Skybet Rule 4 deduction. Advice Please

[Stevesharpe]

Hey all.

I'm in dispute with Skybet over a Rule 4 deduction. The sum in question isn't a fortune, it's £55 BUT you'd not be happy if someone stole that amount from your wallet, right?

I placed my £50 free bet at odds of 12 and it won. Just prior to the off a horse was withdrawn, Skybets last odds were 8/1, and sporting life have recorded the SP as 8/1 too. Therefore I was expecting a reduction of 10p in the pound so £495. I have however been paid out at 20p so £440. I have been on live chat and after 30 minutes they say that the rule 4 is based on the price the horse was at when I placed my bet, not at the odds it was withdrawn at. These odds they claim were 4/1

I have searched tattersall's rule 4c using google. Unfortunately I could only find a pdf so I will have to type it (word for word), not paste it

In the case of bets made at a price on the day of the race before it has been officially notified that a horse has been withdrawn before coming under starters orders or has been declared not to have started, the liability of a layer against any horse remaining in the race, win or place, will be reduced in accordance with the following scale depending on the odds current against the withdrawn horse at the time of such official notification

That last statement to me is unambiguous and is not open for interpretation, the current odds at the time of withdrawal. Skybet are claiming this means the current odds at the time the bet was placed.

So, who's right?

[doomed]

There are people more qualified than me to give you an opinion. But FWIW I believe you are right since:

- their rules state "winning bets will be subject to deductions in accordance with Tattersalls Rule 4 (c)" and as you have noted, this is based on odds at the time of withdrawal

- if they try to argue their rules do not actually state "based on odds at the time of withdrawal" then that just means the Tattersalls definition applies since skybet's rules state "All bets are governed by Tattersalls Rules of Betting. These rules will govern the settlement of bets if anything occurs that is not covered by our stated rules"

- also, if you check skybet's rules for place only bets, they state "If a horse is withdrawn not coming under starter's orders, all stakes for that selection will be refunded and winning bets will be subject to deductions in accordance with Tattersalls Rule 4 (c). Any deduction will be based on the current Win price at the time of the withdrawal and will apply to the Place Only market." How can they argue that the deductions work differently to this for win only and each way bets?

Good luck with sorting this out.

[Fella]

This is an interesting one. My first thought was that you (OP) are definitely correct.

Thinking about it some more though, that would mean that if, for, example, the withdrawn horse had been backed right in to even money, under your interpretation you'd have been hit by a massive rule 4 of 45p in the pound because of the withdrawal of a horse that was 8/1 when you bet.

So there's a reasonable case to make that the rules Sky are applying could be considered fair.

However, that aside, I've not heard of R4 being applied this way so regardless of which system is fairer or less fair (or perhaps they're equally fair) I'd have expected a 10p R4 just as you did. GL with it, hopefully they'll pay up.

[Stevesharpe]

I'd not thought of it that way Fella. I can't imagine a situation where a bookie applies a 10p reduction because a withdrawn Evs fav was 8/1 at the time you backed the winner though. Surely the whole point of rule 4 is to protect bookies from massive liabilities when short price horses are withdrawn. Applying rule 4 in this way all the time could leave them open to a massive liability in the unlikely scenario that a steamer is withdrawn just before the race

[Fella]

Yeah it's definitely an intersting one, surprised it's not cropped up before. From a matching perspective it would add a whole new element of risk to horse betting if Sky (& any others) apply the rules that way. The main thing that keeps R4 from being too much of a hazard is the fact that bookie odds & betfair odds are mostly in line when something is withdrawn. That obviously wouldn't be the case with the Sky interpretation.

[Stevesharpe]

I'm home from work now so I've rung Skybet and spoke to a trader. He claims that Tattersalls rule 4c applies to show prices, not early prices as it was specifically introduced for on course bookmakers.

I asked if rule 4 was applied across all racing markets using the same criteria, he said yes. I then quoted the place only t & c as per the post by doomed and was told this was a "special" market and treated differently.

The upshot is they aren't going to pay and if I want to take it to IBAS they're happy for me to do this. So from experience is it worth the hassle or should I forget it and not go near Skybet again?

[doomed]

I guess the trader is referring to rule 4d:

d) In the event of:
i) an announcement being made that the provisions of Rule 4 (C) do not apply on the grounds that no market had been formed at the time of the withdrawal of an overnight declared runner, or
ii) the number of an overnight declared runner not appearing in the number board,
all bets (other than ante-post bets) made at a price prior to either eventuality will be settled at Starting Price with the exception of bets struck at nationally advertised or publically transmitted prices when Rule 4(C) will operate, based on the advertised price or the first transmitted price of the withdrawn horse(s).

(I found the full rules at http://www.horse-racing-student.co.u...alls-rules.asp)

I confess I hadn't appreciated until now what this meant and I'm still reflecting on the implications - the risk of a substantial difference between the bookies' R4 and betfair deductions is one I hadn't previously contemplated.

The rules published on bookies' websites in general are quite pathetic at explaining these practices. Ladbrokes are the only ones I have found to spell out clearly (well almost) what the trader told you (https://www.ladbrokes.com/lb_portal/...rseracing.html - see under Withdrawals/Non-Runners)

[musicbox]

I placed my £50 free bet at odds of 12 and it won. Just prior to the off a horse was withdrawn, Skybets last odds were 8/1, and sporting life have recorded the SP as 8/1 too. Therefore I was expecting a reduction of 10p in the pound so £495. I have however been paid out at 20p so £440.

For the part I have bolded and with saying SP, are you talking about the horse you backed?

[Stevesharpe]

The SP of 8/1 was for the horse that was withdrawn. I realise that a non-runner can't technically have a starting price, so I assume this was it's show price when it was withdrawn. The withdrawal was very late, within 5 minutes of the off

[musicbox]

Good stuff, didn't think you were because of the detail in the rest of the thread but just for clarity wanted to double check that one.

I was reading the Tattersalls Committee pdf consultation paper from Sep 09 which contained the current rules and proposed changes and, tbh, I can't personally identify which rules says that would happen even after a few reads. I'm used to reading contracts and terms and stuff but I'm looking at 4d above and it's a bit beyond me.

The only thing I've read which clearly states what's happened to you is Ladbrokes' website which doomed linked to: "For bets at Early Prices, the application of Rule 4(c) will be determined by the Early Price of the withdrawn horse at the time your bet was placed regardless of the price at the time of withdrawal." But is that an industry rule... their rules start off by saying: "All bets will be settled in accordance with the UK Rules of Racing except in the following circumstances." and then that is afterwards with all the other stuff.

What's clear is that it's pretty difficult for the average punter to understand such a thing would happen unless it is presented to them like Ladbrokes have done. Even then, with all the thousands of EP bets we must have placed between us, to never have had this highlighted before is a surprise if it is industry standard (which it may be, I do not know).