Bethard voided winning bet

[samus82]

Hi Everyone,

I am disputing a bet with www.bethard.com.Usually a good company, haven't experienced any problems with payouts etc, however, I placed a bet on a cricket match:https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...league-2019The bet was for the first team to score over 150.5 runs in their innings (20 over match).

Due to rain, the number of overs was reduced to 17. Now, their rules state that any match that has the number of overs reduced by 3 or more will be voided, UNLESS the market is already determined. This would be to stop people betting on the UNDER run market and then winning even if only one ball is bowled.Bethard voided the bet and I complained.

They made several responses. First, they quoted the other team's runs (133) as the score, which is incorrect. Then, they eventually said that the time the reduction was applied was relevant. This is not stated in the rules and makes no sense either as the innings aren't complete. By that logic, any bet placed on the UNDER runs market would have won at that point.

Here is the exact quote of the rules: Over Innings Runs In One Day matches Over/Under Innings Runs and Innings bets will be void if the intervention of rain or any other delay results in the number of overs being reduced by 5 or more from that scheduled when the bets were struck unless settlement of bets is already determined. Twenty20 matches bets will be void if the number of overs is reduced by 3 or more from that scheduled when the bets were struck unless settlement of bets is already determined. In matches of 10 overs or less, bets will be void if the entire innings is not completed, unless settlement of bets is already determined. Bets placed on a future innings will remain valid regardless of the runs scored in any current or previous innings.

For my bet, the overs were reduced by 3, however it states the market will remain active if it is already determined.

I've been as patient as possible with them, but they remain adamant that the bet should be voided. However their rules clearly state if the market is already determined, then the reduction in overs is not relevant.Please can you help me resolve this.

Thanks a lot for your time!

[VeggieDog]

Who would actually give money to a website called bethard?

[Optional]

Do they give you their logic as to why that team total was not already determined?

[lonnie55]

Who would actually give money to a website called bethard?

Smart people as it's one of the most reliable books on the planet

[milwaukee mike]

bet was clearly voided because they found out you weren't erect when it was made

you have to bet HARD not limp

[milwaukee mike]

in seriousness though, the rules don't say unless the market was determined, they say unless the settlement was already a done deal.

when the overs got reduced, did bellary already have 151? if not then the bet gets voided

[samus82]

Do they give you their logic as to why that team total was not already determined?

They're claiming that because the overs were reduced after 1.4 overs, that this is the the point the market was determined.

[samus82]

in seriousness though, the rules don't say unless the market was determined, they say unless the settlement was already a done deal.

when the overs got reduced, did bellary already have 151? if not then the bet gets voided

Well by that logic any bet on the under market would be settled as well.

[Optional]

They're claiming that because the overs were reduced after 1.4 overs, that this is the the point the market was determined.

Hmmm. That does seem to be in line with MilwaukeMike's reading of those rules.

I guess it does make some sense. As once the game length was changed the teams may bat/bowl differently.

Even if it does not seem intuitive that an over could lose in a shortened match on the surface.

[samus82]

Hmmm. That does seem to be in line with MilwaukeMike's reading of those rules.

I guess it does make some sense. As once the game length was changed the teams may bat/bowl differently.

Even if it does not seem intuitive that an over could lose in a shortened match on the surface.

Ok. I appreciate your input and time

[Optional]

Ok. I appreciate your input and time

Honestly, I do not feel certain about it.

[cashin81]

Id check some other books and see if they follow the same rule. If its just bethard, then they are probably confused by their own rule. (sound confused when they quoted the score wrong)

Sounds like you should be paid, but i dont touch cricket.

[tommir99]

Who would actually give money to a website called bethard?

Bethard offers some good promos sometimes, like a sports bonus 50% up to 200 euros a while ago. Withdrawals take 10-30 minutes usually. But they don't have neteller or skrill as payment methods.

[kevinkim]

if you never tried, what do you know about it, they pay well. not a bad site

[cricketer]

I'm not 100% sure but i think they have graded it correctly. The market is already determined means the score is over the total in your case 150.5 before it starts raining.

Say the rain started at 17 th over and your total is already over then it is declared as winner. If the overs are reduced before then it would be void as far as i know

[samus82]

Yeah it seems you could argue it either way, but it's as many have already said, they're arguing that the reduction happened before my bet result was confirmed, hence the void. Seems ridiculous as they smashed the total run target and the rule is really designed to prevent people abusing the under market when there is rain.

I've submitted a dispute to their ADR service so I'm hoping they will make a favourable case. Can only hope for the best.