Anyone else see this?

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 02:22 AM

http://www.bet365.com/news/en/betting/press-releases/race-2-ipswich-queensland

meckis · 08-30-12, 02:24 AM

do you guys even know how tote odds are working? Ones who is calling him degenerate gambler know nothing about betting and value. This guy is sharp as hell but bet365 should pay and it is terrible behaviour from them.

Ghenghis Kahn · 08-30-12, 02:28 AM

sharp as hell? and he bets on greyhounds?

Ace_of_Spades · 08-30-12, 02:30 AM

So many bad things happen with Bet365. Never have seen so many complaints about one book.

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Ghenghis Kahn

sharp as hell? and he bets on greyhounds?

Dont knock something just because you dont understand it

shari91 · 08-30-12, 02:30 AM

One of the first things I thought of when I heard this story: There is something strange with that $14k dividend that was declared. Not sure how many posters on here would be familiar with dog betting in Australia but to get a dividend that large for a small dog race is basically unheard of. As someone else said, it would be a shock if there was even that much money in the whole pool. Did anyone else think that was a crazy dividend for a race at Ipswich?

However that's not the punter's fault. The mistake lies with the tote for posting it and since bet365 accepted his bet on the highest dividend declared, it's their responsibility to pay out and then take it up with the tote.

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 02:34 AM

The payout sum is tiny for b365 and for sure there is more than meets the eye here (the guys betting patterns for one and may be a set up race), I'm sure everything will come out in the wash.

brettels · 08-30-12, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by shari91

One of the first things I thought of when I heard this story: There is something strange with that $14k dividend that was declared. Not sure how many posters on here would be familiar with dog betting in Australia but to get a dividend that large for a small dog race is basically unheard of. As someone else said, it would be a shock if there was even that much money in the whole pool. Did anyone else think that was a crazy dividend for a race at Ipswich?

However that's not the punter's fault. The mistake lies with the tote for posting it and since bet365 accepted his bet on the highest dividend declared, it's their responsibility to pay out and then take it up with the tote.

Since i don't bet on dogs or horses i don't know BUT even the player himself said in the video he thought it would have been in the 4k area instead of the 14k. You are right though saying this,

However that's not the punter's fault. The mistake lies with the tote for posting it and since bet365 accepted his bet on the highest dividend declared, it's their responsibility to pay out and then take it up with the tote.

I'm sure tatts/unitab have paid out already on those odds they gave out to there customers if there were any winners on that same bet.

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by shari91

One of the first things I thought of when I heard this story: There is something wrong with that $14k dividend that was declared. Not sure how many posters on here would be familiar with dog betting in Australia but to get a dividend that large for a small dog race is basically unheard of. As someone else said, it would be a shock if there was even that much money in the whole pool.

However that's not the punter's fault. The mistake lies with the tote for posting it and since bet365 accepted his bet on the highest dividend declared, it's their responsibility to pay out and then take it up with the tote.

Thats what happens when you offer best tote odds on a Monday afternoon greyhound race. Exotic odds can vary widely across lower profile markets such as these. Having gambled on racing in Australia for years that First 4 tote dividend is not at all surprising. Odds are that there was only one winning unit for it on the actual tote so the dividend was so high. The tote is computer generated so there was no mistake made by them, they just take ther cut and split up the pool among the winning units

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 02:41 AM

This is starting to sound like a Davenyenko Tennis match.

Optional · 08-30-12, 02:41 AM

Go to any Bet365 vid about Australia on youtube and you will get an ERROR when trying to post a comment, even if comments are open for the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwl7V8QTA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8sUOulpirg

tried about 5, all the same. But other vids commenting works fine.

ColdBeerHere · 08-30-12, 02:42 AM

What a bullsht book !

BUNCH OF THIEVES !!! DROP THEM TO AN F !!!

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 02:43 AM

Is it common for people to bet on the exact order for the first 4 home? In UK forecast punters take a shot, tri-cast are mugs, but to bet so much on the exact order of the first 4 home? Seems a strange bet to me.

thechaoz · 08-30-12, 02:44 AM

Unreal.... In the states if a company had a license this would never fly... No chance the guy wouldn't get his money

brettels · 08-30-12, 02:45 AM

his bet was $5

Optional · 08-30-12, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by brettels

his bet was $5

I think he had multiple selections for each position Brettels.

shari91 · 08-30-12, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Stockdale

Thats what happens when you offer best tote odds on a Monday afternoon greyhound race. Exotic odds can vary widely across lower profile markets such as these. Having gambled on racing in Australia for years that First 4 tote dividend is not at all surprising. Odds are that there was only one winning unit for it on the actual tote so the dividend was so high. The tote is computer generated so there was no mistake made by them, they just take ther cut and split up the pool among the winning units

I'm sure I haven't been betting on the dogs here as long as you but I honestly never remember seeing a dividend that high in a non-event race in Ipswich during the past however many years that I've been here. Maybe it's just coincidence that I never have. But as brettels said even the punter himself (and I assume he has a bit of a clue if he's betting that much on dishlickers) also thought the payout would be much smaller. Regardless though, the guy needs to be paid. And since Xenophon is involved, I'd say it's almost certain he will be. Can't have an anti-gambling pollie be proven right about how books are evil... especially not if you just got your licence here.

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by brettels

his bet was $5

No im pretty sure his bet was $4000-5000 he just had the first 4 five times

brettels · 08-30-12, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Optional

I think he had multiple selections for each position Brettels.

Not for the 1 race on which he won that bet on though, right?

Originally posted by Stockdale

No im pretty sure his bet was $4000-5000 he just had the first 4 five times

no, the odds were 14k something, he had a $5 bet on it, just the one.

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 02:55 AM

Whatever the truth is here, and lets be honest theres a lot of smoke and mirrors, and may well be something iffy, b365 should have stuck to one story i.e. the truth and not tried covering their tracks.

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 02:59 AM

His bet is far more beleivable if it was $5, on the other hand if it was $5,000 on the first 4 home, well, thats enough to raise suspiciousons on its own!

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by shari91

I'm sure I haven't been betting on the dogs here as long as you but I honestly never remember seeing a dividend that high in a non-event race in Ipswich during the past however many years that I've been here. Maybe it's just coincidence that I never have. But as brettels said even the punter himself (and I assume he has a bit of a clue if he's betting that much on dishlickers) also thought the payout would be much smaller. Regardless though, the guy needs to be paid. And since Xenophon is involved, I'd say it's almost certain he will be. Can't have an anti-gambling pollie be proven right about how books are evil... especially not if you just got your licence here.

Just having a look over a few of todays races for you to draw a line

Maitland Race 4 - $7,356
That was with the winner and 3rd dog being 6-1 and 7-1. That Ipswich race had the 2 rank outsiders finishing 1st and 2nd and the favourite not even in it. Its obviously not a common thing to happen but when it does a dividend of 10 grand+ is not surprising, its probably paid overs but nothing that would make you think its out of the ordinary

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by TennisProFrance

His bet is far more beleivable if it was $5, on the other hand if it was $5,000 on the first 4 home, well, thats enough to raise suspiciousons on its own!

There are 8 dogs in the race, he has probably thought the favourite is a cat and false favourite and has boxed up the other 7 runners in a first 4. There are plenty of people out there who bet in the thousands on racing :P

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by brettels

Not for the 1 race on which he won that bet on though, right?

no, the odds were 14k something, he had a $5 bet on it, just the one.

No i think your wrong mate. He had it 5 times but he didnt outlay $5.

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 03:05 AM

I beleive there were 6 in the race but could be wrong and it's not improtnat. Of course people bet 0000's on racing, but I have never heard of anyone betting $5000 on a single bet to predict the first 4 home. This is what I'm getting at, but then I don't think it could be the case as the payout would be much more. I think Brettels is right, it's probably $5 for this particular winning bet.

brettels · 08-30-12, 03:10 AM

If I'm wrong then it was five $1 bets! It's easy to figure out! They are the only two options, one $5 bet or five $1 bets!

Either way, they are both 5 times the dividend! And the only way!

Or he had it twice at $2.50 each!

Get it now?

shari91 · 08-30-12, 03:11 AM

"Because the roughest dog in the field won the race I thought it'd be a reasonable dividend. I was expecting the dividends to be maybe four thousand dollars of which I would've had it 5 times"

"Steve had placed his multiple bets totalling almost five thousand dollars..."

They also said that 365 cancelled not only his bets on this race but all of his bets that day so I'm thinking the 5k was the total he'd spent on bets across different races/tracks?

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by TennisProFrance

I beleive there were 6 in the race but could be wrong and it's not improtnat. Of course people bet 0000's on racing, but I have never heard of anyone betting $5000 on a single bet to predict the first 4 home. This is what I'm getting at, but then I don't think it could be the case as the payout would be much more. I think Brettels is right, it's probably $5 for this particular winning bet.

There were 8 in the race i just watched it.

He hasn't bet $5,000 on the exact order. He has boxed up im guessing 7 of the 8 runners five times which would cost $4,200. It is not a $5 bet

brettels · 08-30-12, 03:15 AM

Exactly, Shari! You heard it right what your thinking is correct.

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by shari91

"Because the roughest dog in the field won the race I thought it'd be a reasonable dividend. I was expecting the dividends to be maybe four thousand dollars of which I would've had it 5 times"

"Steve had placed his multiple bets totalling almost five thousand dollars..."

They also said that 365 cancelled not only his bets on this race but all of his bets that day so I'm thinking the 5k was the total he'd spent on bets across different races/tracks?

The way i understand it is most of that "almost $5,000" was placed on this race. He may have had some bets earlier but really they have no right at all to go back and cancel other bets for no reason other than he won on this bet

brettels · 08-30-12, 03:18 AM

Stocksale, I think you're over thinking it, I think!?!?

Stockdale · 08-30-12, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by brettels

Stocksale, I think you're over thinking it, I think!?!?

Mate i dont want to sound rude here but what you are saying is not correct. I think you will find they have refunded his bets on that race, not for the entire day.

They also clearly state he placed multiples totaling almost $5,000. Why would they bother to mention what bets he had placed on other races?

TennisProFrance · 08-30-12, 03:24 AM

I think we can say if Brettels is right it would be quite normal betting patterns, however if Stockdale is right, I would have thought this is a very strange betting pattern. But I'm not expert on this type of betting.

shari91 · 08-30-12, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Stockdale

The way i understand it is most of that "almost $5,000" was placed on this race. He may have had some bets earlier but really they have no right at all to go back and cancel other bets for no reason other than he won on this bet

Yeah they had absolutely no right to cancel his other bets. Or close his account for "not being economical". What a joke.

They need to resolve this quickly because they'll get raked over the coals. An Aussie gambler is too savvy for this nonsense -even offering that payout was a joke. Maybe a book can try to pull this stuff in a smaller country where English isn't the first language or gambling isn't as mainstream but they're going to get torn apart here. This is one of my favourite books because of all of the options it has and they've always treated me extremely well but this is very alarming.

Optional · 08-30-12, 03:29 AM

It does say they cancelled his "other" bets Stockdale. So I think the 5k was a total of all outstanding bets he had open.

Although I do agree he likely boxed the 6 dogs apart from 2 faves though. And taking it 5 times would likely set of alarms when the 72k payout came up.

@Brettels, not that we know either way. But unlikely a 5k/day bettor would have a $5 bet on 4 dogs in order.