There have been many stories about gamblers feeling cheated after a bookie has refused to pay out what they thought was a winning bet.
Most of the time the gambler has simply not understood the rules properly, and to be honest, while gutting, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
For instance there was a chap who thought he had won a fortune on a World Cup acca last year, but since he bet on Argentina to win the match instead of to lift the trophy, his bet lost as it was a draw at 90 minutes. He thought he had been cheated, in fact, he hadn’t understood the rules of the bet he was making.
It got a lot of traction on Twitter, but personally, I think the bookie was right not to pay out.
In other cases though, it is very hard to defend the bookmaker, and this is one of them.
Here’s why.
£10 Treble Bet in Bookie Shop
On November 11th, Liam Manifold placed a £10 treble at his local Coral in Horningblow, Burton-on-Trent.
His selections were:
- Argentina to Win the Cup – 11-2
- Lionel Messi Player of the tournament – 9-1
- France and Argentina in the Final – 22-1
This gave him combined odds of 1,495/1.
He handed over his money, the shop accepted the bet, and the 30 year old engineer went off to work presumably, since the 11th was a Friday.
Anyway, where he went is besides the point, the point is that all three of his predictions came true, but when he headed back to the shop, excited to claim his £15,000, he hit a roadblock.
Coral told him that since some of the selections are related bets, the wager should not have been allowed to be placed, and therefore the bet is void.
They have offered him £660 instead.
The thing is though Coral, you did accept the bet. If anyone is at fault here it is the guy or girl behind the counter who wasn’t well trained enough to know that the bet would not stand.
It’s certainly not Liam’s problem, who paid his £10 in good faith and deserves his winnings.
In fact, other bookies have since contacted Liam and told him that they would have paid out in this situation.
“It’s now two weeks after the final and I don’t seem to be getting anywhere.
“If there’s an error it’s their fault for accepting the bet. It’s very frustrating.
“Just under £15,000 for a big betting company is pennies for them, but for me it’s a life-changing amount of money. My dad’s disabled so I was going to buy him a new disability scooter and keep the rest in savings.”
He is currently awaiting a response from an independent complaints committee having already gone through Coral’s own complaints procedure with no joy.
Coral’s Response
A spokesperson from Coral has given a pretty detailed statement on the matter to be fair to them, they aren’t hiding from the situation, but they are also refusing to budge.
Here is the statement in full:
“These three events are all closely related to each other so the prices that were offered on them individually can’t be included in a multiple bet.
“If Argentina and France have made the final, then the odds of Argentina winning it are clearly much shorter than they were at the outset.
“If Argentina have then won the World Cup, the chances of Messi being player of the tournament will be long odds-on.”
“So we have settled the bet in the fairest way possible, paying out on the event with the biggest price, an Argentina v France final, at 22/1, and then on the basis that that had happened, we applied the price of Argentina winning the final which was 10/11 before the game, and then on the basis that Argentina had won the cup, we applied an over-generous price on Messi to be player of the tournament at 1/2, as the odds on that happening should Argentina have won the World Cup would have been much shorter.
“The prices on the slip had been written on by the customer not the member of staff.
“We have settled the bet in line with our terms and conditions, and we have made a very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet that exceeds what would have been the odds of such an eventuality had a customer asked for rush specific treble on November 11.”
I see their process, but ultimately, it’s still their error not Liam’s.
Here’s the thing, if Liam had lost then gone back to ask for his £10 back because he realised the bets were “closely related to each other” would Coral have paid him back?
Our survey says: “ERR ERRRR”
Of course they wouldn’t.
In my opinion, this is not a good look for Coral at all, and they should do the decent thing and pay the man his winnings. Then probably book some training sessions for their shop staff.
The distrust this sort of thing could breed among other punters might well cost them far more than the measly £15,000 it would cost them to pay out the bet, which, if they did, would be very good press for them too.
I think they have made the wrong call here, and I think it’s short sighted too.