MyStake voided a bet because "7 v 11 players is an unfair game" :D

[cashin81]

post 13 is correct in stating anything determined stands. But not when a team fields 7 men at the start.

for the last time. at least 3 big books state bets are void if a match starts with with a team less than 11 men.

[lonnie55]

at least 3 big books state bets are void if a match starts with with a team less than 11 men.

100 other books including b365 and Pinnacle don't. So?

You only have opinion; I have the backing of ladbrokes coral.

And Ladrokes Coral are the the chosen ones whose opinion is worth more than anyone else's or what are you trying to tell me?

It's just another opinion. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, Ladbrokes/Coral has an opinion, b365 has an opinion. There is no universal rule for such cases.

This whole discussion is pointless anyway because it doesn't even matter what you or I or whoever thinks about it. What matters is: MyStake does not have such a rule!

[cashin81]

if b365 and pinnacle paid this out at those odds which were for 11 v 11 then you are correct, different opinions.

but just because the rule isnt there doesnt mean they cant claim palp

[lonnie55]

but just because the rule isnt there doesnt mean they cant claim palp

Official IFAB rule accepted by 211 FIFA members:

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/ifab-laws-of-the-game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp

A football team needs SEVEN players. Just because teams make use of the rule that they are allowed to use a maximum of eleven players does not mean they can't use less than eleven players for a match to take place.

If you, as a sportsbook, don't accept bets on a match where a team does not make use of the maximum contingent of allowed players but fields less players, for whatever reason (strike, injuries, symbolic gesture, whatever), then you have to clearly state this in your rules.

some things should be assumed like 90 mins and 11v11

These are two different things. 2x45 minutes is a rule for professional adult soccer. There is no exception of that rule in competitive matches. But there is no min 11 v min 11 rule. The rule is min 7/max 11 v min 7/max11.

[cashin81]

so you are saying world cup final... I shouldnt assume both teams will have 11 players. I should assume, Maybe france fields 7 men.

You are also saying world cup final If i bet france at the odds for 11 men @ +140... and then france fields 7 men - then its tough luck.

personally that is much more unfair to me, than to someone like you who is pushing to be paid at odds 4 instead of 1/2.

which is why books have the palaple error rule. a rule that you are ignoring.

[lonnie55]

a rule that you are ignoring.

You've been completely ignoring this part throughout the thread:

Did you miss the part where I said that I did not even know the lineup of Aucas at the time I placed the bet? It was just a rumour that they could play with 8 players (7 was not even an option at that time), but there were also news from reliable sources that said that Aucas tried to fly in additional players last minute. So what would have happened then?

There were several outs and it was absolutely not sure how many players they would bring in.

https://www.umdoisesportes.com.br/athletico/sul-americana-adversario-do-athletico-registra-casos-de-covid-19/

someone like you who is pushing to be paid at odds 4 instead of 1/2.

1/2, sure. At the time I placed the bet, odds for home win already dropped from 1.60 to 1.05, so I was actually late to the party. It's not as simple to score a goal within the first 10 minutes as you might think, don't know about your experience with soccer games. For example, there was another match a day before in Colombia. Also 7 v 11 and the score was 0-0 after 56 minutes:

[juicername]

I bet Blazers -1.5 today with the assumption that Lillard would start. He didn't, but the odds at the time of my bet reflected that he would. I think I should get a refund since Spurs had an advantage since he didn't play.

[cashin81]

i said 2 things should be assumed. 90 min and 11 v 11.. not who starts

[cashin81]

You've been completely ignoring this part throughout the thread:

https://www.umdoisesportes.com.br/athletico/sul-americana-adversario-do-athletico-registra-casos-de-covid-19/

1/2, sure. At the time I placed the bet, odds for home win already dropped from 1.60 to 1.05, so I was actually late to the party. It's not as simple to score a goal within the first 10 minutes as you might think, don't know about your experience with soccer games. For example, there was another match a day before in Colombia. Also 7 v 11 and the score was 0-0 after 56 minutes:

my soccer experience is good.
Hence I got you to change your tune from "haha look at this stupid rule haha netflix documentary should be made" to "well we all have different opinions including major books"


my soccer experience of 11 v 7 is 0. I took a guess of 6 goal game 9 10 mins periods.. so 1/2. maybe thats horribly wrong it was late. but you had 25% chance for 11 v 11, so it at the very least should double.

I understood you werent sure if 11 or 7 man. But you would either get normal odds or very good odds. There was not an option for you to get very bad odds which is why you took the bet.

And its not just about YOU. Its about the window cleaner who put £10 on a game at normal odds , switches on the tv and his team are missing the whole midfield. What about him? He should have researched the columbian covid cases to ensure 7 or 11 man? And he should do this for EVERY game?

I refuse to believe I am the ONLY one who thinks its fair that I bet on West ham to win now @ +110, turn on the tv and they have 7 man and thats ok.

So... my opinion is backed by major books and you say 100+ books do ffierently. I doubt sky bwin and ladbrokes coral would chose to be in this minority but perhaps.

[lonnie55]

i said 2 things should be assumed. 90 min and 11 v 11.. not who starts

And its not just about YOU. Its about the window cleaner who put £10 on a game at normal odds , switches on the tv and his team are missing the whole midfield. What about him? He should have researched the columbian covid cases to ensure 7 or 11 man? And he should do this for EVERY game?

What about the window cleaner who lost his £10 bet because Rostov were playing with youth due to Covid?

You said "it's not about who starts". So this is okay for you? Or would you say, in this case the window cleaner should have done research before and it was his own fault?

What's the difference? Rostov's youth team is not better than 7 professional players.

[cashin81]

Id feel bad for the window cleaner but its still not as bad as 7 men. You cant tell the book , hey they didnt play who i wanted.. But you could tell a book, hey they started with 7 men. And again this is shared with major books.

But it is a good example.

[lonnie55]

If someone took CS 0-0 @18 on that match, odds should be retroactively corrected to 1/2 due to sudden torrential rainfalls, right?

We should feel bad for the window cleaner who made his weekly bet on overs, right?

[cashin81]

i didnt say rainfalls.

I made my opinion, spent my time on research and backed it up. You are still angry and wanting a netflix documentary.

[lonnie55]

I just see someone whose ego has been offended for some reason and who spent hours trying to find 2 or 3 bookmakers that share his minority opinion.

[cashin81]

literally googled it and it came up. Thats what the forum is for to inform each other.

You are the one who is spending time posting images and videos on every single post.

[lonnie55]

You were the one who kept posting 4,5 posts in a row and tried to convince everybody of his opinion.

You only have opinion; I have the backing of ladbrokes coral.

This is what triggered me. You claimed the sovereignty of interpretation by devaluing the opinion of others.

[cashin81]

And you are not trying to convince me of your opinion by posting videos of rainfalls?

I wont post anymore. I just thought you knowing major books settle this way could change your stance of a netflix documentary being needed.

[lonnie55]

And you are not trying to convince me of your opinion by posting videos of rainfalls?

If a book fails to regulate such cases, they must not punish the player for it.

MyStake did just that. They accepted the bet, graded it as "won" when the match was over and cancelled it half a day later.

If this approach corresponds to your understanding of "fair play", then I hope that you will never become a bookmaker yourself.

[cashin81]

I dont know. Thats happened to a lot of people. I guess it depends on the reason for the regrade. If for example you got wrong odds at willhill they used to write "dns" do not settle... sometimes they settled and then took it back citing the reason, usually wrong odds.

man lets just call a truce. No one convince anyone okay? best of luck today

[lonnie55]

Thats happened to a lot of people.

And that's a huge problem!

It's a fundamental and so far unresolved question: Are sportsbooks allowed to cancel bets post-match? Because unfortunately, as you said, this is common practice in the industry. The Supreme Court in Austria ruled in a landmark ruling in 2017 that sportsbooks' right of withdrawal is "one-sided" and "grossly disadvantageous". Players could "in the event of a loss of a bet, not claim back the stakes by canceling". The symmetry of the contract is interrupted by such a regulation. A betting provider may "only cancel the bet at the beginning", but not afterwards and certainly not if the winnings have already been credited. https://www.tt.com/artikel/11807308/einseitiger-wett-ruecktritt-von-onlineanbieter-laut-ogh-nicht-zulaessig

On stock exchanges, there are deadlines for review and cancellation, within which "fat finger errors" can be corrected: "In order to have legal certainty at the stock exchange, all exchanges have tight deadlines to request a review and cancellation, if possible. At the NYSE, BATS, CBOT, NASDAQ, OMX and American Stock Exchange requests for review must be received "within thirty (30) minutes of execution time".[5][6] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-fi...&_cancellation

We urgently need such deadlines for sports betting.

man lets just call a truce.

Fine

[Judge Crater]

Basically, in the USA, should you have Sportsbook or bookmaking experience (except Nevada) you are disqualified automatically because of your background.

It's like some of them just let people with no betting experience make up rules as they go along sometimes.

[Vyasports]

Great debate. Both lonnie and cashin made some good points. I do not know which one of you won. that's the scary part.