Kinkerbells

Is this true??

Recommended Posts

I hope they take hills to court and win.

Really pisses me off when I read things like this. They accepted the bet so just pay out ffs

Edited by david1111
  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the human error, the bet was accepted and paid for, so they should pay out. And they probably will in the end.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They accepted the bet. It won. PAY OUT.

 

By the state of the handwriting, it looks like they've got a 10 year old working at William Hill.

 

I would have thought by now that an employee should be able to print out a betting slip. 

 

Until my local bookies closed I had a set up where i could print out betting slips. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you do a forecast on the horses when 1 of them wins the odds of the other horse getting 2nd is going to be shorter William hill are just talking utter bollocks and trying to find any old excuse to not pay, There own cashier wrote the bet out and they put there £100 stake on is it not a binding contract? 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We make a mistake On a betting slip, they don’t pay out.

They make a mistake on a betting slip, they don’t payout.

Its so one sided it’s unreal.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VillaLad said:

So if you do a forecast on the horses when 1 of them wins the odds of the other horse getting 2nd is going to be shorter William hill are just talking utter bollocks and trying to find any old excuse to not pay, There own cashier wrote the bet out and they put there £100 stake on is it not a binding contract? 

That is the way a forecast is calculated. the overround is adjusted for the price of the first horse and it is run through the formulae.   Think the formulae is around 21 pages long but after a while you can get an idea of what to expect by doing a simple calculation.

 

Also there are no binding bets under Uk law you cannot be made to pay.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, philinvicta said:

That is the way a forecast is calculated. the overround is adjusted for the price of the first horse and it is run through the formulae.   Think the formulae is around 21 pages long but after a while you can get an idea of what to expect by doing a simple calculation.

 

Also there are no binding bets under Uk law you cannot be made to pay.

Ah ok thanks for that 👍

I’ve always calculated forecasts by just timing the 2 odds to get a rough idea of the f/c and it’s not usually far off.

I wasn’t aware of the binding bets situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the obvious thing here is claiming the related contingency on the Iron man bit,  for instance Harry Kane to be leading goalscorer  and Spurs to be in the top 4 It is obvious if Kane scores the most goals in a season then Spurs are more likely to be in the first 4.

But for instance if you do Lewis Hamilton to win the World Championship and to be SPOTY then even though if he would not be likely to win it if he did not win the F1 world championship he would not neccesarily be more likely to win it by a  large margin if he did.

These related bets are more of a modern thing that have come in with the advent of computers being able to do many calculations to see if one event happening will make something more likely.  Often on times past you would get away with  doing related bets in a double and get paid out,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@philinvicta going back to my forecast post if I done a forecast and let’s say 1 horse was 4-1 and the other 5/1 4x5=20 and the forecast will pay at least £20 so in reality I’m still getting the odds what the horse was to win for each horse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VillaLad said:

Ah ok thanks for that 👍

I’ve always calculated forecasts by just timing the 2 odds to get a rough idea of the f/c and it’s not usually far off.

I wasn’t aware of the binding bets situation.

 

 A few years ago the Government was going to bring a law that made bets enforceable during times of credit betting but it was more to make people have to pay up rather than forces bookie to pay as it was assumed that bookies would have money to pay out (though this was not always the case)  but it was stopped because bookies did not  to have to force people into bankruptcy if they could not pay.   

Nowadays they only take bets that are not really on credit ie by cash or cards with immediate payment. It was not uncommon in the past for people of means to bet on credit with a bookie.

Spread betting is different altogether and those debts are enforceable

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VillaLad said:

@philinvicta going back to my forecast post if I done a forecast and let’s say 1 horse was 4-1 and the other 5/1 4x5=20 and the forecast will pay at least £20 so in reality I’m still getting the odds what the horse was to win for each horse 

But if you did several races where the first two horses where 4/1 and 5/1  it is unlikely that the forecast would pay the same although it is likely to be a similar amount.  Many things effect it the main one being the overround( returned SPs ) on the race  other things are if favourite is placed  and field sizes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I've read it I just don't fucking get it?? Like just pay them out ffs. I really don't get the argument I get that William hill are saying the bet should have not been accepted but that ain't the guys problem to me a betting slip is almost as good as a binding contract. I really can't see these guys not being paid if I'm honest. Well I hope not anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, philinvicta said:

But if you did several races where the first two horses where 4/1 and 5/1  it is unlikely that the forecast would pay the same although it is likely to be a similar amount.  Many things effect it the main one being the overround( returned SPs ) on the race  other things are if favourite is placed  and field sizes.

If I done several of forecasts a day at 4/1-5/1 each 1 would pay minimum £20 though this is my point I’m still getting the same odds for a horse to finish 2nd as I would for it to win am I not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this why shop staff are told to phone those thoughts of bets through to traders.   Not alone can he spell double  he did not seem to realise what the  amount of the bet came to either.

In this age of computer bets this should have been picked up a long time ago by Hills because a liability of that size must have shown on the shops systems  and they should have made an attempt to tell these guys there bet was not valid.

By the fact they are talking of suing shows they are not regular punters and all they will do is waste their money and force Hills into defending themselves and so be less likely to make an ex gratia payment  as they have already had the bad publicity  so have no reason to "do the right thing"    Oh and they are Hills and so should be avoided anyway

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kinkerbells said:

As much as I've read it I just don't fucking get it?? Like just pay them out ffs. I really don't get the argument I get that William hill are saying the bet should have not been accepted but that ain't the guys problem to me a betting slip is almost as good as a binding contract. I really can't see these guys not being paid if I'm honest. Well I hope not anyway. 

They should get paid because the player gets voted by a panel they could have finished 8th and if these people think he’s been the best player out of the whole league then so be it, If let’s say messi player for Burnley in the prem he plays well each week but Burnley finish mid table why couldn’t he win player of the season? He could couldn’t he so will hills don’t have a leg to stand on with that argument

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VillaLad said:

If I done several of forecasts a day at 4/1-5/1 each 1 would pay minimum £20 though this is my point I’m still getting the same odds for a horse to finish 2nd as I would for it to win am I not?

No here is an example of what I mean it would be around 20 

But if I change the odds of the third horse from 2/1 to 15/8 then you get this

Link  Did not work

Edited by philinvicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, philinvicta said:

No here is an example of what I mean it would be around 20 

But if I change the odds of the third horse from 2/1 to 15/8 then you get this

Link  Did not work

Took screenshots to show 

2019-10-09.png

2019-10-09 (1).png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VillaLad said:

They should get paid because the player gets voted by a panel they could have finished 8th and if these people think he’s been the best player out of the whole league then so be it, If let’s say messi player for Burnley in the prem he plays well each week but Burnley finish mid table why couldn’t he win player of the season? He could couldn’t he so will hills don’t have a leg to stand on with that argument

This as I said is the dodgy part of claiming the related contingency  and I suspect unlike some other related bets unquantifiable  so they cannot even work out what the true odds should have been to pay them out

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, crazyrightmeow said:

This is just sick, they should pay every bet they accept and it doesnt matter if its human\computer error.. accepted bet should be ALWAYS valid!

You need to remember that when you give them a bet it is only copied onto the system it  and not really validated until it is entered.  For example  you do a tricast on a maiden  and the bet would be accepted by the cashier and your money taken but it is not a valid bet  and no tricast  dividend would ever be given so they would have no way of calculating "the winnings"

This would be a case of having to know  the rules of the shop you are in as most would make it a void bet  but some others would make it a  forecast bet as there is no tricast for the race.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether the bets are related or not is a side issue , because the offered price would /should have taken this  into account...... so as stated the bookmakers are incorrect and must pay the full amount of liability .

Unless the offered price was obviously stated as related at the time of placing then the bookmakers are duly liable for thier mistake. 

You can back a team to win and back the player of the match on the same ticket during major cricket internationals  so I think Hills is out of order .

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, philinvicta said:

You need to remember that when you give them a bet it is only copied onto the system it  and not really validated until it is entered.  For example  you do a tricast on a maiden  and the bet would be accepted by the cashier and your money taken but it is not a valid bet  and no tricast  dividend would ever be given so they would have no way of calculating "the winnings"

This would be a case of having to know  the rules of the shop you are in as most would make it a void bet  but some others would make it a  forecast bet as there is no tricast for the race.

 

But still for me its "valid" when they take the money. If they have that all stated in TOS then the guys are fucked I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Solario333 said:

Whether the bets are related or not is a side issue , because the offered price would /should have taken this  into account...... so as stated the bookmakers are incorrect and must pay the full amount of liability .

Unless the offered price was obviously stated as related at the time of placing then the bookmakers are duly liable for thier mistake. 

You can back a team to win and back the player of the match on the same ticket during major cricket internationals  so I think Hills is out of order .

 

The whole point is you would  be paid less for the double  than  if you just  took the odds  of two singles and multiplied them together.

Bookies have rules that will protect them against this  and there is no way these guys will get paid if Hills play hardball

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now