SA Footy

As i said in another thread i had a 5 legged multi bet on the Aussie Open. All five legs got up including J.P Mathieu (who i was on) vs Niemienn.
Mathieu won the first set and was leading 4-2 in the second when his opponent Niemienn retired injured.
So my multi-bet got up for my $10 i should have collected $133, today i walk inot the midway tavern to collect my winnings when the lady hands me back $66 something. UNITAB didn't pay the win to Mathieu.
What really bugged me is that he
-leading 1 set to love, and also leading in the 2nd set.
-He will go down in Australian Open records as the winner
-He will play in the second round of the Australian Open
So how can't Punitab declare him not the winner, at very least i should get half the odds for him IMHO. What a disgrace.

as DUTCHY mentioned different bookies have different rules.

yes he was leading by a set and leading into the second set but he could have crumbled and lost the second, third and fourth sets.

i think that the rules were put in place because players were retiring injured and they may not have been genuinely injured

the russian mafia are allegedly huge in organising tennis and soccer results

Im sure if u were on Niemenen you wouldnt be unhappy, the match is abadoned on sportsbet and therefore all results for the match also are. the above post is the reasoning behind this.
I have been on both ends of this and have lived to find it fair. Does get annoying when u are on a massive winning payout, but for the times u would have lost and end up getting a payout evens itself out in the end.

Groover wrote:Im sure if u were on Niemenen you wouldnt be unhappy, the match is abadoned on sportsbet and therefore all results for the match also are. the above post is the reasoning behind this.
I have been on both ends of this and have lived to find it fair. Does get annoying when u are on a massive winning payout, but for the times u would have lost and end up getting a payout evens itself out in the end.

My argument is that there is still a clear winner and a loser proven by who goes into the next round of the tournament. If your jockey falls of a horse during a race do you get your money back, if you have a highest runs in an innings and your batsmen retires hurt do you get your money back, if you have Lance Franklin to kick a 4-5 goals in a game and he pulls a hammy in the very first second do you get your money back.

It is called gambling for a reason if you took the gamble on Niemienn and he gets injured it's an unlucky gamble. And yes i have been on both sides of this fence.

all valid point whufc and i agree that it doesnt seem fair in that instance .... BUT the line has to be drawn somewhere.... if I had $10k on Federer to beat a qaulifier at $1.03 and Fed rolled his ankle in the first game and couldnt go on ....I would be f#%ken pissed off!!!!
I think the system is OK tho, you are betting on the match and if the match is not completed then no result is paid....


jockey challenge NOT in the same boat...if someone gets crook or injured after 1st race??? its STIFF SH/T!!!!

I backed Smith to top score when he got injured in the last test.... that was hard to take!!!!

another grub wrote:all valid point whufc and i agree that it doesnt seem fair in that instance .... BUT the line has to be drawn somewhere.... if I had $10k on Federer to beat a qaulifier at $1.03 and Fed rolled his ankle in the first game and couldnt go on ....I would be f#%ken pissed off!!!!
I think the system is OK tho, you are betting on the match and if the match is not completed then no result is paid....


jockey challenge NOT in the same boat...if someone gets crook or injured after 1st race??? its STIFF SH/T!!!!

I backed Smith to top score when he got injured in the last test.... that was hard to take!!!!

I see your point but your Federer situation is my point. You put 10k on the bloke you are taking a gamble, your gamble didn't pay off. When having a bet you have to take all situations into account, a players ability, the conditions, the players fitness its all part of gambling.
If Brad Haddin lets four byes go threw on the last ball of the day to cost the aussies a win you don't your money back because of his lack of ability, fitness should be the same.

Thats what urkes me the most, the match was completed. Mathieu was the offical winner by Niemenn's retirement. Does this mean Niemenn doesn't lose the match. Players will start retireing hurt evert time if they are going to lose so it then doesn't go on there record.
Also i don't see how this and a jockey challenge is different.

Good points for both arguments here BUT the rules are there in black and white and once u place the bet u abide by those rules and there is NO point whinging about it unless the rules are broken which dont seem to be in this case.

jackpot jim wrote:Good points for both arguments here BUT the rules are there in black and white and once u place the bet u abide by those rules and there is NO point whinging about it unless the rules are broken which dont seem to be in this case.

Yeah fair play, just think the rules need re-working and suite unitab down to an absolute tea.

Why people insist on betting with the worst bookie in the land is beyond me!!!

backed him on betfair you would have got the result as it was after the first set

whufc wrote:

jackpot jim wrote:Good points for both arguments here BUT the rules are there in black and white and once u place the bet u abide by those rules and there is NO point whinging about it unless the rules are broken which dont seem to be in this case.

Yeah fair play, just think the rules need re-working and suite unitab down to an absolute tea.

jj, is spot on, the rules are CLEARLY STATED, & also it isn't unitabs rules so you can't 'blame' them, it is tab sportsbets rules & they've only copied what other betting organizations have done because of CLEAR CHEATING by top players in lower in status tournaments, i got caught out betting on the canadian open 2 or 3 years ago, i initially had 3 players & then added roddick & hewitt (both $1.08) to the multi, roddick did not play & hewitt played for about 5 games & came off crook......i thought i should get my money back but i didn't & now they have changed the rule which to me is for the better, THIS IS NOW THE CORRECT RULE

I personally think the rule should be like Horse Racing, if your horse takes to the field and runs, the result stands, if your horse is scratched money back IMHO.

Naturally there are some good points in your argument but what you are failing to comprehend is this rule eliminates cheating and a bit of match fixing

whufc wrote:

another grub wrote:all valid point whufc and i agree that it doesnt seem fair in that instance .... BUT the line has to be drawn somewhere.... if I had $10k on Federer to beat a qaulifier at $1.03 and Fed rolled his ankle in the first game and couldnt go on ....I would be f#%ken pissed off!!!!
I think the system is OK tho, you are betting on the match and if the match is not completed then no result is paid....


jockey challenge NOT in the same boat...if someone gets crook or injured after 1st race??? its STIFF SH/T!!!!

I backed Smith to top score when he got injured in the last test.... that was hard to take!!!!

I see your point but your Federer situation is my point. You put 10k on the bloke you are taking a gamble, your gamble didn't pay off. When having a bet you have to take all situations into account, a players ability, the conditions, the players fitness its all part of gambling.
If Brad Haddin lets four byes go threw on the last ball of the day to cost the aussies a win you don't your money back because of his lack of ability, fitness should be the same.
Thats what urkes me the most, the match was completed. Mathieu was the offical winner by Niemenn's retirement. Does this mean Niemenn doesn't lose the match. Players will start retireing hurt evert time if they are going to lose so it then doesn't go on there record.
Also i don't see how this and a jockey challenge is different.

I've been watching the big jumps carnival at Cheltenham (England) this week. S-tab and NSW are covering all events but Unitab only covers the first race each night but has fixed odds on all races. Wednesday night I picked out a couple of horses in each of the first three races, went in to the TAB, and completed multi sports betting tickets to cover all combinations. None went through... apparently fixed odds race betting only allows a MAXIMUM of two events in a multi bet. It wasn't as if I was going to break the bank - the biggest payout I was potentially looking at was $1200.

Given the betting combinations available with Betfair, etc its just another example of how backward our TAB's betting options are.