Void bet

[benhawk]

WA Tab saying bet is void because the first wicket fell at 0. They were 1/0. Apparently 0 is not under 22.5

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[FallingLiefs]

WA Tab saying bet is void because the first wicket fell at 0. They were 1/0. Apparently 0 is not under 22.5View attachment 609594

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

small tip,

don't show barcodes

 

[benhawk]

small tip,

don't show barcodes

Righto, even after collected?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Browney2006]

Righto, even after collected?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

I thought you said it was void?

 

[benhawk]

I thought you said it was void?

That's what they are calling it - stake returned. Must be just me that thinks 0 is under 22.5

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Browney2006]

That's what they are calling it - stake returned. Must be just me that thinks 0 is under 22.5

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

That’s ridiculous they haven’t paid you out. I’d be shouting about it on Twitter

 

[FallingLiefs]

Righto, even after collected?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Once collected it’s fine but if it’s a bet that they could correct in time and go from void to pay you may find it’s already been collected.

 

[Hamingja]

Don't mind me I just noticed it was Thunder Renegades and not Thunder Heat.

 

[Hamingja]

It is in their T&Cs at point 340 but why?

 

[Sausage Legs]

It is in their T&Cs at point 340 but why?

View attachment 609707

Wot a load of s**t. Having to read 340 clauses to somehow work out zero isn't lower than 22. Turn it up tabtouch

 

[FallingLiefs]

Bizarre.

Only in Australia though??

 

[IKnowtheDog]

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

 

[54Dogs]

That is beyond crazy, why would that rule exist.

Definitely get it out on SM

 

[iluvparis]

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

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

 

[X_box_X]

Yep, gotta be relating to spot fixing.

 

[54Dogs]

That's all fair but to your standard punter, betting on a wicket falling under 22.5 runs, when the wicket falls on zero they should be paid.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Any conditions relating to a prop bet needs to be made clear at time of placing bet. It shouldn’t require a lengthy perusal of t & c to determine if the bet is ok

 

[Sabbathen]

Any conditions relating to a prop bet needs to be made clear at time of placing bet. It shouldn’t require a lengthy perusal of t & c to determine if the bet is ok

This should be enforced by law, not hard to have a small window or info button next to the bet submission button.

 

[Sabbathen]

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.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

In this case they should clearly state in their markets that it is a wicket between 1 and 22.5 runs. Regardless of their clause, I can't see how this could stand up in court especially if the odds provided are stated for "<22.5 runs"

 

[FallingLiefs]

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.

 

[X_box_X]

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]

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]

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]

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