redrobbo Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Is there an Ombudsman type person that deals with these cases? Yes. An earlier poster supplied a link to the press story, and the punter has been directed to the Betting Ombusman (or some such title). This story has made me grateful I don't gamble. Seems even if you win big style, you still lose out. £7m won - £32 to be paid out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) One of their employees did accept the bet on their behalf,so it would not hurt them to pay out the 10,000/1 limit (if that is so) and to make sure their training is better in future. Edited January 9, 2010 by matsalleh wrong info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisS6 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 It boils down to : They are thumbing their nose at gamblers saying "We got it wrong when we took your money and accepted the bet, but we're not paying out and you can't sue for gambling debts so push off". The only comeback they face for this appallingly cynical poor customer service is if gamblers take their bets elsewhere. But where to ? There are always stories of bookies failing to make really big payments. And yes, they were stupid to take such a bet on closely related incidents as an accumulator, for the reasons people have said - unless they never intented to pay out, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 It boils down to : They are thumbing their nose at gamblers saying "We got it wrong when we took your money and accepted the bet" They didn't accept the bet. It was turned down by the computer when the cashier tried to translate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snippers Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Hope he wins the fight, it`s worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) I have to say, I have no idea of how you arrive at odds of 9/1, or where he is demanding this. In my example of 3/1 odds of snow in a single city, 3x3/1 or 9/1 would be the odds of snow in two in two cities if they were accumulator odds. This is the equivalent of what the punter is demanding. Since he has bet on twelve cities, what he is effectively demanding is 3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3/1 or 531,441/1 or £2.6m for his £5 bet. This is clearly nonsense, irrespective of wether this was agreed with a minor employee or not. If the punter was to win his argument in court this would effectively render any future business transactions useless. Another example, when I was employed in my university placement job one of our reps stupidly agreed to sell one of our products to a customer at 50% of cost. If the company had been forced to comply with this "contract" then ultimately the company would have been bankrupt. The "contract" was declared null and void because the rep was incompetent. Just as Argos is not obliged to supply a plasma tv for £10.99 if an employee mistakenly advertises it at that price, neither is Ladbrokes obliged to payout a bet negligently taken with the wrong odds. Edited January 10, 2010 by quisquose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) In my example of 3/1 odds of snow in a single city, 3x3/1 or 9/1 would be the odds of snow in two in two cities if they were accumulator odds. This is the equivalent of what the punter is demanding. And that's where you're completely wrong. The odds on each selection were 5/2 at the longest, in general 2/1, as shown by the picture in the Mail article. Even if the odds were 3/1, that would actually mean a multiplication of four, as you retain your stake. So a £5 double at 3/1 and 3/1 would actually be £5 x 3 to win £15 + £5 stake returned = £20. That £20 goes on again on the second selection at 3/1. That means £20 x 3 to win £60 + £20 = £80 return. Hence the odds of 17/1 on the double, not 9/1. Your maths and understanding of gambling are fundamentally flawed. Since he has bet on twelve cities, what he is effectively demanding is 3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3/1 or 531,441/1 or £2.6m for his £5 bet. This is clearly nonsense, irrespective of wether this was agreed with a minor employee or not. No, he isn't at all. You've not even looked at the odds offered, and don't understand them. If the punter was to win his argument in court this would effectively render any future business transactions useless. He won't, as the bookie's rules will stand. The punter hasn't got a leg to stand on. Another example, when I was employed in my university placement job one of our reps stupidly agreed to sell one of our products to a customer at 50% of cost. If the company had been forced to comply with this "contract" then ultimately the company would have been bankrupt. The "contract" was declared null and void because the rep was incompetent. Just as Argos is not obliged to supply a plasma tv for £10.99 if an employee mistakenly advertises it at that price, neither is Ladbrokes obliged to payout a bet negligently taken with the wrong odds. It's not that the odds are wrong, but that the bet wasn't valid in the first place. Edited January 10, 2010 by happyhippy clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 It boils down to : They are thumbing their nose at gamblers saying "We got it wrong when we took your money and accepted the bet, but we're not paying out and you can't sue for gambling debts so push off". The only comeback they face for this appallingly cynical poor customer service is if gamblers take their bets elsewhere. But where to ? There are always stories of bookies failing to make really big payments. And yes, they were stupid to take such a bet on closely related incidents as an accumulator, for the reasons people have said - unless they never intented to pay out, of course. There are more stories of bookies who won't take bets to a large stake, to be honest. I know of a punter who was only allowed pennies on a horse because of his winning record. I do mean pennies as well. I'm with the bookies on the snow matter, as whichever way you look at it, the bet should not have been taken. As for my mate who couldn't get on because he wins too much? Now that's REALLY naughty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Having seen that, I would not give this man a penny. He was clearly pulling a stroke. Agreed. Ladbrokes are 100% in the right in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 does this just go to prove that gambling's a mug's game, or what? Not if you own a casino. Loads of idiots giving you all their cash and only the odd bright or lucky player to pay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now