GSOD: 1st 180 Market Betting Query/Problem

[spmcfly]

Just thought I would pick your brains as to the interpretation of this market as I'm currently in dispute with William Hill on the result of one of last nights matches. Paul Nicholson v Barrie Bates The market offered across all bookmakers is Player A or Player B to hit the 1st 180. Now, in this match last night there was no 180 so my £20 bet at Bill Hill was declared a loser. Is that a fair result from Bill Hill? Should this bet not be declared void? My interpretation of it is that they offered the option of 2 outcomes: Player A v Player B. They don't offer the 3rd option of 'No 180' so how can the bet be a loser? This market is therefore heavily stacked in their favour. You think you are betting on a 50/50 when in fact you are being offered a 33.3/66.6 market, it's just that they aren't telling you about the other alternative. Surely they should have to void the bet?

[froment]

Re: GSOD: 1st 180 Market Betting Query/Problem Their T&C look very poor on this topic... https://williamhill-lang.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7455/kw/darts 8. FIRST 180: Predict the player to score the first 180 in the match. I don't have a clue about darts, but it seems to me you can draw a parallel with market "Match betting"; I see that market quotes two events, just like "First 180", and overround is the same, about 107 to 108%. Unfortunatelly, T&C for that market is equally unclear: 2. MATCH BETTING: a. Predict the winner of the match. b. In league matches where odds are quoted for the draw, in the event of a draw bets on players to win will be treated as losing selections. So, if the draw is quoted, you lose if you bet on winner - that's logical and fair. But what happens if draw is not quoted, and match ends in draw? According to this sentence above, I'd say bet is void (otherwise, if it's lost, they wouldn't make separate statement for case when draw is quoted - it would be lost in both cases). In your case, outcome of "No 180" can be considered as draw, and IMHO you have the ground to argue with them, you should try. It's clear that overround of 107-108% allows for two outcomes (one player or the other player), not three (one player or the other player or none of them), except if chance of draw, i.e., "No 180" is very, very low, let's say 2 to 3%, I don't know...