Is Unibet right by voiding this bet?

**moonbeam** · 12-05-08, 08:25 PM

Are you a German Dribbelkoning?

All I can say is Unibet has never void one single bet for me, and I´m with them for roundabout 5 years

**tomcowley** · 12-05-08, 08:29 PM

The bet should stand. I assume Huntelaar has already played the necessary 5 games in the league?

**bigboydan** · 12-05-08, 08:33 PM

First off, Welcome to the SBR forum

I would think it should have stood sir. However, their could be more to this that was not told above. So if you would like us to inquire to the book on your behalf, please feel free to fill out a complaint form.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-05-08, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by moonbeam

Are you a German Dribbelkoning?

All I can say is Unibet has never void one single bet for me, and I´m with them for roundabout 5 years

No, I'm from your neighbour country on the west side

I have pretty good experiences with Unibet as well, but in this case I think they made a mistake by voiding this bet.

Originally posted by tomcowley

The bet should stand. I assume Huntelaar has already played the necessary 5 games in the league?

Yes, he has played 10 matches already...

**Dark Horse** · 12-05-08, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by moonbeam

Are you a German Dribbelkoning?

His name suggests he's a pingelaar.

Give him a ball and he keeps it.

The bet should be good; especially if it was reviewed before being approved.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-05-08, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

First off, Welcome to the SBR forum

I would think it should have stood sir. However, their could be more to this that was not told above. So if you would like us to inquire to the book on your behalf, please feel free to fill out a complaint form.

Thanks

That could be a good option.

Just to name a few facts here:

I placed the bets between 20:11 hr and 20:32 hr on December 1st, and the tranfer was official on December 2nd around 20:00 hr. See the leading Spanish sport paper Marca with the message on December 2nd at 20:06 hr. (http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/f...o/1189082.html)

And the official Ajax website Ajax.nl has the message on December 2nd at 20:11 hr. (http://www.ajax.nl/web/show/id=154417/contentid=68207)
Earlier that day (09:09 hr), Ajax said they were negotiating with Real Madrid about a 'possible transfer' of Huntelaar, but that there was no agreement. (http://www.ajax.nl/web/show/id=154417/contentid=68198)

**tomcowley** · 12-05-08, 10:01 PM

The timing doesn't even matter. It's a bet either way.

**kiwi** · 12-06-08, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by moonbeam

Are you a German Dribbelkoning?

All I can say is Unibet has never void one single bet for me, and I´m with them for roundabout 5 years

I must say that I have done different experiences here: if they find a very small reason to void a bet they will void the bet (of course only after the event and only if the bet won). This especially happens if they have written a name of a player or a team with a wrong character and then later use it as excuse to void the bet even if it was absolutely clear which teams or players played the match.

Also they need too long to decide if they accept a bet or not. That means if I place a bet about 10 minutes before the start of a game often they decide if they accept it _after_ the event has already started (happened to me during the Olympic games rather often, for example concerning Badminton matches and there it does really matter if some minutes are already played until they decide if they accept or decline the bet because the matches are rather short).

Altogether Unibet is still a good book, but I liked them more some years ago.

**tomcowley** · 12-06-08, 09:41 AM

Wait, you guys place a bet, then wait some number of MINUTES, during which time they can decline the bet, but you can't change your mind on it, and then it becomes a bet? What a scam. No way that's B+ behavior.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-06-08, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by tomcowley

Wait, you guys place a bet, then wait some number of MINUTES, during which time they can decline the bet, but you can't change your mind on it, and then it becomes a bet? What a scam. No way that's B+ behavior.

When your stake is high, they sometimes don't accept the whole stake immediately, but part of it will be reviewed manually. Then they decide if they accept that part.

So for example when you want to bet 1000 euro on a match, 700 euro is accepted immediately and you can choose if you want to send the remaning 300 euro for manual review. They usually decide in some minutes if that remaining part is accepted.
When the decision is made before the match starts, I think there is nothing wrong with this.

**tomcowley** · 12-06-08, 10:33 AM

Unless you can cancel too while they're reviewing, it's horrible. If the line moves in your favor, no bet. If it moves in their favor, bet.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 12-06-08, 10:34 AM

Email them and ask under which rule they have voided the bet.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-06-08, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by HeeeHAWWWW

Email them and ask under which rule they have voided the bet.

The last couple of days I have had some e-mail conversations with Unibet.
A strange thing is, I had to contact them to ask why the bet was voided. In the past when Unibet voided a bet, they send me an explanation, but now they didn't send me anything.

So I e-mailed them and asked why the bet was voided, they replied that it was because of rule 5.10, (not explaining which part of rule 5.10)

5.10 Unibet reserves the right, at its own discretion, to declare a Bet void, totally or partly, if it is obvious that:
• Bets have been offered, placed and/or accepted due to an Error;
• Bets have been placed after the event has started;
• Syndicate Betting has occurred;
• Influence Betting has occurred; and/or
• A Result has been affected by criminal actions - directly or indirectly.

I wrote a long e-mail back explaining that the 5 points mentioned didn't justify the voiding of my bet.

Normally Unibet responds very fast, but now they didn't react the next 24 hours, but instead I got an e-mail from Unibet (from another Unibet emailaddress and signed by another Unibet worker) where they asked me for 'a proof of address', for example a telephone bill with my name and address on it. So I sended my telephone bill to them.

Not long after that, I received an e-mail back from Unibet.
They didn't react on my explanations, but they said that the bet was influenced by information in the press. (so what??)
They also said that because of the rule:
Goals scored by either player for another team in the same league count,
you can also say that 'goals scored by either player in another league DON'T count.' And if Huntelaar goes to Real Madrid, the bet ends. (???)
They said they will stop the discussion because they can't explain any more than they have done already and the bet will remain void...

I think Unibets arguments are very weak and not correct.

**Dark Horse** · 12-06-08, 02:06 PM

They should pay, and add something to their rules in case a goalscorer is traded to a foreign team. There is a soft spot in that type of bet (insider trading), but they can't hold the bettor accountable for it. The only exception could be if the person placing the bet was directly involved in the trade of the player. Beyond that, the information was publicly available. Some books might offer the player a choice between getting paid or continue to play at the book.

If that is their final decision, it does seem to violate their rules. B+ rating? That's a high entry mark. If it were my business I would want to get to A, but maybe they don't care about courting with C.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 12-06-08, 02:17 PM

I guess they're vaguely relying in the first of 5.10, since none of the others are remotely relevant:

"Bets have been offered, placed and/or accepted due to an Error;"

The error being that they were slow to remove the market, and thus shouldn't have accepted it. Quite ridiculous.

I'd write them back, explaining that because of the above you have to come to the following conclusions:

1) None of 5.10 applies
2) Therefore they a scam book
3) You will stop using them
4) And will post the story on numerous forums

Books need to realise that acting like a scam book will get them the reputation of a scam book.

**Dark Horse** · 12-06-08, 02:22 PM

Let SBR do the negotiating. If you play hardball like HH suggests, the book will most likely just slam the door in your face.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 12-06-08, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Let SBR do the negotiating. If you play hardball like HH suggests, the book will just slam the door in your face.

Well, yes - was meaning after SBR had tried.

A book that behaves like this isn't worth using (and besides, they have rubbish odds anyway).

**Dark Horse** · 12-06-08, 02:29 PM

They entered the rating at B+. That's well above the norm.

Eurobooks seem to dance to a different tune, though. Not counting Mansion, I would never play at any of them.

**Santo** · 12-06-08, 02:35 PM

Why not? I have and would play at almost all of them, in preference to most offshores.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-06-08, 02:37 PM

Well, I want to stress that I never had any problems with Unibet before. I bet there already since 2005 and think it's a very good bookmaker with a very good betting offer.

But when 1 person at Unibet made a wrong decision, you can't say the whole bookmaker is a scam.

**Dark Horse** · 12-06-08, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Santo

Why not? I have and would play at almost all of them, in preference to most offshores.

Sure. 'Most offshores'. But not the ones that count.

If we're staying onshore, I would take the Aussies anytime over the Euros. No worries mate versus bet 3.65.

(

Bet 3.65 is no longer advertising here. Was that the A book that stopped advertising because SBR players were too sharp? )

**Santo** · 12-06-08, 03:50 PM

Aussie books limit too, possibly slightly slower than some Europeans.. but I last longer than most it seems at the UK books, probably because I'm British, UK address etc.

**noyb** · 12-07-08, 02:33 PM

dribbelaar, you obviously have a case, and if unibet wants to void they should be able to show you why they voided it and not write you back e-mails containing rules that do not apply.

if this case concerns a significant amount, file a complaint with sbr (if you haven't already?) and let them contact unibet for you. you might get your money, or you might not get your money but a better explaination why your bet was voided. and if they do neither, you'll probably have the satisfaction of seeing unibet downgraded here, as i'm sure sbr will agree this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, especially if the bet was manually accepted.

about the other posters comments on the refferal of bets process unibet uses: it's annoying but everybody who places a bet knows this beforehand. if someone doesn't want his bet to be under referral for 10-20 minutes while he cannot cancel it if the market moves against him, just stick to the regular limits you are assigned and you won't have any trouble. it's not a great procedure, but i still prefer this over low limits without any possibility of betting more.

**tomcowley** · 12-07-08, 02:52 PM

There's no need for it to be under review for any length of time. Call up the supervisor, ask if he wants an over-limit bet, and take it or not. It's pretty pathetic for a book to freeroll a customer while they see what they can profitably lay off, and then only accept that much. That's why the customer can't cancel, because then unibet would be "laying off" a bet they didn't take. It's stone-age bookmaking.

**noyb** · 12-07-08, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

There's no need for it to be under review for any length of time. Call up the supervisor, ask if he wants an over-limit bet, and take it or not. It's pretty pathetic for a book to freeroll a customer while they see what they can profitably lay off, and then only accept that much. That's why the customer can't cancel, because then unibet would be "laying off" a bet they didn't take. It's stone-age bookmaking.

you're 100% right. still, as i said, it's totally your choice whether you take the regular limits or want to try to go over. a majority of books will accept nothing more then the limits they have determined for the player, unibet has an extra option. if you don't want it, don't use it, i don't see how their rating should be lower because of an extra feature.

**tomcowley** · 12-07-08, 04:33 PM

Because it's a hidden scam that a lot of players will fall for and not industry-standard for over-limit bets?

Some euro trash book had long delays to accept bets during live betting- and your argument, "you know what you're getting into when you bet, so if you don't like it, don't bet", doesn't excuse that conduct either.

**noyb** · 12-07-08, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

Because it's a hidden scam that a lot of players will fall for

as one of the players who have "fallen" for this "scam" (as i have no problems trying to get a bet over the limit with them, if the conditions are right), i still prefer the unibet way of accepting bets to, for example, the bwin way of accepting bets.
in rare cases, unibet will allow me to get down considerable larger amounts then with some of their competitors (and not the kind of bets that they can lay off at the nearest exchange), from the view of the player imo that's a good thing at the end of the day, altough things could always be even better ofcourse.

obviously we're looking at this from a different angle, and i doubt we're gonna agree, but i do think the word "scam" is too harsh.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-07-08, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by noyb

dribbelaar, you obviously have a case, and if unibet wants to void they should be able to show you why they voided it and not write you back e-mails containing rules that do not apply.

I'm quite sure there is no rule that can justify the voiding.

Imagine the situation: You read in the press that a lot of important players from a team have injuries and these players can't play the next match, so you think it's great value to bet on the opponent.
Unibet voids the bet because your bet was 'influenced by information in the press' or 'accepted due to an error'. You can compare this situation with my bet. Quite ridiculous to void such bets.

I guess a good explanation why my bet was voided could be something like this:
Someone (or some persons from the same department) at Unibet are responsible for accepting my bet. It was not a very smart move to accept this bet, since the press expected a transfer of Huntelaar.
Now the person who accepted my bet wants to avoid that his 'boss' will get 'angry'. Or he wants to avoid that his return on investment (or some performance target) decreases. So this person voids the bet. The customer service agent who responds to e-mails, also wants this bet to be voided, because she and the person who accepted the bet are good friends. So she gives some (useless) arguments and says she stops the discussion and she hopes that people will accept the void...
It could be someting like this, although I've never had bad experiences with Unibet before....

I'm gonna fill in that sportsbook complaint form soon. (great service!)
A little bit of a complication: The e-mail correspondence I've had with Unibet about this case is in Dutch, and SBR asks to forward all relevant e-mail correspondence with the sportsbook to them, so I guess I translate Unibets answers...

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-08-08, 05:03 PM

OK, I've submitted the complaint.

**bigboydan** · 12-08-08, 05:07 PM

You can always checkout the SBR rules monitor if need be sir.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-08-08, 05:25 PM

Hmm. quite confusing,
there is a difference between the Dutch (&German) rules and the English rules.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-10-08, 10:08 AM

I've discovered some more about this case.
As you might know, Unibet offers their website in lots of languages.
They also have a Dutch version, where everything is in Dutch, like all the bets, the rules and the customer service.

A guy at Bettingadvice pointed me at the rules in English.

5.8 A Bet is declared void:
· On an abandoned match or event, where a Result has not been declared within 36 hours; or within 12 hours for Baseball;
· On a cancelled or a postponed match or event, which within 36 hours after the scheduled start time has not been started; or within 12 hours for Baseball matches;
· On a Handicap match or event where the outcome is a tie, including the handicap;
· On a Head-to-Head and/or Triple-Head where at least one participant is non-starters; and/or
· On a Head-to-Head or a Triple-Head where all participants are disqualified or fail to complete; and/or
· On a Head-to-Head and/or Triple Head where at least one participant does not participate in later stage of an event after a bet has been offered

According to this rule, if Huntelaar doesn't play anymore in the Dutch league (which is by now quite sure, although it wasn't sure just after the tranfer agreement since the tranfer date was January 1st), I guess Unibet can maybe void the bet.

But, when you look at rule 5.8 in the rules in Dutch :

5.8 Een weddenschap wordt ongeldig verklaard:
. Op een afgelaste wedstrijd of evenement, waarvan een uitslag niet binnen 36 uur bekend gemaakt wordt; of binnen 12 uur bij Honkbal;
. Op een geannuleerde of uitgestelde wedstrijd of evenement, die niet binnen 36 uur na de geplande aanvangstijd gestart is;of binnen 12 uur voor Honkbal wedstrijden;
. Op een Handicap wedstrijd of evenement waar de uitslag een gelijkspel is, inclusief de handicap;
. Op een Één-tegen-Één en/of Drie-tegen Drie waar ten minste één deelnemer een niet-starter is; en/of
. Op een Één-tegen-Één of een Drie-tegen-Drie waar alle deelnemers gediskwalificeerd zijn of het einde niet halen

As you can see (or count), in the rules in Dutch there is no rule as the last rule of 5.8 (the bold one in English). (Also for example the rules in German don't mention the bold rule)
So according to the rules in Dutch (and German), there would be no reason to void the bet.

The Dutch customer service I contacted, uses the rules in Dutch, and with those rules there is no way they could void the bet. They didn't know about the bold rule, but still they voided the bet. Dutch customer service said they talked about this case with the responsible department (very likely also Dutch) which voided the bet.
So they were wrong by voiding this bet (according to the Dutch rules they use).

If the bet gets voided using the last rule in English rule 5.8, that would be for one part good news, cause I also placed a bet in November that Huntelaar would score more goals than Makaay. At that time Huntelaar had an injury (which he still has at this moment) and he hasn't played anymore since I placed my bet. So according to the rule in English in 5.8, that could be voided.
However, this bet is still in my betting history with the original odds and not with odds 1.00.

I'm wondering what Unibet responded to SBR..

**noyb** · 12-10-08, 10:15 AM

did you get a confirmation from sbr already?

sbr sometimes takes some time before they handle a complaint, especially if it's with a company (non-us) they don't have a direct management contact with, so probably it might take some time before you get a response from them.

**Dribbelkoning** · 12-10-08, 10:23 AM

No, didn't get a confirmation from SBR...

But I think I know what happened, so for me it's not necessary anymore that SBR contacts Unibet.
In the rules is also a rule that English rules count, so I can e-mail Unibet and ask them if they can also void my other bet, and if that happens everything is OK according to official (English) rules.

(But their behaviour was not correct)