Gambling in Sport

[Carmona]

Spoken by a man who judging by your some of your posts enjoys a drink from time to time, do you not think that is a bit hypocritical or would you also like to see the drinks industry wiped off the face of the earth?

Also, fu m8.


(What d'ya mean, from time to time? As in from 10pm one evening to 5 the next? In which case, yes)

 

[Shabby]

Unfortunately the bookies are with in their rights to wait the outcome of the IHRB investigation( which seems to be dragging)

Are they though?

I thought bookies pay double result, in that they pay out the winner on the day and also any altered winner as a result of a disqualification? Fairly certain that’s the case anyway. I’m sure they’d have paid out any smaller bets on the same horses that won as single bets. Other bookies also paid the same guy out. It’s small time by Ladbrokes who are chancing their arm in not honouring it but it’ll backfire on them even if he somehow doesn’t win the case, which I think he will.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Are they though?

I thought bookies pay double result, in that they pay out the winner on the day and also any altered winner as a result of a disqualification? Fairly certain that’s the case anyway. I’m sure they’d have paid out any smaller bets on the same horses that won as single bets. Other bookies also paid the same guy out. It’s small time by Ladbrokes who are chancing their arm in not honouring it but it’ll backfire on them even if he somehow doesn’t win the case, which I think he will.

Apologies Shabbs, I should have been clearlier, the results are being questioned by the IHRB (under unusual improvement) so Ladbrokes are using it for this bet because of the size of the payout which they are allowed do. It is selective as I have no doubt they payed out smaller ones but also allowed because of "gentleman agreement" betting rules.
It's a farce tbh and a joke that the IHRB are taking this long to decide but seeming the complaint came from oncourse bookies, not Ladbrokes.

 

[Shabby]

Apologies Shabbs, I should have been clearlier, the results are being questioned by the IHRB (under unusual improvement) so Ladbrokes are using it for this bet because of the size of the payout which they are allowed do. It is selective as I have no doubt they payed out smaller ones but also allowed because of "gentleman agreement" betting rules.
It's a farce tbh and a joke that the IHRB are taking this long to decide but seeming the complaint came from oncourse bookies, not Ladbrokes.

Thanks for that, I still think it’s a bit crazy there is an investigation into it by the IHRB. It’s not the first time a horse won a race a huge odds. The fact there was two in the same day from same stable is somewhat crazy but everyone knows racing is half rigged up anyway.

Horses are held up and laid out for certain races all the time. The fact they fully outran their odds is maybe more down to the bookies having them at such huge odds than overperformance.

 

[Cloudy O'Ranieri]

Apologies Shabbs, I should have been clearlier, the results are being questioned by the IHRB (under unusual improvement) so Ladbrokes are using it for this bet because of the size of the payout which they are allowed do. It is selective as I have no doubt they payed out smaller ones but also allowed because of "gentleman agreement" betting rules.
It's a farce tbh and a joke that the IHRB are taking this long to decide but seeming the complaint came from oncourse bookies, not Ladbrokes.

I wouldn't blame the IHRB here at all. It's a legal process, and always gets dragged out, especially if the people connected to the horse, and any of those who placed seemingly suspicious bets, don't want to cooperate.

As you say, I'd have little doubt that plenty of single bets on these two horses would have been paid out. Having said that, I also wouldn't just assume that yer man is a poor innocent young fella who placed an innocuous bet because he liked the horses. He may well have been privy to information, although that's no different to the likes of Barney Curley landing a touch.

 

[Cloudy O'Ranieri]

I'd say he'll get paid alright, eventually. Apparently, 100k is the max they'd pay out on one of these, so it's not even as if he'd get the full value of the bet.

 

[citytc]

Bookies only want to know losers.

 

[Hallbopping]

It’s amazing bookies don’t refund bets where a horse has been held up yet when it comes to a doubt about a winner they’ve no problem holding the winnings.

 

[jimmym]

Reminds me of the Toibin story of the jockey who was told to bring the horse home 3rd in a 5 horse race, He did as instructed,
Afterwards the trainer asked him if he tried would he have beaten the two in front? Absolutely no problem he replied,
Its the two behind me id be worried about,

 

[Shabby]

I'd say he'll get paid alright, eventually. Apparently, 100k is the max they'd pay out on one of these, so it's not even as if he'd get the full value of the bet.

He’s getting paid out anyway but only a max of 100k, a third of its worth.

I’m sure he had the bet on with other bookies so isn’t left short overall but I also hate the max payout rule. Should have only taken a third of his stake if they were only going to pay a third of his winnings.