Case about to go thru the High Court - PP/Betfair

[mcfc1981]

But his barrister, Mark James, claimed that the Paddy Power trader who approved the bet had quickly regretted his decision.

In an exchange with his leadership team soon after the race, Dublin-based trader Aidan McCarthy said he had "massively overlaid" a bet.

HOW DID HE WIN £286K
James Longley had already lost around £19,000 that day when he decided to back 'Redemptive'.
He called a Paddy Power dial-a-bet operator to place a total £2,600, but the trader relayed it as £13,000 each way - a total of £26,000.When the horse came in a winner, Mr Longely's account was credited £286,400. But the bookies quickly rescinded the offer, saying he was only entitled to the £2,600 bet - bringing his winnings down to £28,600.He was left £257,400 out of pocket by the decision.
He said he had looked at Mr Longley's bets that day and that it seemed he was "chasing" his losses and decided to accept the £26,000 stake.

"I can only apologise for this massive error on my part and I can't explain why the liability didn’t register with me," the trader had written.

By the Monday after the Saturday race, the trader had clawed back the cash to "cover his own back," the barrister claimed.


He said he had looked at Mr Longley's bets that day and that it seemed he was "chasing" his losses and decided to accept the £26,000 stake.......is this not a big NO NO on the bookies part??

By the Monday after the Saturday race, the trader had clawed back the cash to "cover his own back," the barrister claimed.....So the Trader went chasing

Punter wins the case for me

[ANGELS15]

It will be interesting to see if this case has any impact on the gambling review. The powers that be may decide to limit the stakes for telephone betting? They may argue that they are protecting both punters and bookmakers. In this instance the horse won. However as has been said if it had lost I'm sure Paddy Power would not have refunded what they call the excess part of his stake.

There are wealthy punters around who happily bet in these sums. They are not interested in £50 or £100 bets, so would not be best pleased if they were restricted.

[verance]

He said he had looked at Mr Longley's bets that day and that it seemed he was "chasing" his losses and decided to accept the £26,000 stake.

This comment from the trader should surely raise a wider regulatory investigation? (It won't)

Harmful play has no place in our business, and we’re proactive about supporting players who need help.

[Crazyskier]

He said he had looked at Mr Longley's bets that day and that it seemed he was "chasing" his losses and decided to accept the £26,000 stake.

This comment from the trader should surely raise a wider regulatory investigation? (It won't)

Harmful play has no place in our business, and we’re proactive about supporting players who need help TO LOSE MORE...

[The Silk Run]

He said he had looked at Mr Longley's bets that day and that it seemed he was "chasing" his losses and decided to accept the £26,000 stake.

This comment from the trader should surely raise a wider regulatory investigation? (It won't)

Harmful play has no place in our business, and we’re proactive about supporting players who need help TO LOSE MORE...

[firlandsfarm]

I hope the punter's barrister asked the question of PP if they would have refunded the bet if the selection lost. If they would have kept the full stake and not refunded any the judge could see they accepted it as a real bet and if they answered they would have refunded the bet the judge could have a jolly good laugh!

[ANGELS15]

I hope the punter's barrister asked the question of PP if they would have refunded the bet if the selection lost. If they would have kept the full stake and not refunded any the judge could see they accepted it as a real bet and if they answered they would have refunded the bet the judge could have a jolly good laugh!

We'll never know unless they can clearly demonstrate from their records examples when they've refunded if a punter had overstaked.

Although nowhere in the same league as this case, it brings to mind another bone of contention punters have with bookies. I often frequent bookies to watch their shows and see my automation unfold. I often see punters running to the counter at the harebell to place dog bets, excitedly cheering a dog home. When they go to the counter to collect winnings they're told 'your bet was late' so is void. This causes furious rows as some have pointed out 'if it was a losing bet would you have called me over to refund my stake'?

Up until about 15 years ago bookies used to have a bit of descretion with bets. If a bet was thrust at them a second or so after a dog harebell they'd still take it if it was a 'regular' punter. Also in horse races from a mile + they would still take a bet provided the runners had only travelled about a furlong and no horse had fallen or been left at the start. Those descretions seem to have disappeared with people being told 'no more bets' at the 'off' for a 3 mile chase!

[firlandsfarm]

Up until about 15 years ago bookies used to have a bit of descretion with bets. If a bet was thrust at them a second or so after a dog harebell they'd still take it if it was a 'regular' punter. Also in horse races from a mile + they would still take a bet provided the runners had only travelled about a furlong and no horse had fallen or been left at the start. Those descretions seem to have disappeared with people being told 'no more bets' at the 'off' for a 3 mile chase!

I expect that was because they lost their legal immunity. Until 2007 a bet was treated in law as a 'debt of honour' and was not enforceable through the courts, punters were at the bookies' mercy but that changed with the 2005 Gambling Act that came into force in 2007 when bets became legally enforceable.
(https://www.bettingoffers.org.uk/articl ... ut-by-law/)

[ANGELS15]

Up until about 15 years ago bookies used to have a bit of descretion with bets. If a bet was thrust at them a second or so after a dog harebell they'd still take it if it was a 'regular' punter. Also in horse races from a mile + they would still take a bet provided the runners had only travelled about a furlong and no horse had fallen or been left at the start. Those descretions seem to have disappeared with people being told 'no more bets' at the 'off' for a 3 mile chase!

I expect that was because they lost their legal immunity. Until 2007 a bet was treated in law as a 'debt of honour' and was not enforceable through the courts, punters were at the bookies' mercy but that changed with the 2005 Gambling Act that came into force in 2007 when bets became legally enforceable.
(https://www.bettingoffers.org.uk/articl ... ut-by-law/)

That's an interesting insight.