- This topic has 44 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Wit,
Would the "Unfair Contract Conditions" also apply to palpable error in that the bookmaker has complete control of the offered prices – he sets them, he displays them, he or his agent accepts bets priced accordingly. The punter has no input to that accept accepting prices offered or not. At the time of making
any
bet a punter has no certainty of being paid out at a price taken, whatever the bet.
Another common issue is having bets accepted after the off time. If it wins the bet stake only is returned. It is classed as a non-contract. If it loses, the bookmaker keeps the stake. What is the legal issue here?
If Darren had taken 10/11 when it should’ve been 5/2, would the bookies admit their mistake ? Nah…they would just give you some shyte about you taking the price.
Really? You’ve had experience of this – taking a palpably wrong price and not being offered the correct one when you pointed it out?
I think as a gesture they could at least give you 25% of the price you took
Totally agree. Look, we can all scream about the *******, thieving, scheming scum-of-the-earth bookies etc etc but the bottom line is the price was palpably wrong. It’s a big cock-up, dismal PR, and were it me (as you rightly suggest) I would probably pay out a good percentage of the bet at that price as a goodwill gesture.
But the price (which sounds like it was basically a computer-operator’s typo) was still wrong.
Mike
walked into an independant on saturday morning, noticed that the hand written prices for qe2 were 8/1 RVW 5/2 delegator 10bar, asked for £10K @ 8/1 only bet me £1k, now wont pay me, cheating robbing bookies, sad price should have been 8/11,
what can I do ?Barry
Your situation sounds similar to that suffered by the thread starter, so as I see it you have 2 options.
1- Follow the advice given by Wit earlier in this thread
2- Stop telling lies.Thanks Wit, very interesting.
I thought I read somewhere a couple of months ago about some blokes who own a dog threating to take Corals to court, in the event of IBAS ruling against them, on this very issue – if I remember correctly they backed their dog to place in the doggie derby at 500/1 and have been offered 50/1. Do you know anything about this case.
Also, can a precedent be set in a County Court or would every case be judged on its own merits?
Yeah mate, I know some people are saying you should know, but what if you DIDN’T know? I mean, if you were a new punter and saw a horse at 33-1 (Yes, I know it’s hardly likely, but if you liked the name, say, whatever). Also, like anything in big companies, why do you think they never do anything about the utilities prices, bankers’ bonuses and betting shop legislation – because all the MPs who ‘pretend’ to mouth off about new legislation covering this or that are being fed the line that they’ll have a nice cushy directorship from these companies betting companies included, when they leave, or in new Labour’s case, get kicked out of government, if they don’t rock the boat. I know this rant isn’t the most helpful but I’m tyring to say with the law in cahoots with the big guns we ain’t got a chance mate.[/color:3kt0szly]
.
Firstly I have difficulty believing Darren had no idea the price was plain wrong- he’s no mug punter.
Secondly with the literally thousands of prices offerered in your average bookies daily there are bound to be mistakes.
Where a price is palpably wrong (i.e. several multiples of the price offered elsewhere) it’s a bit unreasonable to expect to get paid out in full.Two moral dilemmas here:
Firstly, just because it is received wisdom that bookmakers attempt to fleece punters without compunction does that mean punters should attempt to fleece them if given the opportunity
‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘two wrongs don’t mean a right’
Secondly, being aware you’re being offered odds that are obviously in error is akin to being handed a tenner as change instead of the correct fiver.
Keep stum or point out the error to the functionary on minimum wage who is nevertheless expected to carry out his/her job charged with the responsibility of negotiating the transaction of what may be substantial sums diligently and honestly.
It won’t be Ladbrokes, Coral et al who will suffer by honouring ‘palpable errors’ but said functionary with his/her job.
easy come, easy go, three million on the dole
- Total Posts 17716
Drone
Show me a bookie with morals and you might have a point?
Wrong prices you won’t know about, unless they’re in your favour.
Late bets won’t be voided, until you try to collect on one.
‘Sleepers’ will remain so, unless specifically queried, etc. etc., and one could go on all day about the niche bookmakers have built for themselves where they call all the shots, and call them ‘rules’.
As Wit points out, for the first time ever the punter has recourse to law, and it should be used as intended; to challenge the bookmakers and their self-interested pronouncements, and have them stand up in the real world that the rest of us have to adhere to.From my reading of events I don’t think Darren knew he was being offered odds that were "obviously in error"?
Are you saying he’s a liar?
.Just observations on the ‘palpable error’ rules in general, not aimed at Darren or anyone else in particular. Feel free to put whatever interpretation you like on it.
Easy for the exchange punters to lecture someone whose put a bet in a bookies about what is akin to what else; what if a exchange punter offers you a tilt at odd’s that they’ve made a mistake on, do betfiar organise a netwroking system where one punter say’s to the other "oh mate I made a mistake there".
No, they don’t.
IMO don’t offer odds if you can’t stand by them when a horse wins, there’s responsibility on a plate for yer
Don’t confuse a ‘rick’ – out-of-line odds offered in good faith by an individual by which that individual stands or falls, with an error by an individual swimming with the corporate minnows that was never intended to be offered by the corporate shark.
Having been there myself on the long exchange learning-curve I do have some sympathy with those who inadvertantly ‘click the wrong button’ but again that is the individual’s pain to bear alone, not having to explain it to a succession of superiors, culminating in a P45 from head office.
Show me a bookie with morals and you might have a point?
Wrong prices you won’t know about, unless they’re in your favour.
Late bets won’t be voided, until you try to collect on one.
‘Sleepers’ will remain so, unless specifically queried, etc. etc., and one could go on all day about the niche bookmakers have built for themselves where they call all the shots, and call them ‘rules’.I’m aware of all that RH and it should have become obvious by now from my posts regarding off-course bookmakers on here that I am anything but an apologist for them.
The immorality of bookmakers doesn’t necessarily mean immoral acts by the punter in return are okay. That is the dilemma
Other than that little bit of pomposity I was just airing an opinion that should bets struck at odds which are obvious ‘palpable errors’ become in someway ‘legally binding’ then the job security of the employee responsible for the error may be in jeopardy as retribution from the bookmaker whose bottom line has had a microscopic dent put in it.
Though how such an ‘unfair dismissal’ would stand up if taken to an appeals tribunal I wouldn’t know, so I could be well wide of reality.
I couldn’t give a flying fk for the bookmakers but I do care about their shop staff.
Don’t confuse a ‘rick’ – out-of-line odds offered in good faith by an individual by which that individual stands or falls, with an error by an individual swimming with the corporate minnows that was never intended to be offered by the corporate shark.
Having been there myself on the long exchange learning-curve I do have some sympathy with those who inadvertantly ‘click the wrong button’ but again that is the individual’s pain to bear alone, not having to explain it to a succession of superiors, culminating in a P45 from head office.
With a "palpable" error rule in place then bookmakers management do not have to come up with a system so that false prices are trapped and cannot appear. There are such systems. It is systematic laziness on their part because the rule acts as a crutch to incompetence. We know when the odds are way out of line or even a point out of line – why cannot they know as the supposed odds "experts"? As these mistakes are happening every day they cannot simply blame overworked staff – it is a systemic management failure issue.
I remember a "palpabel error" in last seasons Desert Orchid chase at Kempton when the bookies priced up a horse called
Fiepes Shuffle
at 33/1,4 days prior to the race!this beast had won 16 times in Germany and came over to plunder a decent prize,the horse was very well supported on the day and a lot of Euro"s from Germany snaffled the fancy prices! Flipper should have been a 10/1 shot that day,i dont suppose you told the Bookies he was overpriced Darren did you?
I remember a "palpabel error" in last seasons Desert Orchid chase at Kempton when the bookies priced up a horse called Fiepes Shuffle at 33/1,4 days prior to the race!this beast had won 16 times in Germany and came over to plunder a decent prize,the horse was very well supported on the day and a lot of Euro"s from Germany snaffled the fancy prices! Flipper should have been a 10/1 shot that day,i dont suppose you told the Bookies he was overpriced Darren did you?
That was a "palpable error"? You mean they refused to pay out all those shrewdies?
There’s a world of difference between punters being better informed and taking an inflated price – that’s absolutely fair game – and punters trying to get on an 8-11 shot at 8-1 because some microchip’s gone wonky on a screen or some input clerk’s made a slip of the keyboard.
Really surprised that some forumites can’t see the difference.
Mike
Really surprised that some forumites can’t see the difference.
Mike
The difference Mike is this, had the customer been an elderly lady who was passing the shop and the name "Weiner Walzer" jumped out at her as it reminded her of her childhood sweetheart,who taught her to dance! The lady has a £10e/w bet at the 33/1 and the horse wins but she is declined the returns she expects!That is wrong imo! Darren on the other hand is a knowledgable member of the racing game,he knows damn well the price is wrong but he trys to pull a fast one and gets caught out,if i was a bookmaker i would be comparing that with "legal stealing"!! Armed robbery perhaps is a little harsh!
RP archive showed Coral’s were offering…
7-4 Getaway, 11-4 Wiener Walzer, 4 Flamingo Fantasy, 6 Eastern Anthem, 10 Poseidon Adventure, 20 Saphir, Schiller Danon
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/cologne-germany-eastern-anthem-faces-local-heroes/620424/
The difference Mike is this, had the customer been an elderly lady who was passing the shop and the name "Weiner Walzer" jumped out at her as it reminded her of her childhood sweetheart,who taught her to dance! The lady has a £10e/w bet at the 33/1 and the horse wins but she is declined the returns she expects!That is wrong imo! Darren on the other hand is a knowledgable member of the racing game,he knows damn well the price is wrong but he trys to pull a fast one and gets caught out,if i was a bookmaker i would be comparing that with "legal stealing"!! Armed robbery perhaps is a little harsh!
Much of that I don’t disagree with. It’s definitely unfortunate, rank bad PR and it shouldn’t happen. However, because human beings are involved in the chain it does happen and (no matter how many sophisticated checks are in place) will continue to happen.
My position would be to pay the guy out some, or maybe even all, of his money as a goodwill gesture. But
it would be
a goodwill gesture.
No matter what your opinion of bookmakers, it is not reasonable to expect them to lay ten times the industry price on something simply because of some clerical error.
Whichever way you slice-and-dice it, the horse was always 3-1, not 33-1. The price was simply wrong.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.