Hollywood bets judgment Wigan to be relegated

Nasty Nate wrote:

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

Saint T wrote:

This dispute illustrates the unfairness of transacting terms that have no place in the betting industry or any other industry. It’s now apparent that a betting transaction with HollywoodBets is a conditional contract, subject to UNCONSCIENABLE GAMBLING CONTRACT TERMS.

The online platform of HWB is regulated by the Gauteng Gambling Board. Herewith excerpts from the presentation that the Chief Operating Officer of the GGB delivered in September 2018 in Copenhagen, Denmark titled “SPORTSBETTING IN AFRICA”:

 “Some of the standard gambling terms that we refused to uphold include:
 If the operator fails to verify the result of a match or market, the bet is deemed void and the player will be entitled to its take back
 Voiding a bet due to the negligence of the gambling operator e.g failure to close the betting market prior to the commencement of the contest
 Failure to adjust the odds in respect of betting in running to reflect or take into account the interim results of the contest. Clause provides that the odds will automatically be adjusted to reflect the market average.”
The question as to how HWB can lawfully change the odds applicable to the plaintiffs’ respective bets remain remains an area of concern and needs to be addressed by GGB to provide clarity to the punting public."

It is not clear from the judgement whether HWB explained how 100/1 was an error in the context of the pricing of its own book. Did HWB submit evidence to the court to support that they retrospectively adjusted the prices of all bets (every team that made up the English Championship Football League Relegation market) and how they refunded other punters that did not back Wigan?

IMO it matters not whether HWB priced Wigan at 100/1 or 10/1 or 7/10 (when other bookmakers priced Wigan at 5/10)! HWB is a bookmaker that makes its own book and lays bets based on the pricing of its own book. HWB can only claim an error in the pricing of Wigan if the rest of their book, at the time, was priced relative to Wigan being 5/10. Based on the judgement its does appear that HWB got lucky.

Nasty Nate wrote:

I don’t think this was an error, it was a poor price that did not take into account all available information. The fact that there was such a vast difference in the price is a red herring.

For arguments sake:

The Springboks are 7/2 to beat NZ this weekend.
During the week NZ Rugby announce that, due to Covid, 5 of their better players are unavailable.
I think that, given this information, a fair price on SA should be around 2/1.
After the announcement from NZ rugby, I see a bookmaker still offering 7/2 and I strike a bet at this price.
The price duly moves to 2/1 by kick off, primarily off the back of the NZ players unavailable and South Africa win the match.
Bookmaker refuses to honour the bet.

How is the above different?

An error is adding an extra zero and pricing a 10/1 at 100/1. Bookmakers job is to price based on all available info.

Open to hear other’s thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk