Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
27,146
19,107
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
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.
All of that is irrelevant - it only matters what a reasonable person would expect. And as keeps getting ignored by the payout crowd here it is obvious from how quickly this spread on social media that the reasonable person new the markets were miss priced.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
6,977
1,681
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
99 Problems hit it. Evidence on whether the price was an obvious error comes from previous markets on number of disposals from SB and other books. If they can prove an obvious error that should cover them for the majority of cases.

Prices being wound in = no issue as it's automated.

Those with a chance who should have a crack are any who got referred to a trader and accepted. The trader is meant to validate the price and market exposure before accepting, so as a manual intervention point is essentially saying I am OK with this. Not sure they should be allowed to be voided.
 

2121

Club Legend
Jun 4, 2007
2,660
608
Thaa hoodd.
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
150/1 that guy has any true inside info about what decision the commission will make
He was the guy that said sportsbet were seeking clarification from NT racing commission on wether they could pay out at smaller odds before sportsbet even announced they're going to pay out, so I'm sure he has some idea
 

AvantGardener

All Australian
Mar 13, 2016
860
1,032
AFL Club
Carlton
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.
Um punter D got banned years ago
 

langdon19

All Australian
Dec 2, 2008
835
506
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
$120 odds are an obvious error, the bet wins 1/5 games.
Hope Sb get screwed over this, weight of public numbers might force their hand.
They screwed me last year and I was more in the right than the above case, what really pi**ed me off was the fact I got limited to the point of being banned as well.
I think the people who placed this bet (me included at $12) will get their accounts reviewed so might as well screw Sb over. I’ll be happy to see them get done to themselves what they have done to others.
 
Top Bottom