1. Easter Egg Hunt: 2nd Week Ready to be found!

    Dismiss Notice
  2. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Bitch and Moan Newbie, please help. Have I genuinely been treated unfairly?

Discussion in 'Sportsbook Complaints' started by renegade16, Jun 24, 2017.

    Jun 24, 2017
  1. renegade16

    renegade16 Registered

    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?
  2. Jun 24, 2017
  3. paul7388

    paul7388 Meister Member MM

    not a lot
    glasgow scotland
    For what it is worth i also feel that as it would definitely have won then bets like that should be paid as winning.

    But for some reason bookies have extra rules in place for tennis matches. Who knows why maybe its to do with match fixing etc.

    Anyway their terms clearly state

    Correct Set Betting

    The full number of sets required to win the match must be completed. If a player is awarded the match prior to the full number of sets being completed, all Correct Set betting on that match will be void.

    So i am afraid that as its stated clearly that all bets on setS are void if the match does not finish then there is very little you can do as it is made clear the bet will be void.
  4. Jun 24, 2017
  5. renegade16

    renegade16 Registered

    Is correct set betting not a correct score though, I.e Federer 3-0 or Williams 2-1.

    Over and under 2.5/3.5/4.5 is different, but I guess it's open to interpretation, no?

Share This Page