they'd just make sportsbet payout everyone if they do in fact find that they should pay out.

 

iluvparis

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 1, 2005
28,788
20,740
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Okay, let's try another example.

Saints v Blues

Placed odds $1.44

Supposed real odds from Sportsbet (after the fact) $1.22

Is a casual punter really going to know the difference between the two?

Not uncommon for AFL market odds to come in that much in the course of a few days.

It is not an 'obvious error' and as per my post above, there is no doubt this matter will go further.

The fact that multiple people got on this wager via twitter has little relevance.
Again - you are going the straw man - that odds differential is not what was observed in this case and is therefore irrelevant.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Again - you are going the straw man - that odds differential is not what was observed in this case and is therefore irrelevant.
They will obviously go the single bets by way of odds comparison for 'obvious errors'.

Again, not sure of your logic as this is the exact odds differential we are talking about.

Edit: just to elaborate. They will say if the bet above looks okay as a single that should not have been voided, same logic applies for balance of the bets.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

X_box_X

King of September
Mar 15, 2001
19,714
5,025
DogLands
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
FYI anyone with a claim needs to lodge it within 14 days of the bet being made

You would have thought they'd just make sportsbet payout everyone if they do in fact find that they should pay out.

This is going to be interesting to follow.

Sportsbet probably won't want to invest the time and effort looking into every case, but if they did, I could see it working out like this.

Punter A)
A proven mug punter. Rarely takes +EV odds. Betting patterns are consistent with that of a casual punter. A negative return from the lifetime of his account. A large majority of his bets are multies. No history of ever getting on a palp.

Punter B)
Seems a bit more calculated. Doesn't bet every day of the week, and more often than not he will bet on weekends only. Betting patterns are consistent with someone who likes to shop around for best odds. Slightly in the minus over the lifetime of his account. Places the occasional multi. No history of ever getting on a palp.

Punter C)
Places bets most days of the week. A lot more calculated and switched on than the average punters. A large majority of his bets are placed 48 hours out from events in +EV situations. Rarely places multies. Has had several bets in the past two years that were palps. Slightly in the green over the lifetime of his account.

Punter D)
Places bets every day. Very calculated and well educated. Betting patterns suggest he only ever places bets that are +EV. Rarely places multies. Has a history of betting on palps. Well in the green over the lifetime of his account.

Sportsbet could easily argue that Punter D was well aware of the extra generous odds / palp. It's likely they could also argue Punter C was well aware of the overpriced odds in each leg of the multi. It's reasonable that Punter A had absolutely no idea that he was betting markets with overpriced odds, and it's probably reasonable that Punter B may have also not been aware of the overpriced odds. These punters were simply "following the crowd" when the 40+ markets went viral, and weren't aware of the palps.

Sportsbet and NT Racing and Gaming rule in favour of Punters A and B and decide to pay them out. They don't rule in favour of Punters C and D and those punters can instead count their lucky chickens they even got paid out at odds of $9.

Given there are thousands in this position, there's no way Sportsbet would invest the time and energy to go through every account. They'd honestly prefer to just take the $9 million loss and recover that loss over the next several days by going about their usual business.
 

99 Problems

Team Captain
Aug 4, 2016
358
295
AFL Club
Sydney
Okay, let's try another example.

Saints v Blues

Placed odds $1.44

Supposed real odds from Sportsbet (after the fact) $1.22

Is a casual punter really going to know the difference between the two?

Not uncommon for AFL market odds to come in that much in the course of a few days.

It is not an 'obvious error' and as per my post above, there is no doubt this matter will go further.

The fact that multiple people got on this wager via twitter has little relevance.
There is a major difference between the 2 examples. One is a price moving due to market forces, no different to if a syndicate moved the price of a runner from $26 to $10 in a horse race. The price is an error, but market forces have dictated that.

The example with this multi, and Sportsbet’s argument is pretty clearly different. They never intended or possibly thought the odds to have nobody getting 40+ possessions is $120. That is a clear mistake, and the fact it was a clear mistake is the only reason hundreds of people shared and backed it
 

FallingLiefs

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 30, 2013
12,368
13,597
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It’s irrelevant if the punter perceives the odds to be an error. It matters if something glitched to cause it. Sportsbet would have to prove the input into a computer system is incorrect or the person translating odds made an error.

The computer system being a terrible predictor IMO should not exempt them from having to pay out when it fails. It’s not an excuse.

Of course that’s where I stand morally. Legally it’s pi**ing in the wind for mine.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There is a major difference between the 2 examples. One is a price moving due to market forces, no different to if a syndicate moved the price of a runner from $26 to $10 in a horse race. The price is an error, but market forces have dictated that.

The example with this multi, and Sportsbet’s argument is pretty clearly different. They never intended or possibly thought the odds to have nobody getting 40+ possessions is $120. That is a clear mistake, and the fact it was a clear mistake is the only reason hundreds of people shared and backed it
No issue with your above example being Sportsbet's argument.

But what if this was a multi using 9 horses (all being favourites).

What is the difference? Who knows what the true odds are as it is all arbitrary and then influenced by the market.

How is a casual punter meant to assess whether the price was an error or not?

I think any case would be mounted on the individual bet and whether each was an 'obvious error' as opposed to the fact that nine individual bets were made collectively in a multi format.

No doubt it will be an interesting case if it ever gets to a formal hearing.

Edit: Benefit of the doubt also surely has to go to the customer over the bookmaker. Otherwise, we give way too much power to the bookmaker who already has all the control.
 

BG__

Club Legend
May 22, 2018
1,466
2,092
AFL Club
West Coast
This is going to be interesting to follow.

Sportsbet probably won't want to invest the time and effort looking into every case, but if they did, I could see it working out like this.

Punter A)
A proven mug punter. Rarely takes +EV odds. Betting patterns are consistent with that of a casual punter. A negative return from the lifetime of his account. A large majority of his bets are multies. No history of ever getting on a palp.

Punter B)
Seems a bit more calculated. Doesn't bet every day of the week, and more often than not he will bet on weekends only. Betting patterns are consistent with someone who likes to shop around for best odds. Slightly in the minus over the lifetime of his account. Places the occasional multi. No history of ever getting on a palp.

Punter C)
Places bets most days of the week. A lot more calculated and switched on than the average punters. A large majority of his bets are placed 48 hours out from events in +EV situations. Rarely places multies. Has had several bets in the past two years that were palps. Slightly in the green over the lifetime of his account.

Punter D)
Places bets every day. Very calculated and well educated. Betting patterns suggest he only ever places bets that are +EV. Rarely places multies. Has a history of betting on palps. Well in the green over the lifetime of his account.

Sportsbet could easily argue that Punter D was well aware of the extra generous odds / palp. It's likely they could also argue Punter C was well aware of the overpriced odds in each leg of the multi. It's reasonable that Punter A had absolutely no idea that he was betting markets with overpriced odds, and it's probably reasonable that Punter B may have also not been aware of the overpriced odds. These punters were simply "following the crowd" when the 40+ markets went viral, and weren't aware of the palps.

Sportsbet and NT Racing and Gaming rule in favour of Punters A and B and decide to pay them out. They don't rule in favour of Punters C and D and those punters can instead count their lucky chickens they even got paid out at odds of $9.

Given there are thousands in this position, there's no way Sportsbet would invest the time and energy to go through every account. They'd honestly prefer to just take the $9 million loss and recover that loss over the next several days by going about their usual business.
I would have been C/D a couple of years ago, but thanks to sportsbets limits and restrictions i just use them for my bull**** multis now. Can't even remember the last time i won a bet with them. Looks like an absolute mugs account now, being limited might finally have its perks.

They could go that route, but i reckon it opens another whole can of worms. There would be riots if some started getting paid out and others didn't.

SB would just be better off paying everyone out if it came to that imo, would do a fair bit to help save some of their reputation too. Their social media keeps getting absolutely bombarded with comments about it, and i don't see it slowing down. $9mil is a big whack but, not like its going to be any real dent in their pocket. Right now i reckon it'd be better for them than $9mil of advertising. A good chunk of that $9mil would be gambled away back to SB by those paid out anyway by the end of the weekend.
 
Last edited:

99 Problems

Team Captain
Aug 4, 2016
358
295
AFL Club
Sydney
No issue with your above example being Sportsbet's argument.

But what if this was a multi using 9 horses (all being favourites).

What is the difference? Who knows what the true odds are as it is all arbitrary and then influenced by the market.

How is a casual punter meant to assess whether the price was an error or not?

I think any case would be mounted on the individual bet and whether each was an 'obvious error' as opposed to the fact that nine individual bets were made collectively in a multi format.

No doubt it will be an interesting case if it ever gets to a formal hearing.

Edit: Benefit of the doubt also surely has to go to the customer over the bookmaker. Otherwise, we give way too much power to the bookmaker who already has all the control.
Sportsbet will have to use previous examples of prices on this market, over 35 disposals, over 30 disposals, the prices of competitors (PointsBet $5.50 for the same multi) and the historical likelihood of this event occurring (which will be the biggest factor against punters).

It is very different to the horse racing favourites example. With the racing, that would be the odds they think are right at the time of the bet being placed. Sportsbet never at any stage thought that these were the correct prices for 40+ disposals, and never intended to put these on site or lay bets at these prices. That is at least the argument.

I’ll admit it’s not as open and shut case as it first appeared, but I’d still have Sportsbet favourite on the NTRC finding their way.
 

asanque

Premium Platinum
Jan 7, 2008
4,742
2,729
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Sportsbet will have to use previous examples of prices on this market, over 35 disposals, over 30 disposals, the prices of competitors (PointsBet $5.50 for the same multi) and the historical likelihood of this event occurring (which will be the biggest factor against punters).

It is very different to the horse racing favourites example. With the racing, that would be the odds they think are right at the time of the bet being placed. Sportsbet never at any stage thought that these were the correct prices for 40+ disposals, and never intended to put these on site or lay bets at these prices. That is at least the argument.

I’ll admit it’s not as open and shut case as it first appeared, but I’d still have Sportsbet favourite on the NTRC finding their way.
Agreed with a lot of what you said and I was initially skeptical.

However, Sportsbet took manual bets via operator and continued to take these bets and wind down odds throughout the course of a day.

Apparently, they also kept losing bets before eventually voiding.

That goes against the argument that they never intended to put these odds on site or lay bets at those prices.

Gets interesting doesn't it :)
 

99 Problems

Team Captain
Aug 4, 2016
358
295
AFL Club
Sydney
Agreed with a lot of what you said and I was initially skeptical.

However, Sportsbet took manual bets via operator and continued to take these bets and wind down odds throughout the course of a day.

Apparently, they also kept losing bets before eventually voiding.

That goes against the argument that they never intended to put these odds on site or lay bets at those prices.

Gets interesting doesn't it :)
You’re right that manually accepting bets will be one of their biggest issues with the NTRC. The winding in of prices won’t be an issue for them though. That’s just a robot at work in the background auto responding to bets. Hopefully this example, along with likely incoming increases in minimum bet laws (hopefully for sport in the not too distant future as well) will lead away for this robot style of errors and voiding that has become so widespread in the industry.
 

iluvparis

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 1, 2005
28,788
20,740
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
They will obviously go the single bets by way of odds comparison for 'obvious errors'.

Again, not sure of your logic as this is the exact odds differential we are talking about.

Edit: just to elaborate. They will say if the bet above looks okay as a single that should not have been voided, same logic applies for balance of the bets.
No it isn't - as has been said by multiple posters in this thread already

Good luck with the case though.
 

Top Bottom