Novibet tenis rules = unclear

**Hareeba!** · 10-08-14, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by virtozo

Novibet voided bets on tennis match Milos Raonic - Juan Monaco as per their tennis rules...but it is really confusing as they rules states:

1. Match abandonment
For a bet on a tennis match to be valid at least one point must be played. If one of the players withdraws or is disqualified before the match or before the end of the match the event is considered void and the odds is set to 1.00. If one of the players withdraws or is disqualified after some sets are completed, the bets regarding those sets stand. Bets stand until the match is played, even if postponed longer than 36 hours, unless the match is permanently cancelled.

Can someone explain what the highlighted sentence means then???? Very strange! They should put the full match must be completed...really annoying bookie, just avoid!!

Superfluous!
Obviously there has to be some play for a bet to be valid.
But a retirement voids match bets.

Looks like someone has attempted to translate this into English from some other language and done a pretty ordinary job of it.

**Optional** · 10-08-14, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by virtozo

Novibet voided bets on tennis match Milos Raonic - Juan Monaco as per their tennis rules...but it is really confusing as they rules states:

1. Match abandonment
For a bet on a tennis match to be valid at least one point must be played. If one of the players withdraws or is disqualified before the match or before the end of the match the event is considered void and the odds is set to 1.00. If one of the players withdraws or is disqualified after some sets are completed, the bets regarding those sets stand. Bets stand until the match is played, even if postponed longer than 36 hours, unless the match is permanently cancelled.

Can someone explain what the highlighted sentence means then???? Very strange! They should put the full match must be completed...really annoying bookie, just avoid!!

What sort of bet was voided? Handicap or Total or ML?

**virtozo** · 10-09-14, 12:42 AM

match winner bet, Raoric retired before first set...because of that sentence I thought the bet on Monaco will stand, but Novibet said that "The rule you mentioned is a general rule about the validity οf placing a bet" whatever that means, it's just confusing.

**Hareeba!** · 10-09-14, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by virtozo

match winner bet, Raoric retired before first set...because of that sentence I thought the bet on Monaco will stand, but Novibet said that "The rule you mentioned is a general rule about the validity οf placing a bet" whatever that means, it's just confusing.

Raonic actually retired before the completion of the first set.
Based on the entirety of the bookie's rule I'd say they made the correct call in voiding it.
But that first sentence is just superfluous and I can understand why it caused you confusion.

**shari91** · 10-09-14, 02:58 AM

I'm pretty sure that rule is there for walkovers so people don't argue they won their bet simply because their player advanced.

bet365 has something similar "Both players in a specified match-up must play 1 point in the tournament for bets to stand."

**Hareeba!** · 10-09-14, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by shari91

I'm pretty sure that rule is there for walkovers so people don't argue they won their bet simply because their player advanced.

bet365 has something similar "Both players in a specified match-up must play 1 point in the tournament for bets to stand."

Perhaps that's true but as I said, superfluous as it goes on to say "If one of the players withdraws or is disqualified before the match or before the end of the match the event is considered void" so that eventuality is adequately covered.

**virtozo** · 10-09-14, 03:16 AM

they played more than 1 point as this was not a walkover the score was 5 - 2 for Monaco. I placed the bet with Novibet as I thought bets will stand after reading in a hurry.

**shari91** · 10-09-14, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

Perhaps that's true but as I said, superfluous as it goes on to say "If one of the players withdraws or is disqualified before the match or before the end of the match the event is considered void" so that eventuality is adequately covered.

They're just further explaining it. For those who don't know here are the two scenarios that would apply to not having a point played and here's what happens in those cases. More detailed explanations are always preferred over vague ones so there's no room for confusion.

The wording in the first post makes perfect sense to me.

**Hareeba!** · 10-09-14, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by shari91

They're just further explaining it. For those who don't know here are the two scenarios that would apply to not having a point played and here's what happens in those cases. More detailed explanations are always preferred over vague ones so there's no room for confusion.

The wording in the first post makes perfect sense to me.

Well the OP and I would tend to disagree with you on that point as he has clearly admitted to having been confused by that first sentence.

The rule is quite adequately expressed without that sentence.

**virtozo** · 10-09-14, 03:35 AM

same thing happens in both scenarios.
bet 365 rules are crystal clear with no room for confusion:

Match Betting Including In-Play
In the event of a match starting but not being completed then all bets will be void unless after the start of the match a player is disqualified in which case the player/team progressing to the next round or being awarded the victory will be deemed the winner for settlement purposes.

**virtozo** · 10-09-14, 03:39 AM

The rule is quite adequately expressed without that sentence.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, that first sentence makes no sense at all, bets stand if one point played and void if match not completed. LOL

**shari91** · 10-09-14, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

Well the OP and I would tend to disagree with you on that point as he has clearly admitted to having been confused by that first sentence.

The rule is quite adequately expressed without that sentence.

The OP also clarified that he "placed the bet with Novibet as I thought bets will stand after reading in a hurry." It's not a book's fault if someone doesn't take the time to read the rules. If he had properly read them then he'd have known his bet wouldn't stand.

I've complained about many tennis rules before and even had 1 Vice change theirs because they were so vague. But in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with how these ones are written. It explains what happens in a walkover, it explains what happens in a retirement. Where's the confusion?

**virtozo** · 10-09-14, 03:43 AM

maybe not all players are as sharp as you are Shari.

**shari91** · 10-09-14, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by virtozo

maybe not all players are as sharp as you are Shari.

haha trust me, I'm definitely not sharp but I do know after many years of betting tennis to read the rules because they vary from book to book. When I want a bet to stand in case of a retirement I bet at certain books and when I'm worried my player will retire, I play at others. If I thought the rules weren't worded clearly I'd be the first one screaming that you should get your money back and tell you to file a complaint. But the next sentence clearly explained what would happen to your bet in the event of a retirement so that's not the case here. I'm sure the same thing has happened to most, if not all of us, at one point or another when betting tennis. It sucks but there's not much you can do.

**virtozo** · 10-09-14, 04:08 AM

yep, I wonder if this list is accurate http://tennisbios.com/view/tennis-bookmakers

At Bwin/Party/Gamebookers bets stand after 1 ball???

**Hareeba!** · 10-09-14, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by shari91

The OP also clarified that he "placed the bet with Novibet as I thought bets will stand after reading in a hurry." It's not a book's fault if someone doesn't take the time to read the rules. If he had properly read them then he'd have known his bet wouldn't stand.

I've complained about many tennis rules before and even had 1 Vice change theirs because they were so vague. But in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with how these ones are written. It explains what happens in a walkover, it explains what happens in a retirement. Where's the confusion?

On careful reading there really is no confusion.
But it would make for clearer comprehension without that first totally unnecessary sentence, as the OP has found.