Bet365 and horse racing rules

[azzadle]

Hi,

Posting this as a general query rather than a complaint regarding my father's experience with Bet365.

Recently, he placed a bet that was settled as a loser that we feel should not have been. The bet was a horse 'not to be placed' in a certain race.

In UK horse racing, a 'place' is classed as the following:

4 or less runners: 1st place only
5 to 7 runners: 1st or 2nd
8+ runners: 1st, 2nd and 3rd
16+ runners AND a handicap race: 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

The race in question had 8 runners. One horse was made a non-runner after the bet was placed, so 7 horses took the start. 'Each-way' bets therefore now only paid if your horse finished in the first 2, NOT the first 3 as it should have been originally.

My father's selection not to be placed came 3rd, outside of the top 2. Bet365 settled this bet as a loser saying that settlement reverts to the original number of entries, not the number of horses that started the race. However for each-way bets, they are settled on the number of horses that START the race which is how the number of places is decided.

I'd like CM's opinion on this. My father rightly argues that if a race was due to have 8 runners but 5 withdrew leaving 3 to race, the original number of runners would pay out a 'place' for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. If you bet on one of the remaining horses not to be placed when 8 horses were scheduled to run, when 3 are left under Bet365's rules, you would automatically lose as all 3 would, in their view, be 'placed'.

Thoughts?

See Related Threads:

• All Horse Racing in the UK Suspended From Tomorrow
• New Betfair Horse Racing Scandal?
• My Horse Racing Scandal in the UK
• Virtual Racing
• Great Night of Harness Racing in Canada

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

Hi Azzadle,

Welcome to the forum.

This does sound unusual to me. Perhaps the market was ‘not to be placed (3 places)’ or similar? I agree with you that under the usual racing rules the bet would be a winner, however bookmakers often specify the number of places in the market rules or name of the market.

Another (and maybe more likely) reason could be that the bookmaker was offering enhanced place terms on the race. When this happens the number of runners doesn’t determine the number of places.

What was the reason they gave? I am sure they wouldn’t have settled wrong on purpose.

Mark

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

Actually a quick google and I found their place only betting rules:

Bets on non-runners will be void, and when applicable a deduction will apply to all remaining runners based on the Place Only price of the withdrawn horse at the time of withdrawal, using the table below. In the event of non-runners the number of places paid will remain the same, unless the number of runners in the race is equal to or less than the number of places paid, in which case all bets will be void. This market is settled on the official place terms of the race. Normal dead-heat rules apply. Our Double Result offer will apply to this market, however our Best Odds Guaranteed offer and Lucky 15/31/63 bonuses do not apply to Place Only bets.

So ignore my previous reply, their rules state clearly how it would be settled.

Mark

 

[azzadle]

Thanks for the reply. My question is when a race is reduced from 8 to 7 runners why they are allowed to use that excuse but NOT pay out on a 3rd place for each-way bets? They're essentially having things both ways. Pay less places on each-way bets but on the 'not to be placed' market they have a bigger chance of winning with 3 horses winning for the house out of 7 instead of 8.

Again, I'd be intrigued as to what happens when there are 8 runners and the field is reduced to 4. In a 4 runner field your horse would have to come last for the 'not to be placed' bet to win as they class a place as the first 3 in that instance. I don't see that as fair personally.

 

[geordiecolin]

Did a "Rule 4" apply? If so then your father did not qualify for the pay out. Was the race under orders when the horse was withdrawn?
If the horse was withdrawn pre under orders then the market would have had time to be amended resulting in your father winning the bet as the new market would only have two placings

 

[azzadle]

Did a "Rule 4" apply? If so then your father did not qualify for the pay out. Was the race under orders when the horse was withdrawn?
If the horse was withdrawn pre under orders then the market would have had time to be amended resulting in your father winning the bet as the new market would only have two placings

He placed the bet early in the morning, about 9am. The non runner was declared a few hours later. IMO where a situation like this occurs, the customer should be made aware that their selection is now void due to the parameters of the market being changed.

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

He placed the bet early in the morning, about 9am. The non runner was declared a few hours later. IMO where a situation like this occurs, the customer should be made aware that their selection is now void due to the parameters of the market being changed.

The rules above are quite clear. It’s quite a niche market for someone to bet on and, in my personal experience, I would always check the rules before placing a bet such as this.

Their terms cover the settlement and the relevant adjudicators will favour in their side IMO I’m afraid.

Mark

 

[geordiecolin]

The rules above are quite clear. It’s quite a niche market for someone to bet on and, in my personal experience, I would always check the rules before placing a bet such as this.

Their terms cover the settlement and the relevant adjudicators will favour in their side IMO I’m afraid.

Mark

This is a man who knows what he is talking about. I am sure that if you wish then he will explain things further.

 

[colinsunderland]

He placed the bet early in the morning, about 9am. The non runner was declared a few hours later. IMO where a situation like this occurs, the customer should be made aware that their selection is now void due to the parameters of the market being changed.

Mark is correct, the terms and conditions are quite clear and the bet lost. If they changed the terms to what you suggest, the odds would be different (worse).
You might not think it fair, but its no different to anything else, you take the higher odds at the cost of a higher risk, no different to ante-post betting, I took 16-1 for a horse at Cheltenham the other day, on the day of the race it will be around 4-1 (I expect), but if it doesn't run, I don't get my money back.