Dispute over the grading of a Motorsports bet

[infotimbo]

One quick question here, what do you think, should I send in a complaint or just leave it as it is:

The situation is as follows: the weekend before last I had placed a matchbet on Nico Hülkenberg to beat Daniel Ricciardo in the Bahrain Formula 1 Grand Prix. On the same lap, close before the finish, both drivers retired the race due to a mechanical failure. As they completed 90% of the race distance though, both were classified in the official result, Hülkenberg in 17th, Ricciardo one place behind:

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2019/races/1001/bahrain/race-result.html

The bookie has an own rulebook for Formula 1 in which is says: "Race Match Betting: Bets will be settled on the official classification at the time of podium presentation" as well as “Highest Finishing Position: if both drivers fail to complete the race then the driver completing the most laps will be deemed the winner. If both drivers retire on the same lap then bets will be settled on the official classification at the time of podium presentation.”

So the rules looked clear to me, and I was confident to get my bet graded as a winner of course. In the end it was voided though. When I asked for a reason, they refered to the rule "If both riders fail to finish by going out on the same lap then bets will be void".

I hadn't noticed this rule when checking the F1 regulations, so I checked again, and it turned out that they have different rules for "Formula One Racing" and "Motoracing". The rule they refer to is listed unter "Motoracing".

I would still think F1 rules need to apply, also because of the the "riders" reference, which (in my opinion) indicates that those rules they refer to are not general rules, but meant to be used for motorbikes instead of cars.

In the terms it also says "All disposals [...] shall be subject to the General Terms and Conditions, unless the betting terms and conditions provide for separate regulations", and in this case, as pointed out above, seperate regulations for "Formula One Betting" exist.

What do you guys think. Are they correct to void the bet, or should it be a winner? They said their decision to void the bet is final, so my only chance to get it re-graded would be SBR intervening (if they can)

[Alfa1234]

Seems obvious if the rules for F1 say the official classification counts, I don't even know why you are asking it here. It's 100% clear and probably simply an oversight on their part.

Take a screenshot of the F1 rules and ask for a manager to review it. Open and shut case and it'll probably get settled accordingly.

[infotimbo]

thanks, I was just wondering if I may have missed something there, because I have explained it all to the bookie, quoting their own rules and stuff, and they still were 100% confident that voiding the bet is correct.

[Optional]

I have bet motorsports weekly for many years.

The rule about F1 drivers retiring on the same lap being a void for H2Hs is a common rule.

And it's also common that it is different for NASCAR in that respect. Classified order counts there no matter the lap. I'm not aware of books who have it the way around you are describing though.

You'll need to tell us the book so we can see these discrepancies, or send in a sportsbook complaint form with the details, to have an opinion.

[infotimbo]

The rule about F1 drivers retiring on the same lap being a void for H2Hs is a common rule.

yeah, it's not uncommon to void the bets then, definitely, that's why I checked the rules first, and in this case they say otherwise.
The book is Lopoca, and the rules can be found here:

https://www.lopoca.com/en/terms-of-use/

-> General Betting Terms and Conditions

[infotimbo]

these rules are no complete exception from the norm, by the way. I had placed the same bet with 5dimes and STS as well, and both have graded it as a winner.

[Optional]

these rules are no complete exception from the norm, by the way. I had placed the same bet with 5dimes and STS as well, and both have graded it as a winner.

LOL, what a mess.

I use 5Dimes and was thinking of them when I said the "normal" rule.

It appears they have mis-graded you as a winner instead of a void. (see screenshot of their rules at the bottom)



I agree Lopoca F1 rules should take precedent over the general motorsport rules they have there... and the "silly" 90% completed rule they added, instead of just being classified like other books, seems to work in your favour too.

I also suspect they may have made their grading more because Ricciardo and Hulkenburg were both not classified as official finishers, despite beating the 90% mark by a lap. Not just on that general motorsport rule.

If you send in a complaint form we can have a try for you.





5Dimes rules

[infotimbo]

I agree Lopoca F1 rules should take precedent over the general motorsport rules they have there... and the "silly" 90% completed rule they added, instead of just being classified like other books, seems to work in your favour too.

ah, that 90% thing up there is from the F1 regulations, not the bookie's. I just mentioned it because otherwise they would not show up with a ranking the official classification, and therefor a void would be the only possible way to grade it anyway.

(That's also the way I always understood it with the "void if retire on same lap" bookies btw: grade if they show up with a ranking, void if they don't)

[Optional]

ah, that 90% thing up there is from the F1 regulations, not the bookie's. I just mentioned it because otherwise they would not show up with a ranking the official classification, and therefor a void would be the only possible way to grade it anyway.

(That's also the way I always understood it with the "void if retire on same lap" bookies btw: grade if they show up with a ranking, void if they don't)

Oh, I thought I read it in their rules as well. Senility coming on

You do realize they were not classified as finishers? They got an official DNF.

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2019/races/1001/bahrain/race-result.html

[infotimbo]

Oh, I thought I read it in their rules as well. Senility coming on

You do realize they were not classified as finishers? They got an official DNF.

https://www.formula1.com/en/results....ce-result.html

yeah, sure. But it shouldn't matter, as both are classified, and it's the Official Classification that counts. If they had retired earlier on, they'd get a "NC" like Grosjean, and a void would be the only possible way to grade it anyway.

That's also the reason why this void-rule exists at all, I think, because usually there's just no way to figure out who should be the winner when two cars retire during the same lap (unless, like in this case, it happens during the final couple of laps. Which happens almost never, maybe once every 5 years)

edit: you're right btw that 5dimes should have voided the bet indeed - at least if "exiting" means "not finishing" the race. It would make more sense to distinguish between classified and not classified instead though, to avoid confusion.

[Optional]

yeah, sure. But it shouldn't matter, as both are classified, and it's the Official Classification that counts. If they had retired earlier on, they'd get a "NC" like Grosjean, and a void would be the only possible way to grade it anyway.

That's also the reason why this rules exists at all, I think, because usually there's just no way to figure out who should be the winner when two cars retire during the same lap (unless, like in this case, it happens during the final couple of laps. Which happens almost never, maybe once every 5 years)

oh you're right. I missed the NC left of Grosjean and as he had a DNF in right column figured thats how they showed not classified on the new F1 site.

Anyway, shoot in a complaint form and SBR can at least give it a go talking to them for you.

Hopefully someone in there knows enough about motorsport betting to understand the issue.

[infotimbo]

oh you're right. I missed the NC left of Grosjean and as he had a DNF in right column figured thats how they showed not classified on the new F1 site.

Anyway, shoot in a complaint form and SBR can at least give it a go talking to them for you.

yep, thanks, I just did

[semibluff]

When I watched the race in real time this was the 1st thing that went through my mind...mostly because I had the same bet and had tipped it on an F1 thread I posted in the Nascar section. This was an absolutely perfect shitstorm. Hulkenberg was ahead of Ricciardo when they crossed the line. Hulkenberg's engine blew up before the 1st corner and he retired at that 1st corner. Ricciardo was 10-15 seconds behind him and his car conked out at the same point but he coasted round the 1st corner and retired between the 1st and 2nd corner. Technically he travelled 50-100 yards further but he didn't cross the next official timing point. Since they were both last recorded crossing the finish line Hulkenberg is classified as finishing ahead as he crossed the timing line 1st.

The general principle in motorsport bets is the official result at the time of the podium ceremony stands unless there is a specific rule in place saying otherwise. However, this is only a principle and most books have differing rules and stipulations. Thus without a clear rule to the contrary @infotimbo's bet is a winner. If he had bet with 5Dimes his bet would be void as they have a clear rule to the contrary. The book @infotimbo made the wager with clearly states the bet stands with official result in the circumstances described. In my opinion his bet is a winner and he should be paid.

I had the same bet with William Hill and their stipulation is if both drivers retire then the bet is void.

William Hill rules (irrelevant to the discussion):
4 If either selected driver retires or their team is disqualified from the race, bets placed will stand and will be settled on the official race result.
5 If both drivers retire or their teams are disqualified from the race at the same time, bets placed on this market will be void.

My bet was void. I'm ok with that ruling as it is correct under the rules I made the bet under. If I had bet with the book @infotimbo made his bet with I would be unhappy with a void ruling.

Disaster of a race for me. meh. On to China.

[Optional]

If he had bet with 5Dimes his bet would be void as they have a clear rule to the contrary.

OP says 5D graded Hulk a winner for him.



My early fast lap bet for China is Verstappen 10/1 btw. Jump on the train, we hit Bottas in Aus and LeClerc in Bahrain both at 10/1 too ;-)

[infotimbo]

thanks for your input, semibluff.

It's always a bit of a mess indeed with the different rules. Fortunately a case like this with the confusion about the matchbet rarely happens anyway, but it took the bookies quite a while to get standarized over/under bets (some had them as "finishers", others as "classified" - which now is the standard everywhere afaik) for example. And for Safety Car bets for example, there are still books where the Virtual Safety Car does count for betting purposes, while it does not on others - or worst of all: there are no rules at all. .

[semibluff]

thanks for your input, semibluff.

It's always a bit of a mess indeed with the different rules. Fortunately a case like this with the confusion about the matchbet rarely happens anyway, but it took the bookies quite a while to get standarized over/under bets (some had them as "finishers", others as "classified" - which now is the standard everywhere afaik) for example. And for Safety Car bets for example, there are still books where the Virtual Safety Car does count for betting purposes, while it does not on others - or worst of all: there are no rules at all. .

I don't think 1 rule is absolutely right or another rule is absolutely wrong. I could have understood books paying out on Ricciardo if their rules were clear on getting further into the race, even if by only 50 yards. All I can ask for is clear rules and books to abide by those rules. Congrats on getting paid by 5Dimes. I think you're a bit lucky there. lol.

[semibluff]

OP says 5D graded Hulk a winner for him.



My early fast lap bet for China is Verstappen 10/1 btw. Jump on the train, we hit Bottas in Aus and LeClerc in Bahrain both at 10/1 too ;-)

lol. You know me. I'm not betting into a 140%+ book, (1000/1400), unless there's the mother of all errors on 1 of the prices. Even then i'd want at least a 2% margin of error on my side. I just don't see any fair market line where Verstappen has 9.0909% chance of having the fastest lap. China is much like Bahrain, only with questionable weather. Truth be told I wouldn't back Verstappen at +1300. The car wasn't quick enough in Bahrain and you'll probably need him to make a late pit stop on a 2-stop strategy to have a chance. I don't want to derail the thread but this is probably the easiest race i've priced up in years. I posted win and podium finish odds 9 days ago and when the podium finish odds came out 2 days ago the adjustments I had to make were tiny. I don't see any pre-practice value on the outright, podium finish, fastest lap, etc odds, but there's definitely some value on the 1000/1067 top 10 finish market. Taking -300 on Gasly isn't sexy but he should be somewhere between -400 and -500. Without a crash or mechanical problems I can't see 5 slower cars finishing ahead of him. Then again i'm running really cold right now.

Good luck with Verstappen though.

[infotimbo]

So far I haven't heard back about my complaint unfortunately. Are there any news, or didn't Lopoca reply at all?

[Optional]

So far I haven't heard back about my complaint unfortunately. Are there any news, or didn't Lopoca reply at all?

Check your PMs

[infotimbo]

I just got a call from them, they'll credit the money asap. Thanks.

[Optional]

I just got a call from them, they'll credit the money asap. Thanks.

Well that sure took a long time.

Glad to see they got it correct for you in the end at least

[semibluff]

Sounds like a good result, in which case hats off to lopoca.com for listening to the complaint an acting accordingly. I think some books would have dismissed this complaint out of hand.
Good luck with Monaco, (practice is on Thursday).

[infotimbo]

yeah, well, they came up with a long story, system error, wrongly displayed information and stuff (although the rules on the site are still unchanged, months later), but that they would credit the money as a gesture of goodwill - and in the same breath they massively limited my account (which was not mentioned on phone of course)...

So actually it was not handled in a way that I could jump for joy tbh, but it's okay.

[BigJay]

Glad you got paid. Maybe they were waiting to see if one of them was going to finish the race.