Rule 4 deductions for tennis?

[bergeroo]

I hardly ever bet horse racing but I kind of know what Rule 4 is.

I recently made an each way bet on Jack Sock to win the tennis in Paris. He hosed up at 66/1 however when I checked my returns I was about 25% short. They initially paid me the correct amount, then removed it, then paid me a lesser amount.

I queried it with them and the reply was:

"After looking into this for you. I can see this be was settled with a 30p rule 4. This was due to a player pulling out." - I'm not really sure what it means and how they applied it to the amount I got paid for the tournament.

Nadal did pull out, but Sock won all five of his matches to conclusion.

Can they do this, pay me a lesser amount. I had no idea rule 4 could be applied to tennis. Nadal won two matches before pulling out of his quarter final and I placed my bet at the beginning of the tournament.

It seems dodgy to me. Am I within my right to complain about this?

[bookiebasher]

On the bare facts this looks incorrect.

That scenario equates to betting on a horse race and the hot favourite falls

half way round and the bookie makes a rule 4 on the winner.

Once players have started a tournament then I cannot see why a Rule 4
would apply.

Would take it up with customer service to explain the situation and to get them
to quote their specific terms and conditions in relation to R4.

Certainly looks dodgy to me.

[bergeroo]

yes I'm exchanging mails right now. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The thing is. People pull out of tennis matches every tournament but I've never heard of using rule 4 before in any of my previous bets that won. Surely if this was an actual thing then it would apply in every tennis tournament as someone almost always pulls out at some stage.

[bookiebasher]

Quote my scenario of a horse falling or being pulled up in a horse race.

They don't do Rule 4 for that so why in a tennis tournament.

It would have to be a very specific term in their tennis rules but I
have never heard of a similar situation.

Once an event has started its a case of "All In".

[bergeroo]

Will compare it to that, thanks.

Have asked to see the t and cs.

[bergeroo]

Alright, the reason they did it is because Federer pulled out and not Nadal.

I bet it on the Sunday directly after the Basel final as I wanted to oppose Fed and Nadal and Federer pulled out later that evening.

Quote from the firm

"This is the number 2 rule in our betting rules for tennis.

2. Outright

Non-runners: Stakes will be refunded on players or teams withdrawn prior to the start of an event. We reserve the right to deduct the equivalent of Tattersalls Rule 4(c) to reflect returning stakes on non-runners.

The reason there was a rule 4 was due to Roger Federer pulling out of the Paris masters."

So I guess I can't do anything and those are the rules and they get to cover themselves either way.

[doubleup]

What is the bookie?

[bergeroo]

Doubleup - it was to account for Federer they said - who pulled out on the evening before the event. Do your criticisms of the firm still apply?

Completely outrageous.

First, I don't think rule 4 applies to tennis Rule 4 deductions were originally part of Tattersall’s Rules of Racing. Tattersall’s are one of the organisations which historically helped to organise and codify horse racing in Britain and Ireland. (from Ladbrokes rules).  Whoever the bookie is might have some rules about withdrawn players but I have never seen such a rule.

Second, bookiebashers point.  Nadal withdrew during the tournament so even if they had such a rule it wouldn't apply.  

So tell them to settle the bet properly and PLEASE copy all about the incident to info@gamblingcommission.gov.uk - as the bookies behaviour here is close to theft.

And finally  

[bookiebasher]

That does make more sense now.

Seems perfectly reasonable if he withdraws before the tournament begins if they
have it in their rules.

I do hope they also refunded all Federer bets and not counted them as losers citing
ante-post rules.

[bergeroo]

That does make more sense now.

Seems perfectly reasonable if he withdraws before the tournament begins if they
have it in their rules.

I do hope they also refunded all Federer bets and not counted them as losers citing
ante-post rules.

yes it would have been better if they explained it after they paid out or in one of the first three emails from customer service, but yeah, seems somewhat reasonable at least.

/thread I guess.

[doubleup]

obv I edited when I saw your post about Federer. 

Still would like to know the book and look at their rules.  You might remember Dustin Johnston pulling out of the Masters this year when a short fav, there wasn't a rule 4 type deduction from books or the exchange.  Also you see from my deleted post that rule 4 is derived from horse racing where there is a market price for a horse* rather than an individual book deciding what price he was at withdrawal.

*not 100% true for early prices now but certainly applied when rule 4 was invented.

[doubleup]

billhills tennis rules state

If the selected player withdraws before the given tournament begins, bets placed on this market will stand.

VC state shockingly


1. Outright Betting
All outright bets shall stand irrespective of whether the player competes.  If a tournament is not completed, and a single player/team deemed to be the winner, then all outright bets will be void. In the event of a player withdrawing, outright and quarter betting markets may be subject to a Tattersalls Rule 4.

So they seem to keep the bets on the non-runners and rule 4 the winners - bubbly for the shareholders indeed.

I would be IBASing VC on the basis of unfair terms.

So the entire section of the rules is relevant - if they didn't return bets on Federer, then I would IBAS.

[The Camel]

Bergeroo in "I've got a Chandlers account" shocker.

[bergeroo]

was with the bald one actually...Not sure how my VC account is these days!

[doubleup]

Can't remember seeing such inconsistency among books.  Can't see the best option: no rule 4 and stakes returned on NR, but all other options seem to be out there.  Def worth checking before you bet if in any doubt about participation.