Roguish Mobilbet ROGUE terms

sandtag

Webmeister
webmeister
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Location
Sweden
Hi! I saw a great valuebet this morning on a womens ITF game and placed a bet on S. Yang for 8.5 over at Mobilbet, a decision i regret deeply. The matchup were xhttp://www.sofascore.com/sv/guo-yang/pTEsUChb and after Yang broke early in the game and won the first set, S Guo lost all momentum and retired at second set.

Now here for the kicker with S. Yang in the lead and being the player handed the win this should be a winning bet. Not at Mobilbet they simply closed my bet and told me this was in line with their rules for "Fair play". Needless to say i closed my account with them immediately. Just a heads up, i haven't had this issue before as Mobilbet isn't my main sportsbook. I have had bets cancelled before though but for legitimate reasons and not the bookmaker trying to save themselves from a valuebet, I.E at bet365 this same scenario would've been a winner. In conclusion if you want fair play: Stay the heck away from mobilbet. I'll post this alert with screenshots up on my blog aswell, just ask me for the link if you're interested.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sandtag

Webmeister
webmeister
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Location
Sweden
If it was a obvious typo, then it would be fair that they did it, but if else I think you should consider a PAB.

Oh the bet wasn't cancelled due to the odds, it was the same at 365 I just happened to have a roll there. They cancelled due to the fact that the loser of 1st set retired and as such they deemed the victory "unfair" and "not in line with fair play".
 

lord flashheart

Experienced Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Location
UK
Unfortunately, tennis rules differ between bookmakers when a player retires.

Some will pay out if 1 game is completed, others may pay out if 1 set is completed etc...

Mobilbet's terms state "If the full statutory number of sets hasn’t been completed, all bets will be deemed as void."

it's the one sport where you need to check the sports rules before betting as it can lead to disappointment or, if you're dutching / arbing / matched betting can be very costly to you.

while bookies have differing terms appears to be unfair, I would imagine (within reason) that they're entitled to set their own rules. Not sure if a PAB would get very far although worth a try.

perhaps one of the admins on here could push a universal set of rules to the gambling commission so all bookies under the license have the same rules for tennis
 

redsfan

Experienced Member
webby
Joined
Aug 16, 2013
Location
bishop auckland
Agree 100%

Unfortunately, tennis rules differ between bookmakers when a player retires.

Some will pay out if 1 game is completed, others may pay out if 1 set is completed etc...

Mobilbet's terms state "If the full statutory number of sets hasn’t been completed, all bets will be deemed as void."

it's the one sport where you need to check the sports rules before betting as it can lead to disappointment or, if you're dutching / arbing / matched betting can be very costly to you.

while bookies have differing terms appears to be unfair, I would imagine (within reason) that they're entitled to set their own rules. Not sure if a PAB would get very far although worth a try.

perhaps one of the admins on here could push a universal set of rules to the gambling commission so all bookies under the license have the same rules for tennis

100% and this is in no means Rougish and should be edited as such.

It could, and does, go the other way where the playing leading in the match has to retire. The stakes are returned on them also. I actually prefer this as a rule than someone who is leading at the time. Thats personal preference but the rules are there to be read.
 

sandtag

Webmeister
webmeister
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Location
Sweden
Yes Im aware that the rules differ in these type of situations. However tennis is a precision sport and momentum plays a huge factor, just look at Stan with momentum he can easily beat fed,djok,Andy etc.

Why shouldn't IT be considered rogue? Guo lost the set and gave up, Yang was an OFFICIAL WINNER and advanced. How could anyone in their right mind consider that fair?

I dont care really about the win or PAB, this is more meant as a discussion on mobilbets shitty rules and view on "fair play".
 

lord flashheart

Experienced Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Location
UK
Yes Im aware that the rules differ in these type of situations. However tennis is a precision sport and momentum plays a huge factor, just look at Stan with momentum he can easily beat fed,djok,Andy etc.

Why shouldn't IT be considered rogue? Guo lost the set and gave up, Yang was an OFFICIAL WINNER and advanced. How could anyone in their right mind consider that fair?

I dont care really about the win or PAB, this is more meant as a discussion on mobilbets shitty rules and view on "fair play".

I have to agree with redsfan on this, if the match isn't completed then the fairest thing to do is void all bets. Just because the player you bet on won the 1st set doesn't mean they will go onto to win the match should all sets be completed.

I see you mentioned Stan Wawrinka - He lost the opening set in the US final, but went on to win. Surely this shows that voiding bets is fairer than paying them out.
 
Top