 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
While many victims including including me are suggesting a blacklist Just got to know 1xbet rating has been upgraded on sbrforum!
My case is here for everyone to see and decide. What a disappointment. I guess no words or attempts to explain mean anything anymore here.
1xBet rule 9.15.6
Should a Twenty20 International be shortened by 1 to 5 overs, all bets on the match will stand and will be settled based on the result of the match. Should a match be shortened by 6 overs and more, bets will be refunded, except for those markets which have already been determined.
I would interpret that wording to mean 1-6 balls short of the final over be bowled as being 1 over short. IE 19 complete overs bowled and 0-5 balls of the last over bowled...for the team batting 2nd. Thus I would interpret 14 overs and 4 balls bowled to be 6 overs short. I could accept the 'overall result' under Duckworth-Lewis being applied. I could accept 'totals over' being settled as a winner if the 40 overs "betting total = Over" had already been exceeded in the 34.4 overs bowled. Under this rule I don't see how the "betting total = Under" could ever be deemed a winner. That clearly doesn't mean it should be settled as a loser. The rule as written indicates this is a void bet situation. It's a terrible rule if 1 side can win or be void and the other side can only lose or be void. Either all totals bets should be void or all totals bets should stand and be settled under the Duckworth-Lewis calculation. In these situations I invariably look to the rules of my former company in the UK. I was actually pretty shocked to see they settle totals bets under the Duckworth Lewis calculation. With that horrible bit of information I guess I can see what 1xBet are doing. They see the totals bet as being determined by Duckworth Lewis and they see individual player batting totals as undetermined and void.
Ouch! I started this post 100% in agreement with the op. Now i'm mostly still in that camp but i'm not 100% sure. I can only say if it was my bet i'd be bloody furious, but I would never have bet with 1xBet in the 1st place.
Not that anyone cares or it being relevant but purely for interest here is the rule at Corals:
41.2 LIMITED OVER MATCHES
All bets, including those affected by reduced over matches, will be settled in accordance with the official competition rules. If a match is disrupted by bad weather or other external factors, the bet will be settled using official competition rules. This includes matches affected by a mathematical calculation, such as the Duckworth-Lewis method (DL) or the Jayadevan system (VJD).
Thanks for the support and à very detailed reply, it's no use talking about the rules as they don't have any concern about them as you could make out in their replies what I have already quoted in this thread. You are right that I shouldn't have bet in the first place and that's why I suggested a blacklist here on sbrforum and instead they have done the opposite which is really disappointing.Originally Posted by semibluff
I've had a long hard think about this and slept on it overnight and i've come to a 180-degree position. Like the Monty Hall Problem the settlement solution is counter-intuitive. 1xBet's settlement is not only right, it's also by far the most logical conclusion. Let me post this example:
Team A plays Team B. For betting purposes the expected combined run total is 399½. Team A bats 1st and scores 200 runs in their 20 overs. Team B scores 100 in part of their 20 overs before the match is abandoned due to rain. The match is settled under the Duckworth Lewis calculation. If the calculation says Team B would have reached the 201 target then Team B is declared the winner. If the calculation is Team B would have scored under 200 then Team A is declared the winner. The Duckworth Lewis method doesn't just pick the winner. It declares a total score for the 2nd team batting.
The logical conclusion here is if Team A scores 200 and Team B scores 201 under the DLM then Team A loses, Team B wins, The Over wins, and the Under loses. If Team A scores 200 and Team B scores 197 under DLM then Team A wins, Team B loses, The Over loses, and the Under wins. Alternatively you can reject the DLM result, which is essentially a stat-calculated Judge's decision and say all the betting markets are void as there's no actually completed result. What you can't argue for is accepting the DLM result on the outcome of the game but NOT on the totals market. That makes no logical sense. Since everyone in this thread has accepted the DLM determination of the game winner I don't see how they can argue against the determination of the betting totals market.
1xBet's rule is badly worded, but it is clear. "Should a match be shortened by 6 overs and more, bets will be refunded, except for those markets which have already been determined.". In this case the totals market has been determined - unless there's a 1xBet rule that disqualifies calculated results such as DLM. If there is then the both the totals market and the game outcome market would all be void. An example of a market that wasn't determined in a 14.4 over 2nd innings would be the score of the team batting 2nd in the last 3 overs. DLM says how many runs would be scored but it doesn't say when the runs would be scored.
Yuck! As ever, 1xBet's customer service doesn't clarify the situation.
You're trying to assume what 1xbet rules intended to mean, or should mean.
As you pointed out their rules for shortened matches are very badly worded.
I'm a bit confused about your thought the rules are only talking about balls short in the last over.
To put it simply; 1xbet rules say if a match is shortened by between 1 and 5 overs (30 legal balls bowled in total) then bets stand.
If it is shortened by 6 overs or more then bets are void.
Whatever happens with Duckworth Lewis.
So there is no provision there for matches that end with less than 1 over remaining... and also for matches that end with more than 5 overs but less than 6 overs remaining (as this one did).
We had a lot of back n forth with 1xbet about the situation and in the end they pretty much said they don't care and won't be regrading it or adjusting their rules.
I'm not trying to assume anything.
By their rules if the match reaches the last 5 overs the result stands. If it doesn't reach the last 5 overs then concluded results stand and non-concluded bets are void. If it's a competition that uses Duckworth Lewis then either all possible results are settled by DLM or none are. Whether 14.4 overs is inside or outside the last 5 overs is a red herring.
Either DLM applies to all the results on a game or it applies to none of the results. I don't really care which, (although all the results makes more sense than none of the results). What people are calling for on this thread is for DLM to apply to the winner of the game but not to the run total betting. I don't think that's a clear, consistent, or logical position to hold.
"If it is shortened by 6 overs or more then bets are void.
Whatever happens with Duckworth Lewis."
Your interpretation is fine by me...as long as you also accept there's no winner of the game. However, everyone seems to accept New Zealand as the winner.
Agree. You do realize that the match did not reach the 5th last over? It was suspended 2 balls into the 6th last over.
And all you say about it making no sense in regards to Duckworth Lewis results is correct. The rules are terribly worded and from talking to them no-one who addressed this even understands the game of cricket.
BTW, thanks Semibluff.
This is what we hoped for to start with. Someone else who understood the game to chime in with an opinion.
Thank you. I would sent you 1 betpoint as a 'like' but i've already spent my 2 points for the day.
I agree the match didn't reach the last 5 overs. The part of the 1xBet rule applies is:
"Should a match be shortened by 6 overs and more, bets will be refunded, except for those markets which have already been determined."
1xBet's position is the markets in this match were determined by the Duckworth lewis calculations - which apply to the outcomes of abandoned/incomplete games in this 3-game tournament. (Thus any argument as to whether the game is inside the last 5 overs or not is moot). If it was a non-tournament game where DLM wasn't used i'd expect the whole match, and all betting, to be void. Their 'unclear' rule is trying to cater for both games that are settled by DLM and games that are not. My opinion is the outright and Over/Under markets of this game were determined by DLM. I could also accept neither market being determined if that was the ruling of an independent adjudicator. However, everyone seems to accept a DLM decision on the outright result. To me, either DLM applies to both or neither.
(I personally don't like the industry's position on this because it takes the opposite stance from the industry's position on postponed games being settled by a 'Pools Panel' result. Not relevant but a personal opinion from an old-timer). However, the betting industry accepts the result of DLM so...reluctantly I think 1xBet have got it right here. There would be more complaints if 1xBet voided bets on the outright winner of this game.
For what it's worth i'm not a cricket bettor, (apart from a certain trophy that England do not currently possess), but I do follow cricket and I do remember listening on the radio to the England - Pakistan World Cup game that necessitated a change in adjusted game calculations back in the 1980s. That was the virtual birth of the Duckworth Lewis calculation.
Reply With Quote