Void bet

[bigpapagman]

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.

Have you ever played cricket? Getting out for 0 is ****ing easy.

 

[Oraaaaazio]

Think it's a rule imposed on bookmakers by CA. Previously couldn't bet on any Aus batsmen to score under x.5, could only back the over so have relaxed the rules a lot but appears some have carried over.

 

[Sabbathen]

Think it's a rule imposed on bookmakers by CA. Previously couldn't bet on any Aus batsmen to score under x.5, could only back the over so have relaxed the rules a lot but appears some have carried over.

Sure, like the NBL has enforced, they don’t allow betting on player prop unders. So books just don’t have an under market for them. But Tabtouch didn’t do this, they still offered an unders market, which they are already banking huge commission at $1.88, and also taking the ability to avoid paying out if there was a duck. Seems like an absolute rort to me and nothing to do with CA market restrictions.

 

[54Dogs]

Most of these bets that get posted are just sour grapes, but this one is the closest thing to bookie cheating I have seen

 

[X_box_X]

Sure, like the NBL has enforced, they don’t allow betting on player prop unders. So books just don’t have an under market for them. But Tabtouch didn’t do this, they still offered an unders market, which they are already banking huge commission at $1.88, and also taking the ability to avoid paying out if there was a duck. Seems like an absolute rort to me and nothing to do with CA market restrictions.

Granted, but if you backed over 22.5 runs for the fall of first wicket, and the fall of first wicket was 0, similarly your losing bet would be void, so it works both ways.

 

[Hamingja]

Granted, but if you backed over 22.5 runs for the fall of first wicket, and the fall of first wicket was 0, similarly your losing bet would be void, so it works both ways.

Everyone would throw the ticket out without realising it is void.

 

[Sabbathen]

Granted, but if you backed over 22.5 runs for the fall of first wicket, and the fall of first wicket was 0, similarly your losing bet would be void, so it works both ways.

That’s a fair point, what frustrates me most is this though:
In tonight’s game for example between Scorchers and Thunder, Bancroft will open for Perth. You can bet his total run unders at $1.88 and if he gets out for a duck, the bet will pay out.
If you had bet unders for Perth runs at fall of 1st wicket and Bancroft gets out for a duck, it will be void.
If their reasoning for voiding is anti spot fixing measure then all similar markets should be graded the same way. Or, just don’t have an unders market at all.

 

[X_box_X]

Everyone would throw the ticket out without realising it is void.

Not everyone. I always scan tickets that have lost, for that very reason. I would encourage others to do the same.

This also assumes you place a bet in an outlet and receive a physical ticket.

 

[X_box_X]

The biggest gripe I have had with Tab Touch is them settling an "any time goal scorer" bet on Leighton Baines as a loser, despite him scoring a penalty. Quite a few years ago now.

I questioned them and they looked into it and realised the bet was settled in error.

Usually I wouldn't have an issue, but they manually adjusted the credit from the winning bet into my account and failed to settle the bet as a winner. This meant that anyone else who had the same bet may have just taken Tab Touch's word for it without doing their research and may have assumed Baines didn't score.

Obviously I wasn't out of pocket, but it reeked of cheating, so that didn't sit well with me.

 

[Sabbathen]

The biggest gripe I have had with Tab Touch is them settling an "any time goal scorer" bet on Leighton Baines as a loser, despite him scoring a penalty. Quite a few years ago now.

I questioned them and they looked into it and realised the bet was settled in error.

Usually I wouldn't have an issue, but they manually adjusted the credit from the winning bet into my account and failed to settle the bet as a winner. This meant that anyone else who had the same bet may have just taken Tab Touch's word for it without doing their research and may have assumed Baines didn't score.

Obviously I wasn't out of pocket, but it reeked of cheating, so that didn't sit well with me.

That is ****ed

 

[FallingLiefs]

Have you ever played cricket? Getting out for 0 is ******* easy.

my claim to fame is only duck i ever got was a golden......

it just happened a few times

 

[X_box_X]

Shaun Marsh dropped on 0 tonight, goes on to score 95.

Spot fixing? Nah...

 

[GROTTO]

Ludicrous rule but can only concur with IKTD its a spot fixing thing

What I dont understand if the line is 22.5, how the f**k can it be related to spot fixing?

Is it easier to get out for 0 and 1 ?

Thats a dodgy rule that I would never have believed existed. I agree some rules would be relate to spot fixing, but I cant understand this?

EDIT

Got me thinking, you can get out without even rocking up to the crease. Timed out, I know it occurs in Test Cricket. I have never seen it in ODI or T20 but Im sure it exists.

Maybe its the bookies way of protecting themselves from this happening? Thoughts?

 

[Sabbathen]

What I dont understand if the line is 22.5, how the f**k can it be related to spot fixing?

Is it easier to get out for 0 and 1 ?

Thats a dodgy rule that I would never have believed existed. I agree some rules would be relate to spot fixing, but I cant understand this?

EDIT

Got me thinking, you can get out without even rocking up to the crease. Timed out, I know it occurs in Test Cricket. I have never seen it in ODI or T20 but Im sure it exists.

Maybe its the bookies way of protecting themselves from this happening? Thoughts?

If that were the case then player total runs over/unders would be subject to the same rules. But they are not. In fact a lot of them have a rule that states “batsman must reach the crease for bet to stand”. This is a complete rort by Tabtouch.

 

[cutterman]

Cricket Australia rule this one, nothing the bookies can do. Without adhering to the rules they'd very quickly have their rights to run markets on the cricket removed.

 

[GROTTO]

Cricket Australia rule this one, nothing the bookies can do. Without adhering to the rules they'd very quickly have their rights to run markets on the cricket removed.

I vaguely remember CA (ICC) ruling on certain markets and in some cases removing certain categories of betting that could easily be match fixed.

As an example, (I could be wrong) but Im sure I remember you could bet on what happens on say over 5 ball 3 of that over, is it a wide, no ball, wicket etc etc etc. Im sure that has been removed by CA (ICC) but that kind of bet used to exist.

 

[54Dogs]

Cricket Australia rule this one, nothing the bookies can do. Without adhering to the rules they'd very quickly have their rights to run markets on the cricket removed.

Of course there's something they can do. Not offer the market or be clearer in the bet description

Fall of first wicket

>22.5 runs $1-88
1-22 runs $1-88

NOTE: Bets will be void if first wicket falls on zero

 

[Brad Goodman]

This also assumes you place a bet in an outlet and receive a physical ticket.

This is still a thing?