Pinnacle - voiding winning props?

[Pinocchio]

Hello there.


I recently made a bet at Pinnacle (tennis props: will Fish win 3-0 - I said no, he will not).

And he didn't. His opponent won one set. But what happened, my bet was voided, due to Fish's opponent retiring later on in the match.

I think that's wrong and I was cheated out of my winnings. If it was two sets to love for Fish, and there was a retirement, sure, we don't know what would have happened, I'd accept a voided bet. But when Fish had already LOST A SET and thus had no theoretical chances of winning 3-0, Pinnacle should have paid.

Same if I take say Nadal at +2 against Federer and the first two sets go 6:0 6:7... now even if Federer was to win the final set without losing a game, I can't lose this bet, the moment the score reaches 6:6 in the second set the bet is effectively won.

So what kind of stupid practice is this to void bets on unfinished events that have no theoretical chances of losing... that's just wrong!

On the other hand, when I bet "who's gonna win the first set", the bets are always properly graded, whether there's a retirement or not. If you lose your bet, because the wrong person won the first set, you won't get your money back because the match didn't finish - since only the first set needed to be finished. Why is it different when it comes to: will player X win 3-0??

What has match duration to do with winning the first set? Nothing.
Why should match duration or a retirement have anything to do with whether a player will or will not win a set, if he has already won it? The bet should stand. If that player has not yet won it, however, and there's a theoretical chance that he either may or may not win it, then a push is obviously fine.

Do I have a case for a complaint here? Based on common sense and fairness, I think I do. But based on Pinnacle's rules, I don't.

But this is stupid and has to be changed... I won this bet!

[Justin7]

What do the rules say?

[Pinocchio]

For that particular prop I think the rules say it's a push if there is a retirement no matter what. But... rules can say if there's a retirement you lose your wager plus $100 from your balance, would anyone side with that, just because "it's the rules?"

I mean, this is stupid, the moment Fish lost one set this bet was won (was it not? The prop wasn't: Fish to win 3-0 and match has to finish). How can they get away with voiding this on a technicality?

[moron]

Rules couldn't more clearly say it's a push(no action). However, you want to ignore the rules. If you bet on over 7.5 runs in a baseball game and there are 8 runs in the first inning, and the game gets rained out, i guess you'd want to be paid as a winner, too(because you want the rules to not apply to your bets).

[mikeanite]

anything involves pinnacle will have many ppl defending, them even if their wrong.

[moron]

i'm just sick of people whining about getting screwed, when it has no merit. There are certainly times to go to the forums with a problem. A book grading a tennis prop correctly, isn't one of them.

In many sports, the game/match must go full time for action. This is pretty basic. The rules say the match must go full time(no retirement). End of story.

[runner5k]

I've gotta side with the book on this one since their rules clearly state retirement equals push. However they must have graded everyone who bet on fish to win 3-0 had better had their bets refunded as well

[mw00]

you have no grounds for argument here..if you're on the other side of the bet and it was printed on the rules, most reputable books will correct it even if they made a mistake of grading it in the beginning. you can't use the "what if" argument.

[Hareeba!]

I don't know of any book in the world (other than those cheats at GameBookers and PartyBets) which doesn't void sets betting when there's a retirement and it's been like that for the decade I've been betting on tennis at scores of books.

Always check the rules if you are new to betting on a sport or at a new book. You have only yourself to blame if you get a nasty surprise otherwise.

[Stumpage]

I had the same thing occur several years back with Pinnacle. Sucks, but rules are rules and they are clealy posted. I've also been the beneficiary of a similar scenario as well, so I like to think that if you do this long enough things tend to even out.....

[chachi]

Agree with Hareeba - a wager on 'set betting' has always void if a match is not played out to entirety everywhere I've ever bet it.

[Hareeba!]

I had the same thing occur several years back with Pinnacle. Sucks, but rules are rules and they are clealy posted. I've also been the beneficiary of a similar scenario as well, so I like to think that if you do this long enough things tend to even out.....

The rule is actually quite sensible and fair.
If it weren't in place books have a huge advantage in that they take the money from those who who have "already lost" but don't pay those who are on the player who has yet to win the required number of sets.
So no punters win but the bookie cashes in every time there is a retirement.
That's the cheating way Gamebookers and PartyBets play it. Don't ever bet on sets at those books. In fact I wouldn't bet with them on anything.

[chachi]

unless we're talking overs in baseball ... IMO if it's 8-0 in the 6th and therefore a result, o7.5 should be graded a winner if it rains.

I understand the arguments about the edge that would give to overs v unders but it just doesn't seem right on baseball overs

[shari91]

I don't know of any book in the world (other than those cheats at GameBookers and PartyBets) which doesn't void sets betting when there's a retirement and it's been like that for the decade I've been betting on tennis at scores of books. Always check the rules if you are new to betting on a sport or at a new book. You have only yourself to blame if you get a nasty surprise otherwise.

For those of you looking for a book that would've honoured this, Bet365 does this and has done it for me. Mind you I can't really put much money down on bets there any longer but in this case the OP would've been paid.

"In the event of retirement, disqualification or change of surface mid-match, bets will be void unless there is no conceivable way the set and/or match could be played to its natural conclusion without unconditionally determining the result of that market."

[jozomir]

For those of you looking for a book that would've honoured this, Bet365 does this and has done it for me. Mind you I can't really put much money down on bets there any longer but in this case the OP would've been paid.

"In the event of retirement, disqualification or change of surface mid-match, bets will be void unless there is no conceivable way the set and/or match could be played to its natural conclusion without unconditionally determining the result of that market."

William Hill,Bwin also.

[shari91]

William Hill,Bwin also.

Ah, that's good to know about Bwin. I've been burned many times on bets being voided when if the match had played out I would've won my bet regardless of which player won. Mind you I've been saved by that rule as well.

But that's one of the reasons I like bet365 - I know I'll be paid on my set props even if a player retires. I'll have to jump onto Bwin as well. Billy Hillbilly doesn't like me any more even though I only ever lost there.

[arabbeast13]

the rules need to be read

[Ruifgalmeida]

agree rules suck but rules are rules

[Pinocchio]

So essentially, I won the bet, but because it's common in the industry to void bets that result in a retirement when it comes to this type of props, I don't win anything, is that how it is?

How can anyone defend a rule that results in a push when there's no theoretical way for the book to win, I don't know... if it goes both ways... well, how about doing it right, pay the player if he wins and take the money if he loses provided the other side can theoretically no longer win.

And again when it comes to bets such as: who will win the first set - this rule is not applied I think. Why not?

[chachi]

on the main void one, so someone betting on a 2-1 line either way ladies match or 3-1 or 3-2 either way gents match, in event of a retirement in first set it's artificially awarded 2-0 or 3-0 via your modified settlement scoring purposes then and therefore they have no chance of winning and 100% of losing ... how's that fair?

on the hypothetical first set one, it would void on someone up 5-0 and 40-love set point first set if the other side retires, but otherwise as long as the first set is completed it should be settled, because that bet is dependent solely upon, as you say, the first set in isolation as a special market ...

[wrongturn]

nothing wrong if the rules are applied for both losers and winners. but since such rules are counter-intuitive, they left room for books to take advantage of "uneducated" players, or even worse don't think they apply the rules wrong - see partybet.

[Harmy G]

unless we're talking overs in baseball ... IMO if it's 8-0 in the 6th and therefore a result, o7.5 should be graded a winner if it rains.

I understand the arguments about the edge that would give to overs v unders but it just doesn't seem right on baseball overs

This would effectively allow punters to freeroll on over bets when they know the game has a good chance of not going the full nine.

[mr.ed]

You're right Harmy....you could make a living by betting "Overs" on games where bad weather is predicted.

[TRone]

Rules are rules.

[TRone]

You're right Harmy....you could make a living by betting "Overs" on games where bad weather is predicted.

I doubt you could ever make a living this way. I would say that there are very few games in a season that gets rained out and the over is reached. There are books that grade overs as winner or losers as soon as it goes over, regardless of if the game is completed.