Ladbrokes don't pay out on bet

TheJman

I know this is not really poker related but would appreciate opinions on what best course of action is.

A friend of mine walked into Ladbrokes during world cup match between Spain and Saudi Arabia - there was about ten minutes gone in second half of match and the score was 1-0 Spain. Up on one of the screens was a price of 100/1 Spain to win the game 1-0 (betting in running). My friend sticks a tenner on it and goes to the counter. The assistant looks at the ticket and says that he had better check that with head office as it looks like a mistake. so he calls up head office and queries it with them and they confirm that this is in fact the correct price - so happy days my friend gets the bet on and Spain win the game 1-0. But when he goes back to the shop to collect they wont pay out as they say it is a mistake. He has got nowhere with their customer service representatives etc - what should he do? They only want to pay 100/30 as opposed to 100/1.

Noelie

Legally bookies don't have to pay out, but if they refuse to payout they will get a bad name, so they generally do. He should write to the head office, telling them that they took the bet and he expects to be paid his winnings.

Hectorjelly

why did he only bet €10?

califano

Hectorjelly wrote:

why did he only bet €10?

LOL LOL!!!!
I choked on my drink reading this!

No offence to The JMans friend but my brother has a theory about HJ's question. He is adamant that guys dont take a price down by having as much on as possible because they know theyre not worth it when they go up to collect.

ArmaniJeanss

JMAN,
the whole thing falls under the bookmakers 'palpable error' rule - basically the price is so obviously incorrect that they reserve the right not pay out at that price. Because it is not a legally binding contract between punter and bookmaker anyway, there is no compulsion on them to pay out.
By all means write to head office, but Ladbrokes will probably not budge.

Western_sean

I think they are defending this based on the "bet clearly taken in error" rule. However given that they rang through to confirm the price I don't think this defence stands up

First off you need to clarify that the taken in error rule doesn't apply here and then find out what exactly the grounds for non payment are, at that point you can go through the rules and try to reason with them.

Failing that try John Martin - the punters pal column in the hearld (Assuming it's still going it might not be).

Sounds to me like you deserve to be paid best of luck with it.

Sean

nealoack

My sentiments exactly, when I put the bet on the guy behind the counter said he thought the odds looked a mistake and he had to check them. After a phone call to head office he confrimed the odds, took my bet and guaranteed the odds 100/1. Surely how can they now go back on that. As someone mentioned earlier, they should get as much bad press as possible until they pay out.

Wisesmurf

I think you should query this with ibas, they are an intermediate body who take an indipendant view as to whether you should get payed or not. If they agree with you laddies a bound as per theie agreement to pay you out.

This is a palpable error but the fact that you queried the price in advance of placing the bet with the shop (via there traders) you may have ground for argument.

5starpool

Wisesmurf wrote:

This is a palpable error but the fact that you queried the price in advance of placing the bet with the shop (via there traders) you may have ground for argument.

Is there proof that this took place I wonder? Are all calls recorded, or is there any other way of proving this.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

if only we had a gambling forum that this could go on!

Lafortezza

Moved to gambling forum!

ErinGoBrath

A similar situation happened during the champions league last year where two punters put a sum on money on Liverpool 'Not to win the champions league' @ 100/1 in Ladbrokes.

When the punter seen the price he asked the clerk to check the price, the clerk did this and confirm that 100/1 was correct. On hearing this the punter asks his mate for all the money he had on him and put the bet on.

Needless to say the bet came in but Ladbrokes wouldn't pay out 100/1 as they said it was a mistake. The lads who make the bet went to the papers and radio etc but Laddies didn't budge. Offered them evens or something in the end.

joebhoy1916

TheJman wrote:

I know this is not really poker related but would appreciate opinions on what best course of action is.

A friend of mine walked into Ladbrokes during world cup match between Spain and Saudi Arabia - there was about ten minutes gone in second half of match and the score was 1-0 Spain. Up on one of the screens was a price of 100/1 Spain to win the game 1-0 (betting in running). My friend sticks a tenner on it and goes to the counter. The assistant looks at the ticket and says that he had better check that with head office as it looks like a mistake. so he calls up head office and queries it with them and they confirm that this is in fact the correct price - so happy days my friend gets the bet on and Spain win the game 1-0. But when he goes back to the shop to collect they wont pay out as they say it is a mistake. He has got nowhere with their customer service representatives etc - what should he do? They only want to pay 100/30 as opposed to 100/1.

I did a bet before in PP the girl rang up the office I was doing draw at H/T it was 10/11 but when she rang she told me they said 6/4 stuck 500 on it was putting 1,100!

It came in when I went in the girl said the one that took the bet was only new and made a mistake! I was sick I didnt wait till she started work!

Anyways I think there is sweet feck all you can do really!

Noelie wrote:

Legally bookies don't have to pay out, but if they refuse to payout they will get a bad name, so they generally do. He should write to the head office, telling them that they took the bet and he expects to be paid his winnings.

I'm very curious about this if a bookies dont have to LEGALLY pay out say if a guy owed a bookmaker money does he legally have to pay them?

joebhoy1916

Why wont anyone answer?

Chucky the tree

You mean if a punter bets on credit and says he will pay it off every month but then tells them he isnt paying is that legal?

I very much doubt it. He entered a contract, he has to stick to it.

telecaster

Gambling debts are not recoverable by law.

If a bookie goes out of business he doesn't have to pay out his punters. Luvbet and Bananabet both stung me on this front.

If a punter doesn't pay his debts to a bookie there is nothing he can legally do about it. Credit accounts are pretty thin on the ground these days.

joebhoy1916

Chucky the tree wrote:

You mean if a punter bets on credit and says he will pay it off every month but then tells them he isnt paying is that legal?

I very much doubt it. He entered a contract, he has to stick to it.

Well no he never had contract! He just used to do bets the bookmaker would accept them he would go up every so often and give him money!

He never said can I do this bet and I will pay you back!

telecaster wrote:

Gambling debts are not recoverable by law.

If a bookie goes out of business he doesn't have to pay out his punters. Luvbet and Bananabet both stung me on this front.

If a punter doesn't pay his debts to a bookie there is nothing he can legally do about it. Credit accounts are pretty thin on the ground these days.

Is this true yeah! I just think it's fcuking shocking some stories here some guy was saying he worked for PP and if you had an account they wouldn't pay! That's crazy dont know how they get away with it..

Nalced_irl

joebhoy1916 wrote:

some guy was saying he worked for PP and if you had an account they wouldn't pay! That's crazy dont know how they get away with it..

Wow, talk about getting the story twisted! (if its the story i think you mean) Anyway, that was discussed, thrown about, the initial guy went very quiet when questioned and thread was closed so i dont think its a good idea to go back into it

okidoki987

Gambling debts are not recoverable by law.

This even though it sounds unbelievable is in fact TRUE.
That is one of the reasons nowadays there are very few credit accounts
unless you are personally known to the bookie.
Big shops like PP, Laddie's, Hills etc do not do credit.

Luvbet and Bananabet both stung me on this front.

Am I right in thinking that was the crowd in Cork?
I made a fortune out of them on the Oscars one year.
They had prices in the Cork Exaiminer which were way different to PP prices.
Opened an account, had a load of trebles which all came up bar one.
Won a good bit of money, waited for a week before asking them to transfer the money.
Got the money in 3 weeks before they went bust.
Didn't they say something like the Internet was kiiling their business when they went bust?

telecaster

okidoki987 wrote:

Am I right in thinking that was the crowd in Cork?
I made a fortune out of them on the Oscars one year.
They had prices in the Cork Exaiminer which were way different to PP prices.
Opened an account, had a load of trebles which all came up bar one.
Won a good bit of money, waited for a week before asking them to transfer the money.
Got the money in 3 weeks before they went bust.
Didn't they say something like the Internet was kiiling their business when they went bust?

Yeah Luvbet was a guy in Cork (though licensed in Malta) called O'Halloran. Putting up stupid prices killed their business. Missing market moves killed their business. But sure if you're not going to pay the winners out what difference does it make?

I had been advised that they were going bust so I got my money out of there but I still had antepost bets running with them which obviously they weren't around to deal with when they won.

westtip

telecaster wrote:

Yeah Luvbet was a guy in Cork (though licensed in Malta) called O'Halloran. Putting up stupid prices killed their business. Missing market moves killed their business. But sure if you're not going to pay the winners out what difference does it make?

I had been advised that they were going bust so I got my money out of there but I still had antepost bets running with them which obviously they weren't around to deal with when they won.

Ah Luvbet, is there anyone who bets on the net who was not sucked in by their crazy prices. I put a small amount in my account with them £50 and played it up to just over £500, tried to withdraw money got some cock and bull story and three days later they went bust, I suppose I only lost £50. However I now never leave money in any on line bookies account once a bet is complete and will not bet with any firm which does not have automatic transfers back to your card. I also avoid any bookies who charge to withdraw to a Laser or Switch debit card (Gamebookers comes to mind), charges for deposits on credit cards I can understand but there should be no charges either way for debit cards. I was also very lucky to have withdrawn £700 from the Sportingoptions exchange three days before they disappeared from our screens - be very very wary of lots of these new internet bookies cropping up and only bet with those who have proven to get the money back to you quickly. Interwetten is definitely a crowd to be avoided they are one of the few bookies which I closed the account on, they really are terrible. The best I have found in the past two years is without a doubt Betfair both in terms of value and speed of money going back into your account after withdrawals.

telecaster

I've often thought that Betfair must make a small fortune from the interest they would get from the banks which are holding the stakes on all matched bets. There must be a phenomenal 'running balance' of funds they are continually holding on to?

westtip

telecaster wrote:

I've often thought that Betfair must make a small fortune from the interest they would get from the banks which are holding the stakes on all matched bets. There must be a phenomenal 'running balance' of funds they are continually holding on to?

No doubt they do, and it must be built into their business plan, sometimes it is necessary to hold money in an account and treat Betfair as a current account, and your point about money held on matched bets is a very valid one - but all the banks make a fortune on money held in current accounts. I generally try to keep enough in Betfair to place four bets at the level stakes I use. Anything over this level, I draw back down to my bank account. I think I read or heard somewhere that all client money is ring fenced in a client cash account by Betfair - they don't use the cash holdings to run their business, in fact I think there is some legal position regarding this now, they run the business from the income they make from commissions, this apparently was one of the problems with SportingOptions the exchange which closed down two years ago - they used the liquidity of the customer funds to run the business. What's held on account by Betfair is always available to clients to draw down (unless it is tied up in a bet) - but I guess at the end of the year their accounts will show a profit centre contribution from interest income on the "client account" and funds held in matched bets, they would be mad if they don't use this money to earn interest, as long as it is not used for the day to day running of the business that is fine. Fair play to them, they offer a great service, they have revolutionised betting and made it possible for relativley modest players to radically change the way they invest and gamble. I know for one, without them all of our punting lives would be a lot less easier to make a few quid. Long may they continue.

If you have concerns about this issue, then I suggest you drop them a mail or call their helpdesk, I have always found them more than helpful.

you got me thinking on this so took at look at the Betfair site take a look at the annual report last year http://www.betfaircorporate.com/pdf/ar2005.pdf

Page 8 says on 30th April 2005 they held 105 million on deposit on behalf of their clients - so at the ECB rate of say 3.5 per cent they are making about 4 million a year on interest earned off clients moeny, their gross profits were 14.3 million so yes the cash they hold is of significant commercial benefit to the company. It is an interesting read, but they are a great company.

telecaster

Nice research there Westtip. I'm not remotely concerned by the issue, I guess it's just more gravy to reward betfair for being best dressed when exchanges were taking off.

Why do you think companies such as Mansion who are offering far better commission rates are having trouble breaking Betfair's hold on the sector?

westtip

A combination of things - Betfair there first and have a proven operation - Mansion are newcomers and punters are wary after things like Sporting Options. I don't know how they operate at such low commission rates, it actually makes me doubt them, although I have used them recently. They also offer far less markets. I think it is also to do with being the industry market leader - a position Betfair has, punters feel confident using them. Also brand awareness, betfair has worked hard to raise its brand profile, aside from Mansion failing to sponsor MUFC where else have you heard of them. As I said I am using Mansion at the moment but NEVER leave any money on account with them, once the result is known and if I have winnings my money is out of there (not the case with Betfair) I also use Betdaq, but find they lack liquidity in their markets, I think if they (BETDAQ) got their act together and raised their profile a bit they might have a better chance of competing with betfair, same could be said for Mansion.

dermotty

I WAS BETTING IN LADBROKES THOMONDGATE LIMERICK ON THEIR VIRTUAL RACING.
MY BET WAS ON TIME WHEN I HANDED IT TO THE CASHIER, BUT THROUGH HER SLOWNESS, MY WINNING BET, MY 1ST IN A LONG TIME, IS SHOWING AS BEING 8 SECS. LATE.
ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION, WHEN I MISTAKINGLY PUT DOWN THE WRONG RACE TIME, THEY HAD NO PROBLEM USING THEIR DISCRETION + CHANGING THE RACE TIME, THUS ENSURING ME A 13.50 RETURN.
HOWEVER THIS TIME, THEY SAID I WAS LATE + ALL I COULD HAVE WAS MY 5 EURO STAKE BACK, + NOT MY 110 + EURO WINNINGS.
I HAVE PHONED CUSTOMER SERVICE OVER + OVER, BUT SAME OUTCOME.
THEN AT 6.45PM LAST NIGHT, I GET A CALL BACK TO SAY, MY BET WAS LATE, I COULD HAVE MY 5 EURO BACK + A 10 EURO FREE BET.
AT 8.45PM, I GET ANOTHER CALL, FROM THEIR INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS, SAYING AGAIN, THE BET WAS LATE, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR MONEY BACK.
WHEN I QUOTED WHAT HAD BEEN SAID IN EARLIER CALL, THE GUY SAID, OH, WHO PHONED YOU, I WASNT AWARE OF THAT ...........
TALK ABOUT YOUR RIGHT HAND NOT KNOWING WHAT YOUR LEFT HAND IS DOING............
ANYBODY WITH LIKEWISE PROBLEMS, LET ME KNOW.
LADBROKES LICENCE RENEWAL IS IN OCTOBER, + AS THE GAMING + BETTING ACT 1931 STATES, YOU CAN ONLY BET ON FUTURE EVENTS, THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW WITH VIRTUAL RACING IN THEIR SHOPS, AS THEY ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME BEFORE THE RACE.
MESSAGE TO LADBROKES EMPIRE,
I WILL NOT GO AWAY,
I WANT MY MONEY.
RGDS
D

okidoki987

You probably should have started a new thread!

Le King

Mega BUMP

x PyRo

I tried to read it but i can't. Don't understand why people can't type properly.

Mezcita

Virtual Racing.... As if normal racing is not rigged enough.

Excellent mega bump there though. I thought I had gone back in time for a few seconds.

myflipflops

dermotty wrote: »

LADBROKES LICENCE RENEWAL IS IN OCTOBER, + AS THE GAMING + BETTING ACT 1931 STATES, YOU CAN ONLY BET ON FUTURE EVENTS, THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW WITH VIRTUAL RACING IN THEIR SHOPS, AS THEY ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME BEFORE THE RACE.
MESSAGE TO LADBROKES EMPIRE,
I WILL NOT GO AWAY,
I WANT MY MONEY.
RGDS
D

Go to IBAS with your complaint. http://www.ibas-uk.com/

If your complaint is genuine and correct then they will make sure you get paid out.

Protesting against their licence over a 5 quid bet will get you laughed at.

okidoki987

THEY ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME BEFORE THE RACE

What a stupid comment, of course they don't.
If they did, they would be all multi millionaires.
I'd say it's the same as the 49's numbers, held under lock and key.
Think about it, if anybody knew the result all you'd have to do is go into loads of bookies and back the biggest tricast of the day.
Happy days.

Collie D

I read somewhere an interview with a guy from SIS who operate the virtual nonsense. He was saying it's more or less a randonly generated computer programme of numbers ie the computer picks a name from a hat like a Lotto. Made me wonder why there are favourites and if each "horse" has an equal chance would it be value to just back the outsider each time?

Warper

Collie D wrote: »

I read somewhere an interview with a guy from SIS who operate the virtual nonsense. He was saying it's more or less a randonly generated computer programme of numbers ie the computer picks a name from a hat like a Lotto. Made me wonder why there are favourites and if each "horse" has an equal chance would it be value to just back the outsider each time?

I heard that it is a randomly generated programme but the horses chances are weighted in line with their odds eg. say 10 horses with 100 virtual units. If the horse is favourite he would have more of those units, like 20 or whatever. The outsider would have say 3 units, if you know what i mean - the fav has a better chance of winning which is reflected in the price.

Collie D

Warper wrote: »

I heard that it is a randomly generated programme but the horses chances are weighted in line with their odds eg. say 10 horses with 100 virtual units. If the horse is favourite he would have more of those units, like 20 or whatever. The outsider would have say 3 units, if you know what i mean - the fav has a better chance of winning which is reflected in the price.

That would make more sense than what I said. Was a while ago I read the piece I referred to and even then I was only skimming the article

Kanye

I always assumed the outcome in a virtual race was based on accounting - the horse that will lose the least amount of money for the bookies usually wins. The Turf TV virtual racing usually brings one of the favourites home, but with most others, it's rarely a favourite, but a min-fielder or outsider.

OT: where there's a question-mark over whether or not the bookies have to pay, it usually goes in the bookies favour (though some bookies are different) and this isn't unique to Ladbrokes.

raheny red

@ the people who think virtual racing is rigged: "You are laughed at!"

Verance

Kanye wrote: »

I always assumed the outcome in a virtual race was based on accounting - the horse that will lose the least amount of money for the bookies usually wins. The Turf TV virtual racing usually brings one of the favourites home, but with most others, it's rarely a favourite, but a min-fielder or outsider.

Of course virtual racing isn't rigged! :pac: The difference between virtual and real racing is that a 100/1 virtual horse has a 1 in 100 chance of winning while a real 100/1 shot's true odds should be around 400/1 or 500/1, that's why people think more outsiders win on virtual, but they don't.

More to the point, anyone that backs virtual racing - stop it!!

jacool

Around now we should get a post from someone who has seen his horse being held back or badly ridden !

Verance

jacool wrote: »

Around now we should get a post from someone who has seen his horse being held back or badly ridden !

Well something's definitely up!
I backed trap 7 on the virtual dogs today and he didn't even leave the traps! Gutted! :mad:

Kanye

Verance wrote: »

Of course virtual racing isn't rigged! :pac: The difference between virtual and real racing is that a 100/1 virtual horse has a 1 in 100 chance of winning while a real 100/1 shot's true odds should be around 400/1 or 500/1, that's why people think more outsiders win on virtual, but they don't.

More to the point, anyone that backs virtual racing - stop it!!

Why? It's my main source of income!

Dan Chipowski

I don't fancy your chances here pal, 8 seconds in terms of a virtual race is huge.....they'd be gone half way

If it was staff incompetence, then you have a right to complain about that and see where it gets you.

This raises a wider issue about shop staff, and bets on all races.....the fact is if your bet had lost, you'd have chucked away the slip even though it was a 'void' bet and you were entitled to your stake back. This happens up and down the country everyday (disputes over timing of bets etc).

I've seen with my own eyes ladbrokes staff allowing a guy to bet a few seconds late and voiding it if he loses and paying him if he wins. Just a coincidence he runs the pub across the road, i think not

admiralofthefleet

he should get on to john martin in the star newspaper, i had trouble with a bet at the start of the year but once i got onto him it was sorted out in no time