renegade16
Dormant account
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2017
- Location
- London
About two weeks ago I placed a bet with Ladbrokes on a tennis match to say over 3.5 sets. The bet was accepted and placed as part of an accumulator.
A few points into the fourth set, one player retired and the bet was marked down as void. I have approached customer services who referred it to a manager and she came back on the phone to say her manager agrees it should be a winner because the bet had already won as it was already into the 4th set.
After referring this to the traders who escalated it higher, they came back and said no. But my argument is that any natural conclusion to the match would have had at least 4 sets. It is a mathematical certainty that the match would have unconditionally had at least 4 sets and therefore my bet should be a winner. Their tennis terms and conditions state that ""If a match does not reach a natural conclusion, any markets (besides Match Betting) that are not unconditionally determined will be void." This is my argument, the fact that the match was over 3.5 sets WAS unconditionally determined - because the fourth set was in play when the retirement was made it would have been impossible to for the bet to lose - it had already won!
Where do I stand with this? Would IBAS agree with me?
A few points into the fourth set, one player retired and the bet was marked down as void. I have approached customer services who referred it to a manager and she came back on the phone to say her manager agrees it should be a winner because the bet had already won as it was already into the 4th set.
After referring this to the traders who escalated it higher, they came back and said no. But my argument is that any natural conclusion to the match would have had at least 4 sets. It is a mathematical certainty that the match would have unconditionally had at least 4 sets and therefore my bet should be a winner. Their tennis terms and conditions state that ""If a match does not reach a natural conclusion, any markets (besides Match Betting) that are not unconditionally determined will be void." This is my argument, the fact that the match was over 3.5 sets WAS unconditionally determined - because the fourth set was in play when the retirement was made it would have been impossible to for the bet to lose - it had already won!
Where do I stand with this? Would IBAS agree with me?