Void bet

(Log in to remove this ad.)

(Log in to remove this ad.)

IKnowtheDog

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Posts
5,753
Likes
4,570
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Seattle Seahawks
#12
Its the same with first over runs betting on some matches. For the bet to stand at least one run must be scored.

Why they do it I don’t know. Maybe it’s connected to spot fixing
 

Sabbathen

All Australian
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
997
Likes
981
AFL Club
West Coast
#19
I would be super surprised if there’s much spot fixing going on with Australian books on these prop markets. A couple of decent bets/wins and they will restrict you anyway. This is just an excuse to catch out unsuspecting punters and people that arb/middle props.
 

X_box_X

King of September
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Posts
19,427
Likes
4,646
Location
DogLands
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
#22
I would be super surprised if there’s much spot fixing going on with Australian books on these prop markets. A couple of decent bets/wins and they will restrict you anyway. This is just an excuse to catch out unsuspecting punters and people that arb/middle props.
No, I doubt it has anything to do with that.

How can this not be relating to spot fixing?
 

Hamingja

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 20, 2014
Posts
9,814
Likes
11,531
AFL Club
Geelong
#23
let's be honest it's much harder to get out for exactly 0 without being obvious rather then less than 22.5 for sure?

seems like a spot fixing for another market that carried over.
Do other bookies have the same clause? On phone and cbf checking.

Given it is for Australia only maybe it is part of being an approved betting provider of CA.

CA tell them what they can and can't bet on for props. Bet365 got in trouble for that when they first started here.

Either someone at CA thinks it reduces the chance of spot fixing by not allowing you to bet on a wicket falling on no runs or someone at WA tab have interpreted CA requirements like that.

It would be easier to manipulate getting out on 0 than getting out on 11 for example in an exact amount of runs market but makes sfa difference on an under 22.5 market.
 

X_box_X

King of September
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Posts
19,427
Likes
4,646
Location
DogLands
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
#24
It would be easier to manipulate getting out on 0 than getting out on 11 for example in an exact amount of runs market but makes sfa difference on an under 22.5 market.
I agree with you. If they wanted to fix a market for fall of first wicket, it sounds illogical to go out on zero. Why go out on zero when you can go out on 20? It's much better to be 1/20 than 1/0.
 

Sabbathen

All Australian
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
997
Likes
981
AFL Club
West Coast
#25
What I don’t understand then, is why they don’t void the unders for player runs scored whenever they are out for a duck as well?
This discrepancy of rules between bookmakers, hidden deep in their terms and conditions has got to stop. We can’t even get a universal settlement rule for something as common as tennis retirements ffs
 
Top Bottom