Just a question having read the judgement. If the bet had been taken at a Hollywood betting outlet without the terms and conditions being agreed to would the court have taken a different view
This bookie and about 80% of others lay the wrong odds on thousands of occasions every day. (in their favor, which makes it OK?)
This is the betting they have on Porto vs Liverpool on 28 Sep – 7/2,3/1 the draw and 7/10
Double chance, with the correct odds in brackets –
home & draw 1/1 (1.11/1)
Draw & away 0.18/1 (0.19/1)
Home or away .22/1 (0.23/1)
I suppose it does not say in their t’s & c’s that they are obliged to lay the correct price.
What it does say is they can limit you or close your account if they are of the opinion you are not a recreational punter (whatever the fuck that is)
If James and A.N.Other should have done the “honorable thing and just walk away”, why does the bookie not do the honorable thing and just lay the correct prices?
I guess it depends what you regard as reasonable when dealing with a turf accountant and what is a shrewd betting coup vs taking advantage of a genuine timing mistake?
Eg when the owner of Sir Ivor thought his horse could win the Derby a year before the event at 200/1 he took a very shrewd gamble and watched it win at 7/10.
When a technical deduction was created by some FA ruling to deduct points from a team, that was previously 100/1 and immediately became 5/10.
The punter tried to take advantage of this price before his bookmaker could correct the odds, this was just trying to take a chance to catch your bookie.
At the time the bet was taken the team were actually 5/10 and no longer 100/1.
As I have said above, depending on your relationship with your bookmaker it’s your prerogative on which way to pursue your objection.
It is easy to make out Goodman the cad without knowing the facts.
Wigan had been deducted 12 points for going into administration and despite this put up a fantastic run of results to be in a position to stay up on the final day of the season where they faced Fulham. At half time Wigan were in fact 1-0 up and were escaping the dreaded drop. Why I mention this is simple. If Wigan had won the game and stayed up, there would not have been a murmur about this. Goodman would have lost the bet and that would have been that. The fact that the bet had been struck weeks before and not adjusted speaks volumes in my opinion. Hollywood were in a no-lose position and this was clearly not fair to the punters.
I say Hollywood should have paid and support Goodmans efforts to show them to be dishonourable.
I don’t think this was an error, it was a poor price that did not take into account all available information. The fact that there was such a vast difference in the price is a red herring.
For arguments sake:
The Springboks are 7/2 to beat NZ this weekend.
During the week NZ Rugby announce that, due to Covid, 5 of their better players are unavailable.
I think that, given this information, a fair price on SA should be around 2/1.
After the announcement from NZ rugby, I see a bookmaker still offering 7/2 and I strike a bet at this price.
The price duly moves to 2/1 by kick off, primarily off the back of the NZ players unavailable and South Africa win the match.
Bookmaker refuses to honour the bet.
How is the above different?
An error is adding an extra zero and pricing a 10/1 at 100/1. Bookmakers job is to price based on all available info.
IMO you lay you pay , hiding behind some ridicoulous t and c just shows you are not a bookmakers xxx and as for all this do the honourable thing nonsense , that word and bookmakers have never existed
Topic Author
