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

[lonnie55]

So I had a bet on a soccer match where one team was limited to 7 players due to Covid-19 cases.



The book first graded it as a winner, later voided it.

Their argument is hilarious:






I also think it's unfair that some clubs have more money than others and can therefore buy better players


Books have become so funny recently, Netflix should consider to make a sitcom about them...

[captrobey]

So makes you wonder if your bet would have lost would they have gave you your money back.

[bleedblue]

Is this a complaint about the void or the reasoning for the void?

What was your bet and what would you say fair odds should have been?

Hard to imagine losing playing 11 vs 7

[lonnie55]

What was your bet what would you say fair odds should have been?

I posted a screenshot of the bet in the opening post. It was "over 0.5 goals between 0:00 and 9:59". The first goal was scored in the 8th minute.

what would you say fair odds should have been?

I don't know, those situations are rare (although it coincidentally happened a day before in Colombia for the same reason).

It was not even known how many players Aucas would bring as they tried to fly in additional players last minute. So I had the risk it would be 11 v 11.

[caramba]

Thanks for the warning. Will never bet on ice hockey with this book. "That goal was scored on a 5 on 3 PP. That was unfair. So we had to void the bet".

[lonnie55]

"That goal was scored on a 5 on 3 PP. That was unfair. So we had to void the bet".

Exactly!

[70'sMan]

Was the match completed? Flashscore listed it as abandoned. For the record I had one book void this bet and one paid it. I am expecting the one who paid to reverse it at some point. They did the same thing on a match last month waiting 3 days to reverse a win to void. In this case the information was widely reported well in advance of the match. If the match was not abandoned it should be paid.

[lonnie55]

Was the match completed?

Doesn't matter. The industry standard is:

"Any match abandoned before the completion of 90 minutes play will be void except for those bets the outcome of which has already been determined at the time of abandonment. The market must be fully determined for bets to stand For example, first player to score or time of the first goal bets will stand provided a goal has been scored at the time of abandonment."

https://help.bet365.de/en/product-help/sports/rules/soccer

MyStake hasn't specified anything else in their terms. So they have to pay.

[Optional]

Books have become so funny recently, Netflix should consider to make a sitcom about them...

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

[ParlayTeaser]

LOL sorry that happened to you but the most hilarious reason I've read for voiding a bet!

[bleedblue]

My mistake Lonnie. I saw the much larger screen shot and did not notice you posted the bet.

Wish I could be sharp enough to find bets like this, lol. Of course then you have to hope you don’t get freerolled.

[wilsonrajp]

I had a bet on Boyaco Chico to win vs Aguillas. It was 3-0 in the 80th minute when a player got injured and Aguillas was down to 6 men so the game finishedearly in that 80th minute. The bookmaker voided, but I can't find anything about the rules of voiding bets in their terms.

https://www.sportwetten.de/en/information/terms-conditions

Do I have a case if I take it to IBAS? Any ideas on how to get paid?

[lonnie55]

At most books, any full time win and handicap bets will be void if a match has been abandoned before the completion of 90 minutes play. Some books like Pinnacle say that 85 minutes have to be played for handicap bets to remain valid.

In this case however, Sportwetten.de clearly states that bets stand if the official result has been determined right after the final whistle.

23.3. Wird ein Wettereignis abgebrochen und unmittelbar nach dem Abbruch offiziell gewertet, so bleibt die Wette aufrecht und Punkt 23.2.4. gilt sinngemäß. Ein durch „walk over“ (w.o.) oder Aufgabe beendetes Tennisspiel gilt als nicht ausgetragen, so dass der geleistete Einsatz zurückzuzahlen ist.

As far as I can tell, the official score of 3-0 was reported by the referee right after the match. There was no such thing as a green table decision or something like that.

If you ask me, the bet must stand.

Do I have a case if I take it to IBAS? Any ideas on how to get paid?

Sportwetten.de/NetX Betting Lts is not a registered operator of IBAS.

I would first try to clarify the issue with the book, then file a complaint with MGA, ADR like Pardee or Madre (find out where NetX is registered), ECC (European Customer Centre).

[PharaohUB]

Doesn't matter. The industry standard is:

"Any match abandoned before the completion of 90 minutes play will be void except for those bets the outcome of which has already been determined at the time of abandonment. The market must be fully determined for bets to stand For example, first player to score or time of the first goal bets will stand provided a goal has been scored at the time of abandonment."

https://help.bet365.de/en/product-help/sports/rules/soccer

MyStake hasn't specified anything else in their terms. So they have to pay.

Yeah you should be paid. Just saw your bet slip.

[cashin81]

You defiantly got good odds. But so did the people who got -200 or even -300 for 02.5.

some things should be assumed like 90 mins and 11v11 id feel i got robbed if i bet the under; so under backers should also be considered.

id say you should be paid at correct odds and its no where near @ 4

[lonnie55]

You defiantly got good odds. But so did the people who got -200 or even -300 for 02.5.

some things should be assumed like 90 mins and 11v11 id feel i got robbed if i bet the under; so under backers should also be considered.

id say you should be paid at correct odds and its no where near @ 4

Lol, this is bookie's logic like "you were able to catch odds which were not fair = had value, so we have to void the bet, respectively correct the odds to what we think are fair odds"

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.

[cashin81]

If they sent out 11 players then no problem as your odds reflect 11v11.
If they sent out less than 11 you had an unfair advantage as the odds rightly assume 11 players.
A book cannot check 100 games to make sure something as assumed as the soccer game would be 11 v 11; can they?

If the everton v spurs game today; spurs send out 8 players - you say all bets should stand...

[cashin81]

also think about the under bettors. should the book just say hahaha you didnt know they had 7 players hahaha?

or should they say, we agree that you assumed the game would not have a team with 7 players, we were at a significant advantage to take your under bet. (if the odds didnt reflect 11 v 7)

[lonnie55]

So which rule that says a soccer game has to be played by 11 v 11 players for bets to remain valid are you referring to?

[cashin81]

the unfair advantage rule

[lonnie55]

Nice troll

[cashin81]

You are the one who is trolling thinking bets should stand for 11 v 7.

[Optional]

the unfair advantage rule

If the league rules say they can play with 7 and it's called an official result by the governing body, then they should grade bets I think.

[cashin81]

not if the odds dont reflect it.

[cashin81]

* grade it but at correct odds i should say. Like i did at the start,

[Motorhead11]

Odds providers have traders to set the odds. Their responsibility is to set the fair odds and our job is to find the wrong odds.

According to your logic, bets on 10 games per day should be voided due to 5-6-10 covid cases in a team.

According to your logic, if Liverpool decide to sent U21 for a cup game, all bets should be voided.

If we were to bet on correct odds, we would try casino than betting, it has more fan at the end.

[cashin81]

no my logic was some things are to be assumed. 90 mins and 11 v 11are 2 of those.

A team sending out their best players for whatever reason is not to be assumed. And should stand

[cashin81]

And your logic if I bet spurs now @ +110 and they send out 7 players.

Then thats a fair loss for me. Completely normal.

[cashin81]

bwin and pokerstars state if a team starts with less than 11 for any reasons bet void.

dunno if they are good books... but there you go saying im a troll for given my backed up opinion.

Still hope u get paid, dont like books in general.

[cashin81]

coral same.

[Alfie White]

You are both correct in certain ways - but if the game was offered in-play (and it seems it was?), there is 0 reason to void it with this reasoning.

[DontTailMe]

also think about the under bettors. should the book just say hahaha you didnt know they had 7 players hahaha?

or should they say, we agree that you assumed the game would not have a team with 7 players, we were at a significant advantage to take your under bet. (if the odds didnt reflect 11 v 7)

Ummmmm...yes? But probably without the "hahaha". That's rude. It's the player's responsibility to know what they're betting on.


I agree with Lonnie. This could have gone in multiple different directions. The odds should reflect the information known at hat time. OP took a risk and ended up on the right side.

[cashin81]

well theres at least three big books that disagree with you.

you are all missing the point. Players are responsibile but not for something that is assumed or is extreme.

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

[cashin81]

skybet same but i think thats pokerstars.

There probably are a few books that would have paid, or not noticed.
But a shitbook even if theres one book that doesnt pay would cite them.

[DontTailMe]

well theres at least three big books that disagree with you.

you are all missing the point. Players are responsibile but not for something that is assumed or is extreme.

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

See Post #13. Your examples are irrelevant unless you do a full comparison of their rules in this situation.