Hollywood bets judgment Wigan to be relegated

do the Honourable thing & PAY bookmakers... it is the right thing to do.

For Piet's sake we are talking about National Bookmakers with a turnover of how many BILLION per annum & they fuss about paying out 5 G & 20 G..... utterly pathetic i.m.o. :evil: :evil: :evil:

i do like the Rugby example above..

ElvisisKing wrote:

do the Honourable thing & PAY bookmakers... it is the right thing to do.

For Piet's sake we are talking about National Bookmakers with a turnover of how many BILLION per annum & they fuss about paying out 5 G & 20 G..... utterly pathetic i.m.o. :evil: :evil: :evil:

i do like the Rugby example above..

I'm confused - who is Piet :silly:

Frodo..... Piet is the guy who took the 50 /1 & GOT PAID OUT

What was really interesting in the court was that Hollywood argued that 2.2.2 of their terms and conditions allowed them to change the odds at any time, even after the event. Their backup was that we "snatched at a bargain". Basil Thomas, who argued for them, was at pains to point this out. We argued that every bet was a punter snatching at a bargain!! That's what betting is or am i incorrect. We spent at least 7 hours in the small claims court and was a real eye opener. Just remember the precedent has been set.
So when you back a horse to win the July at big odds because it puts up a good gallop 3 weeks before the race and starts shorter they can change the odds laid. In my opinion this is what this was all about?

What price were your sponsors Interbet at the time James?

Did you ask your sponsors their T&C’s?

Note: both Derby and Reading in the Championship are earmarked for points deduction. I wonder where I can “snatch a bargain”.


Sent from my Ferrari using Tapatalk

James, were u refunded your STAKE at least ?

Wonder if they have terms and condicktions??

A calamity of errors have left bookmakers reeling after the opening event at The Meadows on Wednesday morning.

What should have been a nondescript maiden race to launch the program proved anything but after Loxton Bale won the four-dog contest by an ever widening 10 ¼ lengths.

Tab.com.au opened up the fashionably bred debutant at $101 on race morning before firming all the way into $1.70 at jump time.

The initial opening price was your worst case of “keystroke error” and was only exacerbated by the fact fellow bookmakers joined in on the action by offering up the exorbitant prices also.

And it wasn’t just $101 and $71 available to punters with $41, $26 and so on also freely available for the heavily supported first starter.

Early indications suggest at least a six-figure sum has left bookies’ coffers in a fillip for watchful, keen-eyed punters that snapped up the mistaken price.

“It’s not often you see a dog or horse who opens at $71 account for around 85% of the total hold on a race, but that was the case with Loxton Bale,” TAB’s Brad Bishop said.

“We didn’t hold any massive bets at the huge prices, but even those who got involved at $9.50, $7.50 and $6.50 would have been on pretty good terms with themselves when the dog started odds-on and saluted like an odds-on favourite should.”

Generally when punters secure luxurious overs – by either good fortune or mistake – it’s a hard ride but that wasn’t the case with Loxton Bale which made it an easy watch for punters.

Winning just like an odds-on favourite should.

Imo ..... a price was offered (whether this was Hollywood or Bollywood) and a punter (whether this was James Goodman or Good Jamesman) took the bet - case closed :huh:

Frodo wrote: Imo ..... a price was offered (whether this was Hollywood or Bollywood) and a punter (whether this was James Goodman or Good Jamesman) took the bet - case closed :huh:

Respectfully disagree. The “obvious error” protection for the bookie does have a place, if, for whatever reason, a 1/1 shot is priced up at 100000/1 accidentally, the bookie does deserve protection.

However, in this circumstance, I believe this was not an error, it was a bad price and I still think goodman is in the right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are there terms and conditions that favour the punter? eg if the bookie offer a wrong price and the punter loses there should be money back. Most if not all terms seems to tilt on bookie always getting a relief once they lose.

The ruling that Hollywood can change the price at any time even after the event is a disgrace and so be warned those with Hollywood accounts , it can happen to you .