conditions shrink R4.8-million win to R1-million

www.timeslive.co.za/sport/2017-11-22-ter...n-win-to-r1-million/

SPORT
Terms and conditions shrink R4.8-million win to R1-million
22 November 2017 - 15:52
BY PETRU SAAL

Image: Gallo Images/iStockphoto
Always read the fine print carefully. Darren Ward did not when he placed online horse racing bets and expected to gallop into the sunset with millions of rand after hitting the jackpot.

Darren Ward did not when he placed online horse racing bets and expected to gallop into the sunset with millions of rand after hitting the jackpot.

Lady luck was on his side when he placed several bets in October 2014. He correctly chose eight winning horses in eight different races run at two different venues on the same day. His betting slip reflected a “total possible payment” of R4.8-million.

But unknown to him at the time‚ there were terms and conditions applicable to Sportingbet‚ an online sports betting site‚ that effectively restricted punters to winning R1-million.

Sportingbet maintained that they weren’t liable to pay the balance of the money‚ when he took them to court to obtain the full amount‚ as their terms and the conditions clearly stipulated that a single winner could only pocket R1-million in a single day.

Cape Town High Court Judge Siraj Desai ruled on Monday that when Ward had opened an online betting account he had to tick the standard terms and the conditions before placing bets.

One of these read‚ “The maximum amount that can be won by one customer in one day's betting‚ regardless of stake‚ is R1 000 000.00 or its equivalent in an accepted currency.”

Desai said that by placing an electronic tick next to the appropriate box‚ Ward accepted and agreed with the terms and conditions.

“He says he did not read the terms. However‚ he does not dispute that the words ‘please note limits may be applicable on your winnings’ were displayed on the bottom of the betting slip‚” said the judge.

Desai added that since Ward opened his account with Sportingbet‚ he had placed at least 530 bets on the website and each time he had the opportunity to go through the payment terms but he had failed to do so.

“It appears that once a bet is placed by the punter‚ the computer software then applies the odds‚ automatically calculating the potential payout‚ but directly below the amount stated‚ the warning appears that limits are applicable on winnings‚” said Desai.

If the limit is 1 bar, how did their software allow a bet to be laid for 4.8 bar? How does the gambling board allow this deception?
If the stake to win 4.8 bar was e.g. R1000, to win 1 bar it would have been R200. They take the extra stake with no liability - how can this be fair?
With this kind of software they collect a packet from idiots with no liability
BUT, the software is quick to inform me "the maximum you can wager on this market is R3.12"

Have to agree with u fingers

It also shows u how much tax you are paying

He is lucky to have a bookmaker who would lay a million, if i take a multiple to win 10 or 20 it gets rejected, or even when going into a branch with a silly multiple it gets cut down after a phone call to head office.

All online bookmakers clearly state the limits. Have to agree with the ruling on this one. However, Sportingbet are quick to limit and close accounts. A couple of years ago I got limited so severely that I could only win R100 on any bet. When I spoke to their head offices in the UK all I got was. “Sorry Sir it’s company policy!”

If one happens to be extremely fortunate the terms and conditions also say "The maximum amount that can be won by one customer in one day's betting....". That is irrespective of how many events one may have won R1million per event in one day, one will only be paid out R1million total. The condition is common to most bookies but the R1million threshold is different.

He might be shortsighted in not reading the whole Sporting bet T&C but Darren Ward certainly knows his horses, maybe he can provide us with a tip or two for Summer Cup Day

Agree with the ruling

But also think their software should tell them the maximum stake to receive the max payout

They can do it when you try and have too much on a single

I think the limit is ok but as i said earlier

When you punch in bet and it shows on screen eg 5 million? less tax the return on your bet is R4.7m

Yes the computer has to be set to show max is a million , not sure if the payout was a million or less 6%

Bob Brogan wrote: Agree with the ruling

But also think their software should tell them the maximum stake to receive the max payout

They can do it when you try and have too much on a single

Agree with you Bob, why accept the bet if you can't pay it....

Everybody with half a brain and 24 hours betting experience knows about bookie limits.
However, setting a limit by implication means they will not accept a stake that will exceed the limit.
That is what happens with all bookies I know - the software will reject your bet. Only when a stake is entered that gives a payout within their limit, is the bet accepted.
But not with this bunch – they obviously accept any stake you want to enter, no matter by how much it exceeds their limit.
How can they accept a bet they full well know they are not going to settle in full?
How is this even remotely fair or even legal?
How can the gambling board allow this?

fingers wrote: Everybody with half a brain and 24 hours betting experience knows about bookie limits.
However, setting a limit by implication means they will not accept a stake that will exceed the limit.
That is what happens with all bookies I know - the software will reject your bet. Only when a stake is entered that gives a payout within their limit, is the bet accepted.
But not with this bunch – they obviously accept any stake you want to enter, no matter by how much it exceeds their limit.
How can they accept a bet they full well know they are not going to settle in full?
How is this even remotely fair or even legal?
How can the gambling board allow this?

Agree 100% Fingers, whilst ignorance is no excuse, as the bookmaker you cannot have it both ways.