• Hi Guest, The software has been updated but I have not had a chance to tweak anything yet.
    It took longer than I had hoped, so I just turned it on and hope everything is OK
    If you spot anything that does not look rigfhyt then please let me know.
    Ark Royal
  • There seems to be a problem with some alerts not being emailed to members. I have told the hosts and they are investigating.
  • Hi Guest, If you are seeing that Lurker has appeared under your name then please take a look here to see why. AR

Betsafe big con

Betsafe
I had a £30 bonus bet and won £274 was unable to withdraw any of the money so checked the t&c's which said the only way I could withdraw any of my winnings was by betting another £300

This to me is not a bonus its a con I have closed my account and would advise everyone to avoid them.
 

dave58

Administrator
I think a few companies do this sort of thing to be honest, they give you a bonus but you have to play it through many times before you can actually withdraw it
 

mick

Sire
Even the long established firms where a degree of trust should be a given now bear watching, because they are frequently changing there T&Gs with little or no overt customer notification or awareness.Without this you will only find out when they implement against you via reducing or even voiding a winning bet.

The newer firms should all be treated with extreme caution.Some will join and deposit to obtain so called free sign up wagers but i suspect the majority do so out of desperation because they can no longer get a bet on elsewhere.Whatever the reason should you then dare attempt to withdraw winnings this is when the problems start.

It is a vile state of affairs which would not be tolerated in any other business and the likes of Odds Checker the RP and others who allow these firms to continue advertising while being aware of the way they treat customers are imo also responsible.Anyone who feels this is wrong should consider reg with the Justice For Punters Org.They are actively seeking changes but without our support there will be none.
 
Last edited:

mick

Sire
A recent example from the new owners of BF.Not difficult to envisage an "innocent" backer being caught out by this and having his winnings with held.? Heads we win tails you lose.? When you read the below its a gross piddle take but if an applicable bet lost would it also be voided and your stakes returned.I think not but perhaps we should all be asking Paddy.

9.1.2. where there is an inordinate frequency and/or highly unusual pattern of Bets placed on the same selection(s) and where the theoretical probability of said selection(s) winning at the time of Bet(s) placement, based on the odds offered on the selection(s) at the time of Bet placement, is largely inconsistent with the theoretical probability of the same selection(s) winning calculated using their starting prices;
 

Ferdy

Colt
A recent example from the new owners of BF.Not difficult to envisage an "innocent" backer being caught out by this and having his winnings with held.? Heads we win tails you lose.? When you read the below its a gross piddle take but if an applicable bet lost would it also be voided and your stakes returned.I think not but perhaps we should all be asking Paddy.

9.1.2. where there is an inordinate frequency and/or highly unusual pattern of Bets placed on the same selection(s) and where the theoretical probability of said selection(s) winning at the time of Bet(s) placement, based on the odds offered on the selection(s) at the time of Bet placement, is largely inconsistent with the theoretical probability of the same selection(s) winning calculated using their starting prices;
Blimey, that takes some working out!
 

pete

Mare
9.1.2. where there is an inordinate frequency and/or highly unusual pattern of Bets placed on the same selection(s) and where the theoretical probability of said selection(s) winning at the time of Bet(s) placement, based on the odds offered on the selection(s) at the time of Bet placement, is largely inconsistent with the theoretical probability of the same selection(s) winning calculated using their starting prices;
strikes me that any horse who's odds shorten at any time could qualify under the above rule.
The reason for shortening the odds is to even out the discrepancies noted above ... no?
I guess they would need to quantify the phrase "largely inconsistent"
 
Top