Announcements
*** New Last Man Standing Competition - Win up to £1500 Annually - See Competitions Forum ***
*** October Competition Winners: Well done to Roland Cooper (NAPS), BillyHills (KO Cup), Theodore007 (Football Tipster Competition), Bagzi (Last Man Standing Comp) & Demios (Poker) ***

Recommended Posts

Dear Fellow Members,

I am in an ongoing dispute with Paddy Power Bookies over an accumulator bet that I took some days ago with them. they paid me half of the bet and voided 2 selections relating to the bet causing a drastic decrease in my winnings. My arguement has gone on with them for over three days now where it has now been escalated to the highest level management with no fruitful result. I told the last supervisor after today's phone call that I was going to tender this case on a tennis forum for the members to be the judge. If a great number of you guys agree with me after I have tendered my case before you, then I will certainly go on to the ombudsman to continue fighting for justice. here is a summary of what happened. I played

Heather watson to beat Makarova 6/4 - loser

Heather watson to win a set vs Makarova 4/7 - Win

Vania King +4.5 games over vikhlyantseva 8/11-Win

Anhelina Kalinina to beat Kathinka Von deichmann by 2sets to one 3/1 Void

Anhelina vs Kathinka Von Deichmann over 21.5 total games 8/11 Void

Ryan Harrison vs Kevin Anderson over 36.5 games 4/5 Win

Camila Giorgi Vs Whitney Osuigwe +7.5 handicap 2/9 Win

five fold x 4 bets @£15 = £60 staked

The problem begins when Von Deichmann withdraws at 2-5 down third set (6-1 6-7 2-5) resulting in paddy power voiding those 2 lines and making me almost £160 out of pocket. First I argued that they had no right to void the over 21.5games total as I had already gone past 21.5 before the default. They tried to hold on to a flimsy point before realising that they were stuck and agreed to pay out. Let me point out that I have called them over 15 times in the past to correct this same problem where they have always paid out over this same issue after similar long and hard verbal exchanges. However over the years they have never fully updated their systems to recognize and payout whenever this situation occurs which in my opinion is criminal. So for those customers who do not know better, they simply lose their money in ignorance. Here is where I need the opinion of our humble members and tipsters. Paddy Power has refused to payout fully on the bet on the grounds that the selection in question remains void according to their rules displayed at the link that I will paste below.. I really would appreciate opinions from anyone who would be kind enough to read the rule 1 and 2 and see whether or not it applies to my bet and whether Paddy Power is right in their translation of the rule. The big question is what does the word unequivocal mean in the way that they have used it. I will state my case to you once I have heard enough opinions. thanks everyone!

https://support.paddypower.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/73/~/tennis-rules

Edited by liquidglass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, losingpunter said:

As per rule 1 you are absolutely correct because she retired in 3rd set but remember that rule is for the winner of a game. your bet is on total games. had your bet being on she is the winner they would have awarded you. Pls note this rule does not state anywhere that all bets for that match will be awarded

Thanks Losing Punter for your contribution. The selection on total games had no problem as the total by the time of retirement was already over 21.5games. They were forced to remove the void and paid me. The real problem is whether they were right not to pay for Kalinina to win 2 sets to 1 considering that Kalinina was already up 5-2 in the third set. Rule 1 covers that particular situation and clearly states what should happen. My question is does everybody see it the way I see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, liquidglass said:

Thanks Losing Punter for your contribution. The selection on total games had no problem as the total by the time of retirement was already over 21.5games. They were forced to remove the void and paid me. The real problem is whether they were right not to pay for Kalinina to win 2 sets to 1 considering that Kalinina was already up 5-2 in the third set. Rule 1 covers that particular situation and clearly states what should happen. My question is does everybody see it the way I see it?

In my humble opinion, they are right not to pay you on the 2 sets to 1 win for Kalinina. For them to pay you out, the match has to be completed and Kalinina has to win or else it'll be termed void. Although, your bet was in a strong position for a win, the result has not been determined yet and there is still uncertainty. Primarily, the result is not confirmed, hence void is right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, @Senking is right I'm afraid.

Lucas Pouille (-3.5) to beat Joao Sousa at 1.91 with Paddy Power

I watched Pouille against Baghdatis and this really is the first time I'm trusting him again after quite a while, he seems to be back at least somewhat. The fact that he's returned to the place in which he beat Rafael Nadal so famously seems to have given him a lot of confidence and he is firing on nearly all cylinders again. Sousa was quite lucky against PCB, on the other hand, just outlasted the Spaniard, who didn't seem to be physically fit.

N.Kyrgios/R.Federer - Over 3.5 sets at 1.73 with Paddy Power

Federer isn't Herbert, so Kyrgios is going to care and he is going to play with spirit, he always does whenever there is a big name against him. Federer looked a bit shaky against Paire, some unforced errors here and there, that could be costly against a guy with a big serve and an attitude. They've already played four tight matches against each other and this should be another one of those.

Caroline Garcia (vs. CSN) + Kiki Bertens (vs. Vondrousova) at 1.95 with BetVictor

Garcia faces a good match-up against CSN and I fancy her to get the job done in the end after she showed so much fight against Puig, saving countless break points in the final set before breaking for the win. CSN has some decent form on paper, but much of it came via retirements. Meanwhile, Bertens has been continuing her Cincy form so far, should be way too strong for Vondrousova.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CzechPunter said:

 

bbc quote ...

The world number 30 was trailing 6-4 3-0 and threatening to quit the second-round match when Mohamed Lahyani climbed down from his chair, saying he wanted to "help" him.

Kyrgios went on to win 4-6 7-6 (8-6) 6-3 6-0 and plays Roger Federer next.

Herbert said Lahyani should be punished as his actions were not "appropriate".

"I think this was not his job. I don't think he's a coach, he's an umpire, and he should stay on his chair for that," the Frenchman said.

"If he makes a mistake, I think he should be also punished. He doesn't make that many mistakes, and I think he's a really good umpire."

 

That whole episode is just F----g ridiculous. He got out of his chair and encouraged Kyrigos to start playing. That's not his damn job. His job is to sit in his chair and control the activity, not to actively participate. The ump should be banned from the tour.

When I saw that Aussie clown tanking ...was basically out, done and buried, pulling his groin, looking like he was 3 s_ts behind,  I loaded up on Herbert.  Kyrigos was done and dusted. Fkg ump intervention revives him and cost me over 200 pounds. Just outrageous !  If the guy is not trying to bad.  Same as that French Clown Paire against Federer. Damn show binkies !   Then you look at Kevin Andersen, who has half the talent, but 5 times the desire, drive, commitment and belief. 

Edited by neilovan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isner vs Lajovic , Basilaszwili vs Pella and Coric vs Miedwiediew . In all over 3.5 sets at 4.05 with Unibet

In my opinion nobody from here can win 3:0 . This will be closely matches . Basilaszwili and Miedwiediew are in great form and propably they can win their matches . Isner with each subsequent match look worse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Senking said:

In my humble opinion, they are right not to pay you on the 2 sets to 1 win for Kalinina. For them to pay you out, the match has to be completed and Kalinina has to win or else it'll be termed void. Although, your bet was in a strong position for a win, the result has not been determined yet and there is still uncertainty. Primarily, the result is not confirmed, hence void is right. 

Thank you Senking. I very much appreciate your input. This was the position that Paddy Power was holding until I decided to test it against their own interpretion of the law. Now let us revisit their rule and see what it says. First it says that for match betting market, if a player retires in a WTA or ATP match as described there, the player progressing to the next round or winning the tournament(if that was a final) will be deemed the winner unless the player retires before the conclusion of the first set in which circumstance match betting shall be void. Now here is the crunch bit that affects my bet; the rule continues like this; "Bets on all other tournaments or matches and bets on other markets i.e other than match betting markets (that this bet is a part of) will be voided where a player retires(regardless of whether the retirement occurs during or following the first set UNLESS, in the case of other markets the outcome of the bet had been unequivocally determined prior to the time of the retirement. My bet clearly falls into the red zone above. Firstly, what does the statement in red imply? It implies in lame man's terms that there is still a possibility of my bet being a winning bet despite the retirement of one player if it can be proven that my player(Kalinina) could have won the match 2-1 as set out in the terms of my bet slip.

The word "unequivocal" means beyond doubt. Now this portion in red would not have been invented by Paddy Power if it was not possible to win a bet like mine despite retirement. So I put it to the Manager to give me any example off the back of his head where there can be a possibility of paying out a selection like mine as a winner despite retirement. If they have it in their rule then it automatically follows that the practical possibility must exist. The manager said he could not think of one.So I proceeded to explain what the rule clearly meant.

Before the match started there existed 4 possible result as outcomes namely 2-0  0-2  2-1  1-2. Before Von Deichman withdrew the score was 1-1 so ther were only two possibilities left. When she withdrew, she forefeited her right to win the third set or puting it bluntly, she lost the third set by default by giving up. The left only one possibilty of a result, 2-1 Kalinina. If say the score was 1-0 to either player at the time of retirement, then it would have been right to void the selection as there were still other possibilities of a result like 2-0  0-2 or 2-1 1-2. The manager later tried to argue from embarrassment that at the time of retirement it was still possible for Von Deichman to come back from 2-5 down and so the result was not unequivocal. I told him that that line of thought was inadmissible in this case. When a player retires, there is a consequence. They lose either the set or the match depending on which is most applicable. If therefore Von Deichmann lost the set as a result of the default, then Kalinina wins the match 2-1.

Let us look back and apply this school of thought to the match betting rule. When a player retires after one set has been completed, the other player is considered the winner. Or were they not aware that the defaulting player can still come back in that case? I will conclude my case with what I deem the cruncher as I highlight on the portion of the bet rules that explains what happens when a player defaults which is covered in rule 2. It states that When a player retires, the one who wins for all intents and purposes will be deemed to have won all points/games/sets which would have followed the disqualification. So the surviving player of a disqualification does so by inherting games, sets and match depending on how applicable. Hence Kalinina wins 2-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, even though you don't have a case in my opinion (and I don't believe that there even is a bookie that would've paid out the 2-1 selection), the bottom line is that this is the part of the forum where we discuss tennis and tips. If you'd like to continue with your rules debate, please do so elsewhere, the Bookie Chat section is the right place for complaints like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milos Raonic vs Stan Wawrinka - Wawrinka to win @ 2.10 with SportingBet

I'm surprised to see Wawrinka as the underdog here. Yes, Raonic has won their last two clashes (the last one in the Australian Open, 2016), but they are now both coming back from injury and I will be happy to back the "Stan train" here. The way he easily won against Dimitrov was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone and Czech punter.  Do you feel that Makarova is healthy right now? She is wearing a leg wrap in New Haven around her thigh.  It doesn't look like a hamstring injuy.  I think its more thigh pain or something.  Then she starts U.S. open, and that wrap is long gone in the video I could find, and she is all smiles after winning.  Because I don't think she is gonna lose to Sevastova as long as she is healthy.  Do you guys have any opinions ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juan Martin Del Potro vs Fernando Verdasco

Verdasco arrived to this round after defeating with his forehand and a good service the former-world #1, Murray. However, Delpo has a more powerful forehand, which is his best weapon. It would be an interesting match. Verdasco will need to keep the ball away from Del Potro’s forehand, but he can’t trust in forcing him to use his backhand because Delpo will also defend well. Verdasco’s victory surprised many, but Del Potro is playing an excellent tennis and has chances to win this tournament.

My pick: Juan Martin Del Potro to win @ 1.174, 4 units at Pinnacle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TY czech punter.  Just for the record -- I am not a believer in Sevastova at the moment.. She is not in top form, and recently withdrew from Moscow. She lost her last 3 matches to Makarova on hard court, and she also recently got crushed by competent opponents in her last two matches in straight sets. Vekic is probably not in good form when Sevastova beat her, and most likely Claire Liu was tired from her first round against Hercog because that scoreline looks weird.. I had Claire Liu playing that match really tight if not winning outright.  Sevastova has a win over Aranxta Rus but before that she lost a match against Safarova in straight sets.  I believe she struggles against left handed players that can expose her backhand. I also believe if Sevastova was healthy two months ago.. she would have beaten Maria in Mallorca final to defend her title there, but she lost in straight sets.  I do not believe Maria is a good player, and i know she is good in grass but so is Sevastova. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Senking said:

In my humble opinion, they are right not to pay you on the 2 sets to 1 win for Kalinina. For them to pay you out, the match has to be completed and Kalinina has to win or else it'll be termed void. Although, your bet was in a strong position for a win, the result has not been determined yet and there is still uncertainty. Primarily, the result is not confirmed, hence void is right. 

I'd agree with this. I can see why you feel sore because she probably was going to win but the moment she retired your set bet became void. That's the way set betting works as I understand it, rightly or wrongly. Besides that, and as unlikely as it may have been, the lead your player had could have been overturned - you never know. It happened at the Australian Open where Fett was ahead 5-1 (I think) against Wozniacki in the final set only for the Dane to overturn the deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you guys think will win Pella Vs Basilashvilli.  I believe that Nikoloz will win but my superstitions are finding it hard to place money on him.  He looks to be playing the best tennis of his career, and also was very sharp in this opening match vs Sock.. I've got an itchy trigger finger on this match, and I do not believe Pella is up to this challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some way Makarova maintains the lead and wins this match.. I have it parlayed with Nikoloz, and I am going to hedge back my initial stake because I have a sick feeling that he can tank the match to Pella.. Hopefully Makarova wins, and then I'll have a freeroll.. but I'm very concerned Makarova will lose now also ... its on serve but Sevastova is playing better than i thought she would, and Mak is actually a lil better than i thought she would also. The only problem is Sevastova's movement looks a lil better than Makarova, and that scares me a little bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.