'related bet'

Problems

This is a bet I placed in Harrington Bookmakers in Carlow, Ireland.

It was on the 3rd/4th place playoff for World cup.

The bet was an accumulator, with the follwing on the slip:

Forlan anytime goalscorer 2/1
Muller anytime goalscorer 12/5
Germany 3 Uruguay 2 25/1

€5 stake

When I placed the bet, the shop was almost empty. The person behind the counter had a laugh about the bet, saying I might be better to flush the cash down the toilet, so they were aware of the odds/chances of it coming in. I asked what the return would be, she said €1326.

The next day, after the result had come in, I went to Harrington's where they said they couldn't pay out on account of this being a related bet. After some explaination from the manager today on the phone, I understand what they mean. They made me an offer of €90.

I understand their point, that the bet should not have been taken, but it was. The person behind the counter was fully aware of the bet being placed. And, if I had placed €1326 on the same bet and it lost, I'm sure I wouldn't get my money back because it was a 'related bet'.

In my own business (graphic design & print), if I make a spelling mistake on 10000 business cards, I have to pay to get them printed again, so I don't really see the difference here.

What do punters think? I have gone to IBAS and placed an enquiry with them. Isn't there a bloke in one of the newspapers aswell??

El Horseboxo

Don't know of Harringtons but most of the bigger bookies have it worded in their terms and conditions that a human error on behalf of the cashier can void the bet.

It's worth following up on it but i think they are entitled to only offer your stake back if they wanted. So they are seeing the 90 euro as a goodwill offer.

telecaster

your fiver bet should get split in to three singles so you've got Eur1.67 on each selection.

forlan bet wins you 3.34 + 1.67 stake return = 5.01
mueller wins you 4.01 plus 1.67 = 5.68
3-2 bet wins you 41.75 plus 1.67 = 43.42

I'd take the 90 quid.

coughlan08

telecaster wrote: »

I'd take the 90 quid.

i wouldnt,,,
ive been in similar situations,and with a bit of persistance the benefit of the doubt has gone in my favour..stress the point that a worker on the managers behalf accepted the bet and was laughing at you while taking your stake..as you said they were aware of the bet and the odds so dont let up..if all else fails try and improve that 90,
best of luck...

CrabieCrawford

id probably try and get at least 130 back. push for the goalscorers to be voided and pay out on the correct score

finbarrk

I'd push for more than €90 anyway. John Martin in the Evening Herald was great at sorting out those problems. I'm not sure is he still there though.

Browney7

bookmakers usually have this in their terms and conditions: "We reserve the right to correct any palpable error made by our staff".

Maybe push for a little more but I doubt they will give you much more.

Inspired call though:D

heavyballs

i'd take it,only because i know the *** who owns the chain,tight as tuppence

Healio

The goalscorers can be doubled together.

okidoki987

John Martin in the Evening Herald

He works for the Star now, Saturday's edition middle of paper has his weekly column.

The goalscorers can be doubled together

They can but the correct score would have been way lower if the other 2 selections were winners.

Healio

okidoki987 wrote: »

They can but the correct score would have been way lower if the other 2 selections were winners.

I was meant to quote the post with the three singles

Speak Now

On a side note 25/1 were poor odds on a 3-2.

JimsAlterEgo

Healio wrote: »

The goalscorers can be doubled together.

exactly what I thought

Vurnon San Benito

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

On a side note 25/1 were poor odds on a 3-2.

Exactly what I thought when I saw 25/1 for a 3-2 win" Should be at least 35-40/1

x in the city

25/1 was a joke

they are clearly related bets, but push for more monies man.

Crowie13

Can't see the bookie losing out on this one but let us know how you get on. Good luck

blondebookie

just read the story.....
think your on a loser. I work in the industry and have seen this a few times... Related bets are a no no and are void which means you get your fiver back. I think the offer that they made included splitting the stake into 3 singles and the payout seems fine to me...usually there are conditions which cover this issue and you'll prob find that there is a notice in these offices to cover these human errors....
let me know...:cool:

radharc

Related bets are never voided, they're paid out at the 'correct odds'. You're getting screwed with their offer - return should be something like this:

€5 on 3-2 correct score @ 25/1 = €130
x forlan anytime (say 1/3 given that uruguay had to score 3 goals) = €173
x muller anytime (say 4/7 given that germany had to score 2 goals) =€272

coughlan08

agree with above post,
as i previoously said,push for something more than 90,thats pathetic tbh.
persistance will pay off,at the mo they are taking ya for a ride..

JimsAlterEgo

radharc wrote: »

Related bets are never voided, they're paid out at the 'correct odds'. You're getting screwed with their offer - return should be something like this:

€5 on 3-2 correct score @ 25/1 = €130
x forlan anytime (say 1/3 given that uruguay had to score 3 goals) = €173
x muller anytime (say 4/7 given that germany had to score 2 goals) =€272

IMO theres 1 doubles and a single there - 2 seperate scores should not be a related bet so is a double and then the single on correct score. so would it not be 2.50 on the double and 2.50 on the single.

orourkeda

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

On a side note 25/1 were poor odds on a 3-2.

Is it? I'd have thought 25\1 on 2 relatively well matched team to finish 3-2 was about normal.

Problems

Still no word back from the bookie or IBAS. Has anyone got an email or contact details of John Martin in the Star??

blondebookie

radharc wrote: »

Related bets are never voided, they're paid out at the 'correct odds'. You're getting screwed with their offer - return should be something like this:

€5 on 3-2 correct score @ 25/1 = €130
x forlan anytime (say 1/3 given that uruguay had to score 3 goals) = €173
x muller anytime (say 4/7 given that germany had to score 2 goals) =€272

ha, youd want to have a look at that again..... he's only entitled to the 90 euros.....

Healio

blondebookie wrote:

just read the story.....
think your on a loser. I work in the industry and have seen this a few times... Related bets are a no no and are void which means you get your fiver back.

blondebookie wrote: »

ha, youd want to have a look at that again..... he's only entitled to the 90 euros.....

Get down off that high horse.

blondebookie

Healio wrote: »

Get down off that high horse.

AND YOU STAY ON YOUR ROCKING HORSE.. LITTLE MAN!!!!:p

Nozebleed

small claims court! thats what id do.

todolist

Don't accept that paltry offer.You need to get this case adjudicated. You'll have to contact that guy in the Star and I'm almost sure the Racing Post offer adjudication on disputed bets.Keep up the fight and well done on your selections.A superb treble.

carly_86

Nozebleed wrote: »

small claims court! thats what id do.

r u serious they would only laugh. i work in a bookies he is lucky that he is even being offered the €90 he should of only got his money back. john martin would say the same thing

Speak Now

carly_86 wrote: »

r u serious they would only laugh. i work in a bookies he is lucky that he is even being offered the €90 he should of only got his money back. john martin would say the same thing

Win win for the bookies though isn't it. Bet comes up they dont pay out, bet loses and punter never gets his money back.

Verance

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Win win for the bookies though isn't it. Bet comes up they dont pay out, bet loses and punter never gets his money back.

Punter should be aware of the rules before placing a bet.

Speak Now

Verance wrote: »

Punter should be aware of the rules before placing a bet.

Most punters are but bookies get plenty of new customers during events like world cups who aren't clued in.