Skip to main content

shoddy bookmaker alert

bwin have been hammered for closing accts and poor customer service over the years. They even have a rule buried deep in their T&Cs prohibiting accounts from employed at other firms. But this one has to take the cake. The punter wins €2000 and then the bookmaker says 'sorry, we shouldn't have offered these bets to you in the first place'.

There's no comeback for this. The punter has done nothing wrong, and bwin have remote staff based in Australia trading live on AFL and NRL matches. If that is not deliberately targetting Australian clients to bet in-running, then I don't know what is. Conveniently hiding behind rules to suit themselves, they know damn well what they are doing is wrong, but also that the Australian government will never prosecute a firm based overseas anyway. Every UK bookmaker offers betting in-running to Aussies, the only firm who restricts is Betfair because they hold an Australian licence.

read the thread from OLBG - bwin shafts punter

Pure scam and punters should never let bookies get away with pathetic actions like this. Let's see if the gaming authority in Gibraltar has any balls....

UPDATE 17/4/09 - it appears as if Bwin have caved in and will pay the punter out after both the Gibraltar authorities and SportsbookReview were contacted to get involved.

Bwin still remain a bookmaker to steer well clear of. They have an enormous range of markets but with ridiculously high margins, and won't hesitate to cut you off if you dare to win a few times...

Comments

  1. SBR have a good record at resolving disputes with BWin; I'd be inclined to recommend it be sent their first rather than Gibraltar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. cheers Darryl, will make sure the punter knows about that option.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

hope for investors in the Centaur scandal?

In a breaking story, it has been reported that directors of the failed sports investment fund Centaur have had their assets frozen in order to repay investors. It is believed that managing director Keith Sobey skipped town trying to avoid prosecution however he either naively thought Ireland was a safe enough place to hide or had a lingering feeling of guilt and sat waiting for that knock on the door. Sobey, the name behind Centaur ( read the original story here ), is believed to own four houses, worth more in total than the missing £1.6m. His willingness to sell them to repay investors is likely to keep the matter out of the courts, and at least one other director, Andrew Cork, will apparently follow suit. All this adds weight to anecdotal evidence that the collapse of the fund came down to mismanagement rather than fraudulent deeds. As costs grew (why would you set up a training academy in central London?), margins evaporated and keeping the business afloat went through money like