PDA

View Full Version : Question in relation to Pulis betting saga


Punz
15-09-2014, 10:29 AM
Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, I don't post very often.

This has been on my mind since the whole Pulis betting saga and wondered if one of you experts could answer my question. I just wanted to know what are the rules in regards to placing bets on something that you have been tipped off on?

If the bookies allow you to bet on things such as managerial departures, is that not their own fault for opening themselves up for people to place bets on something they may have an insight on?

GreatGonzo
15-09-2014, 10:32 AM
No you are not allowed to bet on something that you contorl the outcome of.

Betting debt are also not legally enforcable i don't think so if the bookies suspect it is the case i think they can withold paying your winnings and make you try to fight it.

selhurst star
15-09-2014, 10:42 AM
They know they are opening themselves up to people with inside information. Which is why they only take pennies on these markets. It's a novelty market, they won't expose themselves for much, it's more to gain them publicity.

Punz
15-09-2014, 10:50 AM
Thanks for the responses and it makes more sense now. I guess the person who made a bet on the south coast probably had to fight to get their money.

A smarter person would probably work their way around it and tell someone up North to place the bet haha.

JamTheEagle
15-09-2014, 11:29 AM
I imagine most people betting large amounts of money on stuff like this have inside info. If the market is there on betfair and people are laying the price then I see no issue whatsoever.

eagle mart
15-09-2014, 11:54 AM
I would have stuck 50 on Pulis at 40/1 and stuck another 30 on someone else further out. Then doubled both accordingly as the odds dropped into 20/1.

How could they question the one bet and not the other just because it won?

SE25 exile
15-09-2014, 12:00 PM
They should stick to the gee gees, and not make humans and their lives, a gambling minefield in the first place.

Punz
15-09-2014, 01:21 PM
That is a good point eagle mart.

On a separate note, I don't think it is unethical to place a bet on something you have information on. It's not like it is match fixing for example.

I'm sure there would of been people who were given the heads up about Warnock before he was officially appointed.

pfc
30-09-2014, 02:53 AM
No you are not allowed to bet on something that you contorl the outcome of.

Betting debt are also not legally enforcable i don't think so if the bookies suspect it is the case i think they can withold paying your winnings and make you try to fight it.

Thats not strictly true as trainers can bet on horses

Northern_palace
19-11-2014, 11:30 PM
Backing on betfair is completely different owing it being a market trading environment. You're not betting against a bookie, simply against another person who doesn't think the event will happen. In that sort of situation you would've sure to get your money.

Gooders
22-11-2014, 02:42 PM
I would have stuck 50 on Pulis at 40/1 and stuck another 30 on someone else further out. Then doubled both accordingly as the odds dropped into 20/1.

How could they question the one bet and not the other just because it won?

Most High Street bookies wouldn't have let you have 50 on. They would probably limit you to about 20 at those odds. I tried to have 20 on Mick McCarthy at about 8/1 a few appointments ago having been tipped off by an "ITK" and Jennings wouldn't take it until they'd phoned an area manager.

Wish they hadn't taken it at all of course given that my ITK wasn't, as is usually the case, tbh.