Ladbrokes refuse to pay man who won £7.1 million

[quisquose]

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.

 

Okay wrong maybe, but completely wrong?

 

I was simply trying highlight the fact that the punter was deluded by using probabilities in my example rather than real-life gambling, so I confess that I did leave out the stake retention for simplicity. Also I did say, "lets assume the odds of snow in any one city is 3/1" so I thought it was clear that I was trying to keep things simple rather than confuse with all the variables in the real-life example.

 

It seems that teaching is not the job for me after all. But then again I did write it after numerous pints of beer, I think it shows!

 

[Titanic99]

does this just go to prove that gambling's a mug's game, or what?

 

It is possible to bet safe in the knowledge that you can’t lose, it is called “Armitage Trading” and it involves studying the betting markets for the bookmakers offering the best price and to cover all possible outcomes.

 

Here’s an example for the world cup, this would guarantee a 3.8% profit on your investment.

 

Group E betting to win the Group best prices

 

Holland 4/5 Victor Chandler

Denmark 9/2 various

Cameroon 9/2 888 sport

Japan 16/1 Coral (excellent value alone I’d have thought)

 

You just need to have enough time on your hands to find the right odds and the money to make it worthwhile.

[pezno1]

What everyone is assuming is this customer didn't know the rules. Just because he said he was unaware that he couldn'd have this bet do we take his word for it just because we can moan about bookmakers and he can claim he was hard done by and try to win more than what was possible? The selections he made were close together so if it snowed one place then it would be snowing in the other. He placed this bet knowing this and couldn't have thought that such a bet could return over £7 million (i don't believe graphic designers could be this stupid). I believe this customer is trying a "quick one" and this makes him guilty of fraud in the eyes of the law. So lets not take it out on the cashier as its wasn't ladbrokes mistake but that of the cashiers, human error is in us all. Also we cannot assume someone is telling the truth just because we would like it to be so that we can have a moan.

[wellyman]

I would think having a bet on wether or not snow would land in different cities on a certain day are separate events, just the same as football matches in different cities are.

if it's 71 to snow in london anf 5/1 for chesterfield surely they are two different events.

The bet wasn't if there would be snow in England.

 

I'm with you on that. There has to be a stake for there to be a bet. So it needs to snow in each town in the order predicted otherwise there is nothing to carry forward.

[Vague_Boy]

does this just go to prove that gambling's a mug's game, or what?

 

The likes of JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs might disagree with you.

 

Derivatives: The Unregulated Global Casino for Banks

 

Any mistakes are made good by the taxpayer.

 

Bailout overseer Elizabeth Warren: banks recklessly gamble knowing US taxpayers will pay losses

[Obelix]

You guys are aware that the previous posters were like four years ago mm?

[boyfriday]

You guys are aware that the previous posters were like four years ago mm?

 

Weird reading posts from redrobbo and happyhippy on the same thread.

[Obelix]

Weird reading posts from redrobbo and happyhippy on the same thread.

 

Gone, but not forgotten hey. I wonder if a digital garden of remembrance would be too morbid...?

[boyfriday]

Gone, but not forgotten hey. I wonder if a digital garden of remembrance would be too morbid...?

 

I wouldn't take bets on it

[Super Hans]

What everyone is assuming is this customer didn't know the rules. Just because he said he was unaware that he couldn'd have this bet do we take his word for it just because we can moan about bookmakers and he can claim he was hard done by and try to win more than what was possible? The selections he made were close together so if it snowed one place then it would be snowing in the other. He placed this bet knowing this and couldn't have thought that such a bet could return over £7 million (i don't believe graphic designers could be this stupid). I believe this customer is trying a "quick one" and this makes him guilty of fraud in the eyes of the law. So lets not take it out on the cashier as its wasn't ladbrokes mistake but that of the cashiers, human error is in us all. Also we cannot assume someone is telling the truth just because we would like it to be so that we can have a moan.

 

Why did you do that?