bet 365

pjproby

Irish teenager suing BET 365 after they refused to payout £1.1 win

https://www.buzz.ie/news/irish-teenager-suing-bet365-refusing-pay-e1-1m-245330

4068ac1elhodqr

Think she'll settle for a rounded down amount of 1m.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057103071&page=422

nuckeythompson

She will have to provide evidence she had the means to place those bets herself. 365 T&C state that you cannot place at bet on someone else's behalf as they claim.
Social media can be a ****

4068ac1elhodqr

It's an interesting 2-sided coin, they're claiming false representation, she says terms are too complex and would invalid all historic syndicates or those novelty ones placed on behalf of relation or friend. Also raises the question if it came from some source or line of credit did she have ownership.

If she was more upfront and said it was from a direct loan or gift, which she now owned, perhaps it wouldn't be mis-representation.



Another separate clause that was used by Sky in relation of their (pretty good and free to enter) 'pick7' was that the entrant ping'd too much from the same IP Addresses and thus refused the payout. So best not to do this from any public WiFi.

Francie Barrett

I'd love to see bet365 cleaned, but there's something very strange going on here. First of all, a 19 year old woman of all people betting in that sort of amount? I have never heard of such a thing. I would not be at all surprised that this was a brand new account that was lent to a friend or relative who was already banned or restricted. With that said though, this rule doesn't exist for anyone who walks into a shop. I have placed bets of up to £4-5k in the past for third parties and never been asked where the money came from.

Francie Barrett

Randy Delicious Symmetry wrote: »

It's an interesting 2-sided coin, they're claiming false representation, she says terms are too complex and would invalid all historic syndicates or those novelty ones placed on behalf of relation or friend. Also raises the question if it came from some source or line of credit did she have ownership.

If she was more upfront and said it was from a direct loan or gift, which she now owned, perhaps it wouldn't be mis-representation.



Another separate clause that was used by Sky in relation of their (pretty good and free to enter) 'pick7' was that the entrant ping'd too much from the same IP Addresses and thus refused the payout. So best not to do this from any public WiFi.

Interesting, I always thought if someone had the programming skills, they could write a program to do that.

diomed

These were the winners of the races mentioned in The Telegraph article.
I don't know if these were the horses backed.

22nd June 2016
Bath 18:10: Rasmiya (IRE) 9/4 by 1 3/4l
Kempton 19:20: Permian 8/1 by a nose
Naas 19:00: California Aspar 4/1 by ¾l
Naas 20:30: Mr Right 11/4 by a neck
All different trainers.

960 lucky 15s at £13 each-way on the same horses (960 x £26 = £24,960).
A typical evening's betting by a 19 year-old girl.
I knew I was doing it wrong.

Harry Angstrom

What would've happened if the bet lost? She'd be laughed at by Bet 365 if she went back to them and said she placed the bets on behalf of somebody else and they wanted the money back, under Bet 365's terms and conditions.

A case of "Heads I win, tails you lose" for the bookies.

BumperD

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

What would've happened if the bet lost? She'd be laughed at by Bet 365 if she went back to them and said she placed the bets on behalf of somebody else and they wanted the money back, under Bet 365's terms and conditions.

A case of "Heads I win, tails you lose" for the bookies.

More "heads I win, tails I win"

akelly02

BumperD wrote: »

More "heads I win, tails I win"

i dont think you quite grasped that there Bumper

byronbay2

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

What would've happened if the bet lost? She'd be laughed at by Bet 365 if she went back to them and said she placed the bets on behalf of somebody else and they wanted the money back, under Bet 365's terms and conditions.

A case of "Heads I win, tails you lose" for the bookies.

Absolutely correct! If the bookies had question marks about this 19 year-old girl betting €25K with them, they should have looked into it (voided it?) BEFORE it won. You can bet your arse that a €25K bet is studied very carefully by any bookie as soon as it is placed. Total BS by BET365.

BumperD

akelly02 wrote: »

i dont think you quite grasped that there Bumper

Haha just spotted I was slow

vandriver

byronbay2 wrote: »

Absolutely correct! If the bookies had question marks about this 19 year-old girl betting €25K with them, they should have looked into it (voided it?) BEFORE it won. You can bet your arse that a €25K bet is studied very carefully by any bookie as soon as it is placed. Total BS by BET365.

I read a book about Barney Curleys last betting coup,where they realised that lucky 15 bets are not subject to the same security scrutiny as say large single bets because they are seen as a mug punter bet.

4068ac1elhodqr

Most books are happy to instantly accept any e/w Accumulators, and up to max returns. Winning singles they really don't like.

It's not as if 365's holding group with a recent (2015) revenue of £1.5 billion, can't afford to pay out the young lady's winnings.

aidan24326

The article says they haven't returned the original stake either, surely they can't refuse to payout AND keep the stake aswell??

lemush

Randy Delicious Symmetry wrote: »

Most books are happy to instantly accept any e/w Randy Delicious Symmetrys, and up to max returns. Winning singles they really don't like.

It's not as if 365's holding group with a recent (2015) revenue of £1.5 billion, can't afford to pay out the young lady's winnings.

These are clearly not the young lady's winnings however, which is the problem. In the end she will get her stake back or should I say whoever funded her will get their stake back.