Mistake behind the counter from bookie ???.. Advice needed ?

neiler987

Hey I put on a bet in a bookie shop earlier on today on a football match.. I put on €750 on the bet at odds 1/7.. Gave €750 behind the counter no problems.. The bet lost.. But when I stared at the slip I noticed at the bottom where it has the date and then stake amount underneath the slip that the stake was for just €50.00 .. Any advice on this ?.. Am I not entitled to the €700 back that was not included in the stake ???.. I'd lose the €50 I'd understand that.. The man behind the counter must've accidentally just put on the €50 and left out the figure 7... I'm guessing if the bet won that I wouldve only been entitled to winnings of 1/7 at €50 ?? And would've had the €700 refunded anyways so I wouldn't got back roughly about €757 ???... If it was like 2 or 3 euro it wouldn't have been a big deal but it's €700 so..  I never look at my slips until after the result is in so I didn't notice it until I got home.. Any advice please ??

The_Kew_Tour

No, your not as far as im aware. It was mistake by bookie, but once you said 750 then that is amount its for.

Was just mistake and it may be one that they might have checked at end of work as it would have made difference to their books at end.

The Conspiracy theorists will say he was confident the bet would not come through and he pocketed 700quid for himself, hoping the bet would never be looked at again;)

abouttobebanned

It's a frustrating one tbh. But this is what I would do. I would go down to the shop and find a different teller. I would ask about the bet and ask for the stake to be confirmed. If she looks through it and says 50 then you are entitled to your 700 back. Why? Because if the bet won you wouldn't have been paid. It's your responsibility to ensure that the right stake is on the docket when you placed the bet and the system can't be manipulated after the event.

If the bet has been processed as a €50 bet then I see no possibility eventuality where you don receive your 700 back.

The teller, possibly will be hoping that you just put it down as a loser and not return.

Take this as a sign to never do such a retarded bet again.

Fursttimer

If someone done this bet then they haven't a hope in hell of getting a penny returned+ if the bet had of won, all they would have got back is €57 and not a penny more.

They'd have no evidence of handing over the additional €700, unless the office security cameras picked it up (good luck trying to weave that out of them).

Anyway, the person handed over the €750, and even if the cameras did prove it, then why would someone hand over €750 for a €50 bet?

Personally think this thread is a wind up but anyway (someone places a €750 bet, doesn't check the receipt, walks out of the betting shop, bet loses, notices an error on the amount and comes onto boards.ie for advice)

Yeah right

jjll

if the teller was 700 euro up when till counted then he/she would be asked why then they look through dockets to see then put it in system thats what will happen

jjll

proves how bad bookies are at moment went in to do simpson to win tournament and simpson to win his 3 ball on thursday at 11/8 in a double and was told cant put it on as it was related..... how???

Hulk Hands

jjll wrote: »

proves how bad bookies are at moment went in to do simpson to win tournament and simpson to win his 3 ball on thursday at 11/8 in a double and was told cant put it on as it was related..... how???

Because it is related. If Simpson wins his 3 ball, it shortens the odds on him winning the tournament, meaning your money is rolling over at a reduced price. It's not like a soccer double where seperate games have no bearing on each other

Howjoe1

Hard to imagine it was a mistake. I'd say it was understaked deliberately.

Alternatively, after the cashier took the money, and scanned the image at €50, it would have to come along and translate the bet, and at that stage it would have spotted any error and had to amend the slip and put it right on the system?

Was it an independent bookies? you could ask them to show you what your bet slip number was recorded as or their screen or print outs from yesterday?

But you wouldn't be entitled to anything back either way imho.

But it would prove if the €750 was officially put through the system or kept under the counter so to speak.

Howjoe1

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Because it is related. If Simpson wins his 3 ball, it shortens the odds on him winning the tournament, meaning your money is rolling over at a reduced price. It's not like a soccer double where seperate games have no bearing on each other

the relationship between winning a 1st round 3 ball and coming first out of 100 players is miniscule. Any bookie turning down that particular bet is an absolute fool !

callaway92

Neiler987 you also have this thread from 2 months ago : Accidentally putting a bet online.

Imo you are just looking for some sort of a way out of a bet you lost, which is similar to the thread I have linked from you. (what you said was a lot of money) - €350

You meant to put 750 on this bet, it lost. Unlucky, but you don't deserve 700 of it back!!

Formation

jjll wrote: »

if the teller was 700 euro up when till counted then he/she would be asked why then they look through dockets to see then put it in system thats what will happen

this.

the amount would have been corrected either when inputing the bet into the system or at the end of the day when they noticed the 'extra' cash.

you would have been paid out on e750 99.9% of the time.

it is your fault. You have no chance of getting the e700 back and as it is a gentlemans agreement there is nobody with official powers you can appeal to.

check your docket next time.

what was the bet?

Formation

Howjoe1 wrote: »

the relationship between winning a 1st round 3 ball and coming first out of 100 players is miniscule. Any bookie turning down that particular bet is an absolute fool !

so you agree its related?

myflipflops

Howjoe1 wrote: »

the relationship between winning a 1st round 3 ball and coming first out of 100 players is miniscule. Any bookie turning down that particular bet is an absolute fool !

Not a bookie in the world who would take it. They must all be fools.

Howjoe1

Formation wrote: »

so you agree its related?

Is it a related bet? Of course it is and I accepted that. To suggest a bookie never takes a related bet would be incorrect.

For example, every week they price up wincast and scorecast bets which are related.

E.g Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win. Totally related ! and far more likely to win out than the golf bet.

But they price these according to risk.

So, the point I made is, yes, the cashier was correct to follow staff policy and training, BUT if I was the bookie, I'd expect the cashier to ring head office etc and see if I was willing to price it up as a double. And yes, regardless of the outcome of the Greenbrier Tournament, I would think any clever bookie would be willing to price it up all day long, esp given that is is more likely to lose as a double with loss of full stake, rather that have one or two winning parts as part of two single bets with no profit for the bookie.

Howjoe1

myflipflops wrote: »

Not a bookie in the world who would take it. They must all be fools.

Yes they would lay it.

Formation

Paddy do it for some customers who ring them.

they are not going to have their traders properly price up a riduculous bet because some e2 guru wants to predict 10 different things in a football match.

you are a spoilt brat?!

ianburke

always make sure anymore mate.go back in and check anyways as u have nothing to lose.ur bet lost but maybe they put ur 700 aside and have it waiting for u.its a long shot but let us know how u get on

UrbanSea

What match was it?


The till would have been 700 over at the end of the day, that's a big difference. The docket would have been corrected behind the till without your knowledge, unless the manager is totally incompetent

myflipflops

Howjoe1 wrote: »

Is it a related bet? Of course it is and I accepted that. To suggest a bookie never takes a related bet would be incorrect.

For example, every week they price up wincast and scorecast bets which are related.

E.g Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win. Totally related ! and far more likely to win out than the golf bet.

But they price these according to risk.

So, the point I made is, yes, the cashier was correct to follow staff policy and training, BUT if I was the bookie, I'd expect the cashier to ring head office etc and see if I was willing to price it up as a double. And yes, regardless of the outcome of the Greenbrier Tournament, I would think any clever bookie would be willing to price it up all day long, esp given that is is more likely to lose as a double with loss of full stake, rather that have one or two winning parts as part of two single bets with no profit for the bookie.

There is a big difference between quoting a specific price for the double and allowing somebody to accer up the two original prices.

kryogen

Was there not a better way for you to make 100euro?

yesno1234

Howjoe1 wrote: »

Is it a related bet? Of course it is and I accepted that. To suggest a bookie never takes a related bet would be incorrect.

For example, every week they price up wincast and scorecast bets which are related.

E.g Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win. Totally related ! and far more likely to win out than the golf bet.

.

The price for the wincast you quoted is inclusive of the relation between the two bets. Hence, why you can't just double up Rooney anytime and Man United to win, it has to be the Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win single.

carly_86

You would want to be fair suck for money to put that kinda money on those odds. And no you don't get any money back they would of noticed the mistake when translating the bet. All there have to do is alter the stake

zarquon

OP probably isn't telling the whole truth and most likely trying to scam out of a losing bet. Based on his other threads he has so far:

- Asked for advise on how to make a fake ID.
- Tried to void a losing bet with a big stake after the event by insisting it was an accidental bet
- Tried to skip out on hire purchase agreements by moving house.
- Claimed on phone insurance for a lost phone after selling it to a pawn shop.
- Repeatedly asked for info on loan sharks

The OP is a complete chancer, god knows what is going on here. I'd seriously doubt anyone is stupid enough to not look at a docket after a stake.

callaway92

zarquon wrote: »

OP probably isn't telling the whole truth and most likely trying to scam out of a losing bet. Based on his other threads he has so far:

- Asked for advise on how to make a fake ID.
- Tried to void a losing bet with a big stake after the event by insisting it was an accidental bet
- Tried to skip out on hire purchase agreements by moving house.
- Claimed on phone insurance for a lost phone after selling it to a pawn shop.
- Repeatedly asked for info on loan sharks

The OP is a complete chancer, god knows what is going on here. I'd seriously doubt anyone is stupid enough to not look at a docket after a stake.

Ya, I already said that a few posts above this. He is a student I would say and is pretty nervous from losing a lot of money.

zarquon

You live by the sword, you die by the sword. OP if you are in college struggling to makes ends meet, then you need to stay away from gambling. There is no such thing as a sure thing and while you may win sometimes, you will lose other times. You want to take your winnings....great. When you lose (and you will!) then you need to accept that rather than coming up with hair brained flimsy excuses to try and weasel your way out of losing bets. The fact is that if you cannot afford to lose, then you cannot afford to gamble. Anyone looking for loan sharks need not gamble as you are only going to drag yourself further into trouble.

Mellor

Howjoe1 wrote: »

Is it a related bet? Of course it is and I accepted that. To suggest a bookie never takes a related bet would be incorrect.

For example, every week they price up wincast and scorecast bets which are related.

E.g Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win. Totally related ! and far more likely to win out than the golf bet.

But they price these according to risk.

LOL this is brilliant. You try to give an example to back up your ridiculous point, but instead prove how you are wrong.

Nobody ever said a bookie won't price up two related things as a single bet/event, of course they will.

They said you can't accumulate related events. Which is why the Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win is a shorter price than the compound price of Rooney to score and United to win.

Howjoe1

Mellor wrote: »

LOL this is brilliant. You try to give an example to back up your ridiculous point, but instead prove how you are wrong.

Nobody ever said a bookie won't price up two related things as a single bet/event, of course they will.

They said you can't accumulate related events. Which is why the Rooney to score anytime and Man Utd to win is a shorter price than the compound price of Rooney to score and United to win.

If you were actually capable of reading correctly what I said, you might not find it so ridiculous!

Facts:

Someone stated that a bookie would NEVER lay a golfer to win a 1st round 3 ball, coupled with him being the outright winner, to which I expressed my opinion,

C&P:

"the relationship between winning a 1st round 3 ball and coming first out of 100 players is miniscule. Any bookie turning down that particular bet is an absolute fool !"

I presume it's alright to have an opinion?


Secondly, You state

"Nobody ever said a bookie won't price up two related things as a single bet/event, of course they will."

They did, read back.

To which I replied they do all the time take RELATED bets, eg wincast, scorecasts, Top goalscorer in WC + Country to win etc. I NEVER suggested that the odds individually on both legs coupled be coupled in full.

So, from simply saying, that refusing to lay Simpsom to win his 1st rd 3 ball & win outright was silly imho..you've gone off on a tangent. Btw that Simpson double would have been a loser!

Personally, I would give anyone the, say, 6/4 to win a 1st rd 3 ball coupled with his outright price(I might have his outright price a little lower than industry standard;))

But I wouldn't lay one of the leaders on a Sunday coupled with his 2 ball price.

Mellor

No. You are wrong.

Somebody tried to double two related bets (3 ball and outright) and couldn't. The important part is as a double.
They were told they can't double related bets.
You said the the relation ship is small, which is irrelevant, and that they are a fool for not taking it as a double.
And then said that they take related bet doubles all the time. They don't.
Then you gave a wincast/scorecast as an example. Which is a single bet not two related bets.

Relevant posts;

proves how bad bookies are at moment went in to do simpson to win tournament and simpson to win his 3 ball on thursday at 11/8 in a double and was told cant put it on as it was related..... how???

the relationship between winning a 1st round 3 ball and coming first out of 100 players is miniscule. Any bookie turning down that particular bet is an absolute fool !

You obviously see where you are wrong now, as you are trying to add in some nonsense about odds being coupled n full. The OP was about a double, you said that paticular bet.

If you still don't get it. Try to understand the difference between pricing two revealed events as a single bet and doubling two bets on related events.

Howjoe1

"Then you gave a wincast/scorecast as an example. Which is a single bet not two related bets"

Yes it is a related bet, Are you saying Rooney scoring 1st at Old Trafford is not related to the odds on Man Utd going on to win the game.

More than ten yrs ago you would not have allowed do this bet under "related bet" rule. The wincast is an even more recent market for punters.

Black and White example of related bet. Federer to win semi final and Federer to win the final coupled at odds available at semi stage. no go.

you could win your 1st rd e ball with a 73 and find your outright odds increased going into the 2nd round, (to your disadvantage if coupled)

And that was the point I was making about the non acceptance of the Simpsom bet.

1st rd 3 ball winner does not by any means of certainty reflect that the outright odds would shorten unlike in the Tennis example.

Mellor

Howjoe1 wrote: »

Yes it is a related bet, Are you saying Rooney scoring 1st at Old Trafford is not related to the odds on Man Utd going on to win the game.

No thats not what I'm saying. I clearly said they are related events. That is obvious FFS.
But "Rooney to score and united to win" is priced as a single bet. Thus is really simple. And tbh I think you are just being awkward.

More than ten yrs ago you would not have allowed do this bet under "related bet" rule. The wincast is an even more recent market for punters.

Nothing has changed in the last 10 years. It's still not allowed. A wincast isn't a double it's a single bet. How many times do we have to explain that?

1st rd 3 ball winner does not by any means of certainty reflect that the outright odds would shorten unlike in the Tennis example.

It doesn't matter that the odds don't always shorten. On average, the winner of round one 3ball will improve his odds to win overall.

premierstone

Mellor, is there not a wall near you that you could bang your head off, surely it would be more productive than trying to reason with this lad??