Ladbrokes refuse to pay man who won £7.1 million

[redrobbo 10]

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!

[matsalleh 10]

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

[ChrisS6 10]

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.

[HeadingNorth 11]

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.

[snippers 10]

Hope he wins the fight, it`s worth it.

[quisquose 10]

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

[happyhippy 11]

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

[happyhippy 11]

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.

[LibertyBell 10]

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.

[upinwath 10]

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.

[quisquose 10]

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 10]

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.