[tomcowley]

That's a crap excuse. If one of them is ahead by 20 goals, but gets hurt, or is otherwise left off the active roster for the last game, the bet can be voided? LOL. They're just making things up.

[Dribbelkoning]

The way I read it is that a bet can be voided if you place a bet and a player doesn't participate any more after that.
So I think they can't void if you place a bet and a player participates at least once after that.

[tomcowley]

They have the specific rules in the bet. The players must both play 5 games, which they did. They can't void for nonparticipation after that.

[Dribbelkoning]

· 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

Tom, I think it's a fair rule. Only when the player doesn't play anymore in the league after you have placed your bet, it can be voided.
It's to protect the bookmaker in case a player has a very bad injury or got transfered.
Suppose there is a head2head goalscorer bet and in the beginning of the season a player got heavily injured during a training (he will be out for the whole season). When you got the news faster than the bookie, you can bet on the other player to score more goals which will be a certain winner.
My complaint against Unibet was that they didn't have rules to justify their behaviour, and if there are no rules to void such cases, they shouldn't void it.

Unibet had a narrow escape in this one, since Huntelaar would be transfered on January 1st to Real Madrid and there was a good possibility that he would play another game for Ajax. (If he did, Unibet wasn't able to void the bet). But Ajax and Real Madrid agreed that Huntelaar won't play for Ajax anymore. (to prevent injuries)

I've send a mail to Unibet to ask to void my November bet on Huntelaar (see previous page), and if they will do so, the case will be closed for my part.
I also mailed SBR at assistance@..... to tell them that they don't have to contact Unibet because of my submitted complaint, since I know what happened. Haven't got anything back yet...

Maybe a Moderator can tell the people who work on the sportsbook complaints that they don't have to contact Unibet anymore?

[Dribbelkoning]

Update:

So I sended an e-mail to Unibet saying I discovered the rule why the bets could be voided and I asked if they could also void my bet on Huntelaar placed on 10th of November. (Huntelaar didn't play anymore after that because of an injury, so according to that rule it should be voided.)
5.8 A Bet is declared void:
· 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

Received an e-mail back. They said the 10th of November bet will not be voided because the rules next to the bet stated that 'the bet will be valid if they played at least 5 matches'. It says precisely:
Both players must play at least 5 matches in the league for bets to stand. So the bet will stand they say.

This is another example of Unibets crazy way of thinking.
This rule is only 1 condition for the bet to be valid. If this 1 condition is met, the bet will be valid and they will ignore all their other Terms & Conditions???
In the T&C there are a lot other rules that should be followed as well. (like rule 5.8)

If you follow the same logic, they should never have voided my bet on Makaay made on 1st of December (after the transfer rumours), because the players played at least 5 matches, so the bet will be valid!!!
But no, THAT bet will be voided!!

Everytime Unibet has explanations that are in their favour and explanations that contradict with each other.
Unibets explanations are just very wrong and not correct.

About 34 hours ago I sended them an e-mail, explaining thoroughly all the facts. I didn't get anything back yet... (most of the time you get an e-mail back within a few hours, or at least within 24 hours)
Maybe their tactic is not answering my e-mail, hoping I will forget about it.
First I will try to solve it with Unibet, and if that doesn't work out, I will ask the help of the SBR complaints department...

[Dark Horse]

You're too kind to them. If the one bet stands, so should the other, but you've already told them they were right to cancel the wager that counted; which was the point of dispute.

You beat them fair and square. And they're squealing like a pig. Not sure if SBR has updates of their rule changes, but you may want to keep an eye on those; they could change some wording to cover themselves.

[Dribbelkoning]

I think the best way to act in disputes is to give good explanations and stay correct.
If you are right and your explanations are good and clear, the bookmaker will understand it. (at least if they are honest
I'm betting 3,5 years at Unibet, and never had any problems, so I thought they were honest...

SBR has the Unibet rules here http://www.sportsbookreview.com/Bett...ing+Rules.aspx

[Dark Horse]

I think the best way to act in disputes is to give good explanations and stay correct.

I'm probably missing something, but you came here to ask SBR's help in resolving a dispute about a wager that you had won.

But now you don't want those winnings anymore, and, having already told the book that you, basically, agree with the cancellation of that bet, merely want the cancellation of an earlier bet... Which they refuse to void.

Quite a turn of events for 'staying correct and giving good explanations'. They're playing hardball with you, and you're just giving them what they want.

[Dribbelkoning]

First Unibet said they will stop the discussion about the bet, so I thought e-mailing Unibet wouldn't help and I wanted SBR's help.

Then I discovered that there was a rule that justified the voiding (although Unibet gave another (wrong) explanation for the voiding.)

So I thought it would be correct if they voided it (cause there is a rule for it), but then another bet should also be voided. I thought they would understand this.

For me it's hard to believe they are corrupt and scamming me all the time. I was thinking: it might be a misunderstanding or they aren't very smart and they read the rules in a wrong way.
I just don't expect this behaviour from them.
I thought: The people I e-mailed are just customer service agents, they are not the owners of Unibet, they don't have to give their own money to me, but only Unibets money, so why will they not be honest?

I might have a reason: Bonuses related to performance targets? The more money they earn for Unibet, the more bonuses they get?

[noyb]

I might have a reason: Bonuses related to performance targets? The more money they earn for Unibet, the more bonuses they get?

it's not that complicated probably, it's the way I noticed most CS are trained to always automatically side with the decision of the trader, unless absolutely impossible (altough in this case it does seem to look like this). You could try calling them instead of e-mailling them and if necessary ask to speak to someone higher up in the organization. most cs is much better brushing you off through e-mail then through phone.

sbr is also still an option, but if your case is not immediately picked up (as it doesn't seem to me, there haven't been any sbr-people posting in this topic as of yet), it can be a long wait and several e-mails reminding sbr before they'll help you .

anyway, don't give up. i thought voiding the 2nd bet was dodgy, not voiding the 1st is just unacceptable.

[Dribbelkoning]

Update:

Now I really need SBR’s help. I sended some e-mails again, contacted the English customer service, talked to the English live-chat…… but Unibet won’t change a thing about the situation. They said they stop the discussion.

So I’m gonna use the SBR complaint form.

Btw I’m new to this, so I'm wondering what the procedure will be from now on. Maybe a Moderator can explain?
I understand someone from SBR will contact Unibet.
Which department from Unibet? Hopefully not their normal customer service….
And can you maybe give an indication on the timeframe?


There’s a lot of text in this topic, so this is the summary: (it’s still pretty long, but I wanted to be complete)
(I will also send this summary as the complaint form)

Hello SBR! Hopefully you can help me with this case.
See also the forum thread http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/sportsbook...iding-bet.html

The bet:
Eredivisie 2008/2009 (Dutch Soccer) - Goalscorer Head to Head
Which player will score most goals in the league?
Both players must play at least 5 matches in the league for bets to stand. Goals scored by either player for another team in the same league count.
Makaay, R 1.85
Huntelaar, K J 1.85

On 1st of December 2008 I placed bets on Makaay after reading rumours in the press that Huntelaar might be transferred to Real Madrid. Nothing was official, it were only rumours. The Spanish press expected that Huntelaar would go, but at that moment it was absolutely not sure that Huntelaar would be transferred. There was a good possibility that the team of Huntelaar, Ajax, wouldn’t let Huntelaar go.
On 2nd of December (in the evening) there is a transfer deal: Huntelaar goes to Real Madrid.
On 3rd of December I noticed that Unibet set the odds of my Makaay bet to 1.00. So they voided the bet.

A strange (suspicious) thing is that Unibet didn’t send me a notification about the voiding, which they always did in the past when they voided a bet.

So I sended them an e-mail and said there was no reason to void this bet.
Unibet replied that it was voided because of rule 5.10: (not saying 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 replied that rule 5.10 didn’t apply: If a bookie doesn’t know about rumours in the press, they can’t say this is an ‘error’, and void the bet because of that. It’s the responsibility of the bookie to follow the news and if they don’t do that they can’t put it on an ‘error’.
Players always use information from the press to find good bets with value, that’s part of the betting game between player and bookmaker.

Before I got a response from Unibet, Unibet sended me an e-mail asking a “proof of address”. Maybe they hoped there was something wrong with that (for example if I changed address since my registration 3,5 years ago), so Unibet had a reason to void the bet (or close my account?). But all my information was correct.

After I sended my proof of address, Unibet replied back: (they didn’t talk anymore about rule 5.10) They said that the bet was influenced by information from the press. (that’s not forbidden hey, good players always use information from the press to decide where they want to place a bet on).
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. (Ehmmm, Yeah ok, but they still didn’t mention any rule that could justify the voiding (besides that, when I placed my bets it wasn’t sure that Huntelaar would go to Real Madrid)
Unibet said they will stop the discussion: the bet remains void.

Then I noticed a rule that maybe could justify the voiding.
5.8 A Bet is declared void:
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

But then another bet of mine should be voided as well!
A bet placed on 10th of November on Huntelaar to score more goals than Makaay.
Huntelaar didn’t play after I placed my bet (because of an injury, and now the transfer)
I e-mailed Unibet and asked if they could void my 10th of November bet according to this rule.
Unibet answered that because of the rule mentioned in the bet: “Both players must play at least 5 matches in the league for bets to stand”, which they did, the bet will remain valid.

I answered that in that case, they could never void my 1st of December bet.
So I asked if Unibet could settle the 1st of December bet as valid, because when they say my 10th of November bet is valid because of the rule that the players had played 5 matches, they should say the same about my 1st of December bet.
They replied that after some discussions Unibet still has the same opinion: The 1st of December bet will remain void because of the rumours in the press and they will stop the discussion.

In 3,5 years I’ve never had any problems with Unibet, but now I’m very disappointed in Unibet. In this case they are just very wrong by voiding this bet.
Their explanations are very weak. They void bets if you use publicly available information (rumours) from the press to find bets with good value. And they aren't able to give me rules that justify their actions.
That’s just unacceptable behaviour from Unibet.

How to solve this case?
My solution is the following:
The bets placed on 10th of November and 1st of December will be valid, because of the rule:
Both players must play at least 5 matches in the league for bets to stand.
Both players played at least 5 matches in the league, so the bets will stand.

[noyb]

did you call unibet? you have a much better chance solving these kinds of issues over the phone, then through e-mail where it's easy to just brush you away.

normally sbr contacts their management contact with a book, altough i doubt they have one at unibet, else someone would have come in to this topic by now. after you've send sbr a message with your complaint (which i think you have done already), follow up with them regularly, as they are not always so fast pursuing a case. good luck!

[Dribbelkoning]

noyb: No, I didn't call Unibet, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't suddenly change their opinion when I called them. (the people who answer e-mails, are also answering phone-calls). Besides that, they said they will stop the discussion with me.

In another thread, Moderator Justin7 said that SBR have a good line of communications with Unibet, so the contacting part should be no problem I think. http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/sportsbook...ml#post1292776

[Dribbelkoning]

OK guys, I just discovered Unibet have changed their rules for this bet:

The rule was:
Both players must play at least 5 matches in the league for bets to stand.

Unibet changed this rule into:
Bets void if either of the players do not play in at least 5 more matches of the same league during the 2008/2009 season.

So with this new rule, they can void it, but ofcourse the old rule counted for me, so they can't void my bet.

[island]

The question is: Is Unibet right by voiding this bet?

Not, unibet.com maks the fox like usually, there is not way to void this bet at all...it's so simple to put out the lines and later to say, sorry we make a mistake; i could understand in case of inversion lines, but in this case, you were more expert of them, and you've all my estime, compliments to you!!

nibet, is stealing you money!

Regards
Danny

[Dribbelkoning]

Thanks island

In fact you can say the rule change (see 2 posts above) for this type of bet is good news:
Unibet admits in fact that their 'old' rules were not sufficient and with the old rules they were not able to void bets like mine. So they changed their rules.

So I have good faith my bet will be settled correctly after SBR's help

[Dark Horse]

OK guys, I just discovered Unibet have changed their rules for this bet:

The rule was:
Both players must play at least 5 matches in the league for bets to stand.

Unibet changed this rule into:
Bets void if either of the players do not play in at least 5 more matches of the same league during the 2008/2009 season.

So with this new rule, they can void it, but ofcourse the old rule counted for me, so they can't void my bet.

But they voided it anyway. That should have been a red flag as to what kind of people you're dealing with.

In my opinion you would have had a stronger case if you had let SBR deal with this book from the start. Basically, 'anything you say can and will be used against you'.

[noyb]

In my opinion you would have had a stronger case if you had let SBR deal with this book from the start.

while you might be right in theory, sbr is very very slow taking on cases with euro-books they have not taken a special interest in (an observation, not criticism), if they respond at all. i can imagine the op not wanting to wait a number of weeks/months before anything at all happening.

[Dark Horse]

I have no way of knowing that. Getting my money would be more important than time.

If a book is reasonable, you can talk with them (but you better be able to show that you understand the business; unless you want to give them a straight up advantage). If a book is unreasonable, as in this case, let the pros (SBR) do the talking for you.

[Dribbelkoning]

Because of SBR's mediation, a pretty friendly Belgian Unibet manager phoned me today.

He said the 1st of December bet was voided because 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

He explained that the bet should not have been online at that moment and if the bet would be online, the odds should not have been 1.85, but, regarding the information in the press about the transfer, the odds should have been rather 1.10 or something.
He says it's an error from Unibet to offer this bet with 1,85 odds, so they void the bet.

I didn't agree, but Unibet didn't change their point of view.

Ofcourse the 1.85 odd was too high and it was good value to bet on it, but personally I would think a fair odd would have been around 1.40 - 1.50, because the tranfer was absolute not a certainty since there was a fair chance Ajax didn't want to sell Huntelaar: http://www.goal.com/en/news/1705/rea...huntelaar-deal

The Unibet manager admitted it was a matter of interpretation, but his opinion was that the odds were just so wrong that Unibet was right by voiding it.

Next I explained him about my 10th of November bet which should have been voided if they voided the 1st of December bet: He will look at it and I will hear about it in a few days.

Also he said that Unibet will offer me a 'goodwill' bonus, because of all these problems.

Depending on the outcome of the 10th of November bet and on the amount of the goodwill bonus, I will decide if I am satisfied with this solution.

[tomcowley]

Don't be a pussy. 5.10 is never a defense to a STALE number. They intentionally offered that bet at those odds. Make them pay it.

[Dribbelkoning]

Like I requested, Unibet will void my 10th of November bet on Huntelaar because of rule 5.8. They admitted they made a mistake by saying this bet would stand.
5.8 A Bet is declared void:
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.

The 1st of December bet on Makaay will remain void because of rule 5.10 (even if 5.10 didn't apply, they could also void it because of rule 5.8).
So there's no chance this bet will stand.

I'm glad SBR exists, cause as a lonely punter there's nothing you can do when you are right but the bookie won't admit it and say they will stop the discussion. So .

Only one question remains:
Is Unibet right by using rule 5.10 to void this bet? (see 2 posts above)

It doesn't matter anymore, because they could also use rule 5.8, but it's still interesting as situations like this can happen in the future. The Unibet manager gave me an example:
Imagine there is a bet: Will Nadal win Roland Garros? Yes 1.90 or No 1.90
Nadal gets a serious injury a week before Roland Garros and you quickly place a bet on NO. It turns out Nadal cannot play at RG. The Unibetmanager told me they can void the bet because of rule 5.10. (because there was an obvious error in the odds at the time of betting, it should have been 1.10 for example)

So is Unibet right by voiding such bets (Huntelaar and Nadal).
What's the opinion of others? SBR staff?

[tomcowley]

No. There is no defense to voiding a stale number (that's not being past-posted) if the number was reasonable at any time while it was available.

In future-event bets, books have rules that either the player/team must start the event, or that all selections are action regardless- these rules would trump all. Simply using information before the book uses information, in the event that all selections are action regardless, is not voidable.