- This topic has 290 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I imagine that the overall point is that we should help each other and perhaps would of been nice for someone to say before the tolworth that it may be worth back in finians for the Neptune at 16/1 prior to the race
That’s completely fair enough but everyone on here seems fairly clued up – that’s one of the reasons I like TRF. I assumed, given the history of the Tolworth as a precursor for Cheltenham, that people would have realised 20/1 for the Neptune over 13/8 for the Tolworth pre-race was a ‘no brainer’ if you were really confident he would win.
Hopefully that works.
Wasn’t sure what he was aimed at so also had 2 doubles on the tolworth/AB and tolworth/Neptune.
Be annoyed if he ends up in the supreme !
Hey Frankie. I fear that bet will be classed as a ‘related contingency’. They won’t mention anything until you win, but if you do they will likely settle the cheltenham target leg at SP I’m afraid.
Milbear – thanks for the tip. I kind of understand the implication, though have no idea of why. Will go off to google related contingency…
Cheers
Hey Frankie. I fear that bet will be classed as a ‘related contingency’. They won’t mention anything until you win, but if you do they will likely settle the cheltenham target leg at SP I’m afraid.
Yes, definitely a related contingency bet, but settle at SP? IMO more likely they’ll retrospectively apply prices of around 20/1 to the Tolworth-Neptune/Tolworth-Albert Bartlett doubles.
Milbear – thanks for the tip. I kind of understand the implication, though have no idea of why. Will go off to google related contingency…
Cheers
In a nutshell, related contingency applies when the outcome of event A has a direct implication on the odds of event B. If Finian’s Oscar wins the Tolworth, the odds of event B occuring (winning the Neptune/Albert Bartlett) will be shorter.
You could also look at the occasional mug who puts a £1 10-fold on it snowing in 10 different cities in the UK on Christmas Day. If it snows in Manchester, then the likelihood of it snowing in Liverpool as well will be higher. This is related contingency.
Well I don’t bet on anything other than the horses but I’m definitely a mug clearly…we all start somewhere I guess.
Bit daft in this day and age they don’t have computer systems that recognise these bets and thus prevent you putting them on?
Yeah definitely a related bet as others have said
I think your best bet is to contact them now and ask them how they think the bet might be settled if he wins at Cheltenham
otherwise you are completely in the dark
Well I don’t bet on anything other than the horses but I’m definitely a mug clearly…we all start somewhere I guess.
Exactly, easy mistake to make, don’t worry about it. I think you’ll still get 20/1, maybe even 25s. If they settle at SP, you’ll still be getting over 16/1 if he goes off at 4/1.
Looking at the comments he’s made it seems possible they could swerve Cheltenham altogether, but he said something similar about wrapping up Clan Des Obeax in cotton wool last year and that horse ran in the Triumph. Plus the owner will want him to run at the festival
RSA seems extremely unlikely, I guess Arkle would be possible as horse has tons of pace, but would you really run him in that when the JLT seems a much easier race?
I wouldn’t contact them at all on related contingency. Firstly, I don’t believe such a defence by a bookie of a bet like this would stand legal scrutiny. More importantly, had the bet been placed in a shop, bookies would have recourse to their ‘palpable error’ rule (to cover staff mistakes in not spotting it).
I’d argue strongly that with automated online betting, their software should be set to catch RC bets before they’re accepted. If their software is inadequate, why should you pay the price?
I wouldn’t contact them at all on related contingency. Firstly, I don’t believe such a defence by a bookie of a bet like this would stand legal scrutiny. More importantly, had the bet been placed in a shop, bookies would have recourse to their ‘palpable error’ rule (to cover staff mistakes in not spotting it).
I’d argue strongly that with automated online betting, their software should be set to catch RC bets before they’re accepted. If their software is inadequate, why should you pay the price?
Too late! Have contacted them – no response as yet.
I agree with you in part as I’ve said – but then I’m also aware that just as in law ignorance isn’t an excuse and I should have known about related contingency – more fool me for putting a bet on I didn’t fully understand.
Will post again when I hear back from WH.
“In law”
Yours is a perfect case to test in court. You were unaware of the rule, a rule which really needs legal testing.
Had you known about RC and requested a price for the horse to win both, then you’d be bound by that price. But you did not. You placed your bet openly with no intent to deceive.
The key legal aspect here, for my money (I’m not in any way legally qualified but have a reasonable qualification in logic) is that you cannot declare a bet RC after the first leg has won because that removes a key factor in your wager – the horse could have lost last Saturday, making your bet worthless.
The bet was struck before the horse ran. To declare it RC afterwards, the bookie is ignoring the highly pertinent fact that it could have lost – what price would the double have been then? Any price you like as it was unachievable: pick a price for comparison purposes, say a trillion to one, and yet you accepted a multiplied odds double which was at odds much smaller than that. This was your part of the deal and it was binding upon you when the bet was placed. It should also bind the bookie.
If they come back and offer you a new price, I’d tell them you have reconsidered, sought advice, and will stick with the odds quoted for the double and see what they say.
My guess is they’ll ignore any detailed correspondence and only worry about it if the horse wins.
Shame, I liked the bet too.
“In law”
Yours is a perfect case to test in court. You were unaware of the rule, a rule which really needs legal testing.
Had you known about RC and requested a price for the horse to win both, then you’d be bound by that price. But you did not. You placed your bet openly with no intent to deceive.
The key legal aspect here, for my money (I’m not in any way legally qualified but have a reasonable qualification in logic) is that you cannot declare a bet RC after the first leg has won because that removes a key factor in your wager – the horse could have lost last Saturday, making your bet worthless.
The bet was struck before the horse ran. To declare it RC afterwards, the bookie is ignoring the highly pertinent fact that it could have lost – what price would the double have been then? Any price you like as it was unachievable: pick a price for comparison purposes, say a trillion to one, and yet you accepted a multiplied odds double which was at odds much smaller than that. This was your part of the deal and it was binding upon you when the bet was placed. It should also bind the bookie.
If they come back and offer you a new price, I’d tell them you have reconsidered, sought advice, and will stick with the odds quoted for the double and see what they say.
…
I’m afraid this practice is commonplace amongst online bookmakers and your attempts to kick up a stink will all have been seen before. If you contact them now they may fix the current odds. Otherwise on the day you’ll be subject to them taking whichever stance suits them best at the time. If SP ends up being bigger I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy with retrospectively applied odds. I’ve been here before with these bets and you invariably get shafted. If the horse loses of course the bet never required correcting…
Software would seriously struggle to pick out every related contingency implication out there. Plus it’s in the bookies interest to have you in this position now anyway.
On a positive note as I mentioned elsewhere previously they can’t do much about related bets not featuring the same horse, ie Altior Clarence chase min arkle double (Don’t do that one mind, just an example!).
Annie power Mares hurdle and Faugheen CH would be another example, youd never get the 13/1 on the double available now when their targets are announced, and provided both make it they will surely be kept apart.Now this I wasn’t expecting:
Upon checking your bet under reference of XXXXX I can confirm that we have divided |Albert Bartlett Novices’ Hurdle – 17th Mar 2017| and |32red Tolworth Novices’ Hurdle – 7th Jan 2017| as these are the selections that cannot be combined due to related contingency.
A related contingency occurs when one part of the bet affects the outcome of the rest of the bet.
For more information regarding related contingency you can use this link:
Let me provide you the breakdown of your bet:https://williamhill-lang.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/69/kw/related%20contingency
Selection A:
|32red Tolworth Novices’ Hurdle – 7th Jan 2017| and |Neptune Investment Management Novices’ Hurdle – 15th Mar 2017|Selection B:
|Albert Bartlett Novices’ Hurdle – 17th Mar 2017| and |Neptune Investment Management Novices’ Hurdle – 15th Mar 2017|A combination needs to win for you to get returns in your bet.
We hope this explains everything now.
They appear to be suggesting that the Tolworth and Albert Bartlett are related (fine) but are silent on the Tolworth and Neptune (??) at the same time as suggesting a double of the Neptune and Albert Bartlett is fine – which is not a bet I’ve made nor would any sane person. There’s no mention of odds either
I think I’ll stick to singles in future…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.