Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

one rule for one another for another...

Options
  • 29-04-2008 2:46pm
    #1
    califano
    Registered Users Posts: 5,440 ✭✭✭


    ok tennis has been shrouded in some controversy in recent times with players allegedly taking dives with crying off injured midmatch. Some bookmakers recently implemented a rule to combat this making unfinished matches void. A good idea in my opinion. Some bookmakers but not all. What im saying is cant there be some uniformity with implementing this rule or not in all chains?.

    I went into collect what i thought was e316 from an accum in one chain(pp) yesterday but was only given half that because had federers match void because Djokevic retired hurt. Federer was a set and a break up but i had to accept it.

    Today i done a treble with another firm(ladb) and Acasuso retired injured. Only this firm doesnt have the unfinished matched void rule meaning Lopez is deemed a winner.

    I just think both are fair enough but cant we have a universal rule like virtually all other sports.

    anyone have any thoughts or gripes about similar rule differences from chain to chain?.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    myflipflops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    That's a very fair point and you're unlucky that you fell the wrong side of the rule with both firms. Trying to implement uniformity of rules within the bookmaking industry would be borderline impossible to enforce. For one, there's no organisation about to do it (bookmakers association etc wouldn't have the power). With the tennis example, it's probably a case of firms covering themselves in different manners. PP void the bets to cover against 'bent' matches. On the other hand, Ladbrokes probably reckon it's good from a customer point of view to pay out on these matches when it is costing them no extra money really (i can't remember the last tennis player i saw retiring from a winning position, can you?). In both cases, there will be happy and unhappy customers depending on who they backed.

    I think in reality, the best we can look for is that a bookmakers rules are clearly stated and easily accessible. They should also be designed so as not to give the bookmakers an extra edge but are simply a fair to both sides. If they do this then we, as punters, can make our decision of who to bet with.


Advertisement