Page 1 of 1
Bookies refuse to pay out £23,400 on pair's accumulator
Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:58 am
by josie andrews
Re: Bookies refuse to pay out £23,400 on pair's accumulator
Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:42 am
by DaveO
My son works for William Hill in the IT department in Leeds. I asked him about it last night.
The "rule" is they won't pay out on bets that are related and in this case they mean they are related bets because Salford got into the playoffs and that increased the chances that their best player might win MoS.
A bit like having a bet on a 100m sprinter winning the race and also a bet on them setting the fastest time. One follows the other. The bets are obviously related and such bets aren't allowed so they are "palped" (a term he used to describe doing this).
I have to say I thought the excuse was a bit tenuous in the Salford case because MoS could have easily come from Saints or any of the other playoff teams not just Salford and perhaps more to the point if they don't pay out for what they consider related bets they should not allow them to be placed. As they did allow it to be placed they should IMO pay up in full.
Re: Bookies refuse to pay out £23,400 on pair's accumulator
Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:29 pm
by shaunedwardsfanclub
DaveO wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:42 am
My son works for William Hill in the IT department in Leeds. I asked him about it last night.
The "rule" is they won't pay out on bets that are related and in this case they mean they are related bets because Salford got into the playoffs and that increased the chances that their best player might win MoS.
A bit like having a bet on a 100m sprinter winning the race and also a bet on them setting the fastest time. One follows the other. The bets are obviously related and such bets aren't allowed so they are "palped" (a term he used to describe doing this).
I have to say I thought the excuse was a bit tenuous in the Salford case because MoS could have easily come from Saints or any of the other playoff teams not just Salford and perhaps more to the point if they don't pay out for what they consider related bets they should not allow them to be placed. As they did allow it to be placed they should IMO pay up in full.
I agree with you there Dave. In the past, if bookies looked like they might lose a large sum of money they would have laid the bet off. Somebody took their eye off the ball and now William Hill are running for cover. Very poor form, even worse than Wigan's last two performances.
Re: Bookies refuse to pay out £23,400 on pair's accumulator
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:41 pm
by Mickw
They're quite happy to take an invalid bet as long as it doesn't come in,what a disgrace.