The part I don't like is not voiding the market completely at the time No bets were voided. Basically saying we will accept your bet we know is unders, because we have ripped you off but will void the other half.
Sportsbet 40+ disposals saga
- Thread starter TheExtractorFactor
- Start date
- Tagged users None
asanque
Premium Platinum
I am a big punter's advocate and this case has caught my attention.
I have a friend who has been impacted also.
On brief review of the material, I think that affected customers have quite a good shot at this one.
No clear obvious error in the odds.
Odds were gradually decreased and bets accepted after operator referral.
If Sportsbet have paid out already at 10-1, you also have nothing to lose by going to the NT Regulator.
I suspect that this may even get to the courts if there are enough affected customers.
I helped with the Sports Alive saga, have gone through the dispute process before and am more than happy to give some guidance to anyone that would like some tips about the process.
Just my quick 2 cents.
Edit: There were even players on 38 and 39 disposals on the weekend, so the odds were close enough.
I have a friend who has been impacted also.
On brief review of the material, I think that affected customers have quite a good shot at this one.
No clear obvious error in the odds.
Odds were gradually decreased and bets accepted after operator referral.
If Sportsbet have paid out already at 10-1, you also have nothing to lose by going to the NT Regulator.
I suspect that this may even get to the courts if there are enough affected customers.
I helped with the Sports Alive saga, have gone through the dispute process before and am more than happy to give some guidance to anyone that would like some tips about the process.
Just my quick 2 cents.
Edit: There were even players on 38 and 39 disposals on the weekend, so the odds were close enough.
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,700
- 89,465
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Bigfooty posters turning up to court to claim their money. That would be epic.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
I 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.
- Moderator
- #58
- Jan 25, 2016
- 9,348
- 7,817
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
Would be more interesting if Carbone or Henry Karus lawyers were involved
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,740
- 1,864
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Everton
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
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Chances of sportsbet chat history being enshrined into Australian common low are higher than the original boosted odds they were offering on this multi.
- Jan 25, 2016
- 9,348
- 7,817
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
Its moments like this that the contribution of our esteemed leader is missed
- Moderator
- #63
Don’t like Pointsbet at all but that’s clever marketing.
Amusing promo and a nice dig at SB.
Especially after those disputing just got paid at $10
The ultimate troll would have been offering the full @150 odds for it with a max bet of like $1
- Jan 25, 2016
- 9,348
- 7,817
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
People in WA & SA have a head start on rest of the country.
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.
Sportsbet more than generous enough to pay out at 10's.
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,873
- 12,767
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Is there a definition of "obvious error"?
seems to me that is too ambiguous a statement
seems to me that is too ambiguous a statement
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,700
- 89,465
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Jan 25, 2016
- 9,348
- 7,817
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
Yes, when I said I wanted $5,0000 on something I actually only wanted $50.
Obvious error transaction now void
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,873
- 12,767
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
unlike the old days when $10 meant $10000
asanque
Premium Platinum
It isn't quite that simple.
Firstly, Sportsbet themselves acknowledge that the real multi should have been at 10's and thus have paid out on this basis.
However, that figure is completely arbitrary.
Most of the odds were out by a bit, but would not have been obvious to a casual punter.
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.
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.
Take brownlow betting and the big multis there.
Imagine if Sportsbet could simply cancel a large brownlow multi as they decide that after putting markets up, that they had simply priced the market incorrectly.
Edit: It always astounds me how bad behaviour from bookmakers is so often excused.
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.
They specifically state that "generous odds" (like the $1.50-2 each leg SB were offering instead of around $1.30-1.60) cannot count as an "obvious error" as generous odds often can dictate where a person decides to gamble.
Under the definition I'm not sure SB can claim it to be an "obvious error", they just framed the market badly.
Last edited:
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:
