[Gambling] PaddyPowers betting question F.A Cup

scojones

I know this is the horse racing forum but I want to ask a betting question in relation to a docket my mate has on the F.A Cup final. Seeing as there is no gambling forum I thought this would be the best place to post it.

Anyway, my mate has a docket which reads "West Ham to win 90 mins 9/2". He put 20 euro on the bet. Now, as we know Gerard scored in the 91/92nd minute, but he went into PaddyPowers today and the lady behind the desk wouldn't accept it so he asked for the docket back. It was only her second week. I have the docket here with me and what I have quoted is exactly what the docket says. He called the Dublin office and they don't want to accept it either, they said that "because there was injury time it doesn't count". Their EXACT words. I think it's utter crap, as I've collected on 90 minute bets before with paddypowers, on a docket exactly like this, in the exact same situation.

Does anyone have any insight or advice or even an explanation?

Cheers lads.

fade2black

When they say 90 minutes they just mean normal time Jonesy...as in the game before any extra time.

Fraid your mate doesn't have a case.

Healio

fade2black wrote:

When they say 90 minutes they just mean normal time Jonesy...as in the game before any extra time.

Fraid your mate doesn't have a case.

Sums it up in a nutshell, a couple of people tried this with me the other day aswell.

[Edit] Oh and by the way your mate should get his €20 back as west ham lost on penalties.

careca

sjones wrote:

I think it's utter crap, as I've collected on 90 minute bets before with paddypowers, on a docket exactly like this, in the exact same situation.

Does anyone have any insight or advice or even an explanation?

Cheers lads.

Agree with the other posters. Not a foot to stand on. I would like to know the bets you got paid on, seems strange.

okidoki987

90 MINUTES is the match including injury time, until the final whistle is blown. but not extra time.
Look at it this way, nobody knows how much injury time is going to be played so all bookies state 90 mins on their coupons.
Tell us what bets your mate got paid on for exactly 90 minutes, not including injury time.

bookiebasher

I work for a bookmaking firm and the above posters are correct.

If you backed a 3-3 draw would you be complaining 100-1 and goal scored after 90 minutes.

CiaranC

It will all be in black and white on the rules hanging on the wall. If you were paid out in this situation before, you were paid in error and should notify your bookie immediately

masterK

CiaranC wrote:

It will all be in black and white on the rules hanging on the wall. If you were paid out in this situation before, you were paid in error and should notify your bookie immediately

Agree totally, how could anybody live with themselves after obtaining money from a Bookmaker in error.

ChuckProphet

sjones wrote:

Anyway, my mate has a docket which reads "West Ham to win 90 mins 9/2". He put 20 euro on the bet. Now, as we know Gerard scored in the 91/92nd minute, but he went into PaddyPowers today and the lady behind the desk wouldn't accept it so he asked for the docket back. It was only her second week. I have the docket here with me and what I have quoted is exactly what the docket says. He called the Dublin office and they don't want to accept it either, they said that "because there was injury time it doesn't count". Their EXACT words. I think it's utter crap, as I've collected on 90 minute bets before with paddypowers, on a docket exactly like this, in the exact same situation.

The bookies are correct. He should have familiarised himself with the rules.

trojaneater1

I have been paid out many times with the same type of bet in terry rogers. The teller had to ring head office the first time and ever since then they pay out no problem for the 91st 92nd etc........
Injury time is the part of 90mins not played, so the top man himself (Terry) stated over the phone. So how could injury time not be classed as 90 mins?????.
I think the rest of you are being robbed by not being paid..................................

For example: You bet on a 0-0 draw in 90 mins.
Some pig scores in the 91st minute,
Paddy Power wont pay out
Why?
Because he scored in injury time.........
Am i right?????

fade2black

I think the bookies need to change the terminology here from 90 minutes...to normal time.

Trojaneater, what you're saying does sound correct but most people who have a bet know what they're getting themselves in for. Out of curiousity though...i you had a bet, in 90 mins, on Henry scoring first for Arsenal and he scores the first goal of the game in the 93rd minute...would you try and collect your docket?

CiaranC

trojaneater1 wrote:

For example: You bet on a 0-0 draw in 90 mins.
Some pig scores in the 91st minute,
Paddy Power wont pay out

Of course they will pay out. All correct score bets are for 'normal time' i.e. 90mins + injury time.

scojones

fade2black wrote:

I think the bookies need to change the terminology here from 90 minutes...to normal time.

Definitely needs to be done.

chump

I never had this problem but I assumed 90minutes, was 90minutes exclusing injury time... I always wondered why they did it... but there you go, they never really did it, it's just the way they phrase it...

chump

I never had this problem but I assumed 90minutes, was 90minutes exclusing injury time... I always wondered why they did it... but there you go, they never really did it, it's just the way they phrase it...

Robin1982

Bookie A: 0-0 90 mins, Evs (90 mins excluding injury time)
Bookie B: 0-0 90 mins, Evs (normal time i.e. 90 mins incl. injury time)

A shrewd bookie B would:

Back €500,000 @ Evs with Bookie A

Lay €500,000 @ Evs in his own shop

Match is 0-0 after 90 mins, but team A scores in 93rd min, team A wins 1-0 (or any other scoreline as long as goals scored after 90 mins)

Bookie B now:

i) wins his back since it was 0-0 up to 90 mins exactly
ii) wins his lay since the match finished in normal time 1-0.

If the match finishes any other senario, he breaks even.

Zero risk (max loss = 0) with potential payoff of €1,000,000 (max profit = 1 million). Sounds a little unfair?

More time for something to happen, means more probability that it will happen, means more risk to the bookie. Those bookies whose 90 mins refer to "normal time" would have to have odds less than those than only include 90 mins exactly. Otherwise they are offering a free bet.

From a punting perspective on 0-0, you don't want something to happen (i.e. a goal), so the less time for it to happen the better. Therefore, check the rules for your bookie and then after that, compare the prices of those that differ. In the above situation, from the punter's perspective, betting 0-0 @ Evs in Bookie A's shop will always be better than betting 0-0 @ Evs in Bookie B' shop.

Makes sense?