Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Skybet welsh on Chelsea bet

  • 15-03-2015 1:45pm
    #1
    Murt10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭


    Talk about making it up as you go along. I wonder how punters who placed their bet and afterwards tried to renegotiate it in their own favour due to an "administrative error" would be treated by SKY


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2995637/Furious-fans-miss-jackpot-Sky-Bet-phone-app-track-odds-Chelsea-game.html


    One of Britain’s most popular online bookmakers has been branded a ‘rip-off company’ after failing to honour odds offered during a crucial Chelsea match.

    Furious customers are demanding a bigger payout after placing wagers with Sky Bet that the Premier League leaders would be knocked out of the Champions League by Paris Saint-Germain on Wednesday night.

    The firm’s mobile phone app was offering odds of 25-1 for a PSG win in extra time – but when it came to settling the bets, they paid out at just 9-2. It means the winnings for a £10 wager would have been cut from £260 to £55, including the return of the original stake.

    Sky Bet claims the better odds were offered by ‘mistake’ – and its actions are in keeping with the small print in its terms and conditions.

    The longer odds were offered while Chelsea were leading 2-1 in extra time. But the French side equalized, despite being reduced to ten men, and won the two-legged clash on away goals.

    Punters who successfully bet on the result were told they would be paid less than they expected only after the match was over, with an email sent from the company blaming an ‘administration error’.


Comments

  • #2
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    9/2 for a team to win with 10 men? With about 15 or so to ? What a rip. 25/1 sounds about right to be honest!


  • #3
    Thegalwayman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭Thegalwayman


    Well they didn't win they drew


  • #4
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    Thegalwayman wrote: »
    Well they didn't win they drew

    Maybe it was ''To Qualify'' Otherwise they wouldn't have paid out at all.


  • #5
    Thegalwayman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭Thegalwayman


    Palpable error. 25/1 to win 3-2 in et. 9/2 to equalise and qualify on away goals. SEEMS FAIR


  • #6
    ianburke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 691 ✭✭✭ianburke


    chelsea were 1/16 to qualify before the silva goal so odds should have been 7/1 or thereabouts.all that was needed was one goal.cant believe this made the paper!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement