Related Bet Problem

[Wolvesarepremierleague]

Hi All,

I placed a bet with Coral on August 3rd last year, a double of Wolves to win the Championship (12-1) and Ebanks-Blake to finish top goalscorer (16-1).

My £5 bet was accepted on the website and sat there for 9 months showing a potential return of £1,105.

Needless to say I logged in this evening to withdraw my winnings only to find they have paid out £85.

I spoke to customer service and they have told me the bet should never been have been accepted as it is a related bet, and so they have paid out on the higher odds option of 16-1 and voided the double.

They told me I could go to the IASB and they will abide by their decision. Does anyone have any idea of my chances of getting this decision reversed as i would argue very strongly, and stats would back me up to a certain extent, that there is little relationship between the team that wins the league and the top goalscorers team.

I'm gutted they have tried to pull this and am praying I can get the decision reversed. Does anyone have any advice?

[Dice Man]

IMO they should pay out in full given that they accepted the bet. Each of their bets should be checked by someone in the first place to make sure the events are independent. I don't think you could get any stats that will support the notion that there is no relation between a player being highest goal-scorer and his team winning the league, because there clearly is a relation.

I don't know what chance there is of you getting any kind of decision going you way. But what I think should be done is to look at how many of the top scorers have come from the winning team from the past 14 seasons (all the seasons when they've had 24 teams in the league) except for this season, so 13 in total. You could then work out a rough probability that the best striker would be the overall league highest scorer given that his team win the league. So if it's 3/13 seasons then your second bet should be given odds of 10-3, if it's 4/13 seasons you get odds of 9-4, and so on. And even then you're losing a bit of value because the probability of Ebanks-Blake being the top scorer given that the top scorer is a Wolves player is less than 1 (but still very high).

[BetfairGuy]

I think that this a case of related contingency. If Ebanks-Blake were to be the top scorer in the division, then it surely helps Wolves chances of winning the league.

Having said that, if they took the bet, then you should definitely dispute this decision with IBAS.

[TheAyatollah]

Hi Mate,

I placed exactly the same bet with Corals on-line however I was slightly more confident in the Old Gold & my stake was £10.00. Corals paid me £2210 2 hrs after last matches on the Sunday, which I withdrew. They then emailed me on the Monday to tell me they made a mistake, as I placed an invalid related bet & requested I return the money. The money hit my bank account on the Wednesday & Corals kindly took out of my bank account on the Thursday...which was a nice surprise!
I phoned Corals to complain & received an email yesterday saying they are prepared as a goodwill gesture to pay out at 66/1 which is the odds they claim that they were offering before the season started.
Must say I'm miffed by the whole thing, the double I had & you, paid 221/1, so to say its invalid, as a related bet & then say they were offering odds (which I never saw in August) at 66's.
I spoke with IBAS who tell me I can take the offer of £670 & still take the case through them for the rest.
I suggest you do the same. Drop us a post & let me know how you get on.

Ayatollah

[Dice Man]

How could Coral take the money out of your bank account???

[Sofaboy]

Apparently if there have your bank details (i.e. for depositing) they can, which is shocking.
They could leave you in deep muck, if you had transferred or spent the money.

[TheAyatollah]

Dice Man
I checked with Barclays, who as Sofaboy says they are within their rights to use your card details which they already have to claw back funds. The bank gives you no protection against this & you have to resolve with the debitor, in this case corals.

Ayatollah