Tsonga v Melzer - Bets not Voided

[Frankenfurter]

Afternoon All,

Just a quick one to see whether i'm on my own in my thinking. I had a bet on Tsonga to beat Melzer at Kooyong Classic (head to head).

Because of the rain in Melbourne the match was delayed for three days (no problem with the bet standing because of the delay). But the players then agreed to play a single super set instead of the normal 3 set match. To my way of thinking the bet should be voided then and there because the bet was placed thinking it would be best of 3 not a sudden death set. However my local corporate said that the match was played to completion so it stands.

Thoughts??

 

[KardiniaPark]

I think it stinks and I think the TAB 72 hour rule is absolute rubbish. I would be fuming...

 

[Coledinho]

Those are the rules with tennis im afraid. Completion of one set = A legitimate match

 

[asanque]

I'm not impartial as I had Melzer +3.

However, I suspect if you push it you might get a refund.

 

[Frankenfurter]

the other thing i didn't say in the first post, was the alternative option for the two players to decide who won was a coin toss. What do you think would of happened if Melzer won a coin toss at $2.53!!

It's not big cash, just disappointed with the theory behind the concept!

 

[twarby]

they didnt take too kindly to my unders bet

bit late after the event now though

 

[Selective Retention]

Kooyong is an exhibition tournament not part of the ATP tour.

The exhibition part should sound warning bells re betting.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Kooyong is an exhibition tournament not part of the ATP tour.

The exhibition part should sound warning bells re betting.

how is that relevant to the topic and conversation?

I LIKE LAMP

 

[Borgsta]

Kooyong has been very profitable for me so let those warning bells ring.

They voided my unders bet but let the +3 for Meltzer go through. both were placed on the morning of the rescheduled event.

 

[Selective Retention]

how is that relevant to the topic and conversation?

I LIKE LAMP

It has everything to do with the topic and conversation.

Exhibition tournament therefore not bound to rules therefore can't complain when the goal posts shift.

You bet on a H2H winner of a match, and you got that.

Simple really.

Don't bet on exhibition games if you want full transparency.

 

[The_Doctor]

It has everything to do with the topic and conversation.

Exhibition tournament therefore not bound to rules therefore can't complain when the goal posts shift.

You bet on a H2H winner of a match, and you got that.

Simple really.

Don't bet on exhibition games if you want full transparency.

Think you will find that is not true. There are rules bound to anything that you bet on. As someone already said they voided the over under market bets but not the player line bets. That doesnt make sense

 

[The_Doctor]

Those are the rules with tennis im afraid. Completion of one set = A legitimate match

Where is that rule from?

 

[Selective Retention]

Think you will find that is not true. There are rules bound to anything that you bet on. As someone already said they voided the over under market bets but not the player line bets. That doesnt make sense

I'm saying that the exhibition tournament is not bound by rules, not the bets. The players came together to make the best of the situation for themselves and the viewing public. I don't think we will be seeing a major tournament decided by a super set anytime soon.

The bets obviously are bound by rules.

The over/under market comes with a different disclaimer, that's why they pay one out and void the other.

Generic disclaimer for match betting says that it will be void due to disqualification or retirement where the disclaimer for the overs/unders says that a ball has to be served in the final set for the bet to stand.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I'm saying that the exhibition tournament is not bound by rules, not the bets. The players came together to make the best of the situation for themselves and the viewing public. I don't think we will be seeing a major tournament decided by a super set anytime soon.

The bets obviously are bound by rules.

The over/under market comes with a different disclaimer, that's why they pay one out and void the other.

Generic disclaimer for match betting says that it will be void due to disqualification or retirement where the disclaimer for the overs/unders says that a ball has to be served in the final set for the bet to stand.

negative on all counts, the bet is bound by the particular rules of the corporate bookmaker, as the punting having the bet i am bound by their particular rules and regs, not the rules and regs of the tennis match. My point was i didn't feel that the rules of the corporate bookmaker meant that the match that was played between the two players constituted a valid match. i was seeking clarification from the net as to whether my point of view was skewed by my potential $60 collect!!

 

[One Fell Swoop]

Most bookies use the match complete rule these days, and that match was certainly not complete.

All bets should be void.

And any such bookmakers deserve some bad press for this behaviour, so try take it to the media.

 

[Selective Retention]

negative on all counts, the bet is bound by the particular rules of the corporate bookmaker, as the punting having the bet i am bound by their particular rules and regs, not the rules and regs of the tennis match. My point was i didn't feel that the rules of the corporate bookmaker meant that the match that was played between the two players constituted a valid match. i was seeking clarification from the net as to whether my point of view was skewed by my potential $60 collect!!

Ok we will go slowly.

The tournament considers it a valid match.

Therefore the bookmakers are going to say the same thing.

The bookmakers rules say it is only void when disqualification or retirement occurs.

Neither occurred.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Ok we will go slowly.

The tournament considers it a valid match.

Therefore the bookmakers are going to say the same thing.

The bookmakers rules say it is only void when disqualification or retirement occurs.

Neither occurred.

seeing as though corporates do not have a standard set of rules, and i didn't name which one it was, see below for the rules

3.21 Tennis

If a match ends prematurely due to either players retirement or disqualification, all single bets are void and wagers refunded, while affected multiple bets will be recalculated excluding that leg.

For sets betting, if the match doesn't start, or is unfinished due to either player's incapacity or disqualification, then all single bets are void and bets refunded. Affected multiple bets will be recalculated excluding that leg.

If a game is postponed and rescheduled, all bets stand. If the game is not played, all single bets are void and bets refunded. Affected multiple bets will be recalculated excluding that leg.

Bets stand regardless of any change of venue or court surface.

My point was in the rules it does not state what would happen in these circumstances.

i understand what your point was regarding exhibition tournament so the rules around who progresses is a little more rubbery.

my only real point has been when the bet was placed, it was placed with the intention that the contest was a 3 set match, it was not that so therefore logically the bet does not stand.

 

[Borgsta]

that was your intention though not the bookmakers. The h2h is placed on any result.