Sportingbet case - payouts capped at $50k

[chenyan]

Came across an interesting story today whilst researching at work. Craig Horwitz bet approximately $800 on a race in August on Sportingbet, winning the trifecta many times over for a win of just under $511,000. However, Sportingbet has limited its payout to Mr Horwitz to only $50,025, relying on an obscure clause within their site which states that they will only payout "to a maximum payout of $50,000 per Client per event."

I'm stunned that they would risk the negative publicity associated with this decision to include, and then rely on such a ridiculous term. I'll be disappointed if informed punters continue betting on the site with this knowledge. The matter is of course heading for the courts (will be settled before trial so as not to set a precedent and risk huge payouts to other angry customers, not to mention, more press). At issue is the new unfair contract amendments in the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No.1) 2010. These provisions are untested obviously, so the case isn't possible to predict, very interesting and disconcerting nonetheless.

Obvious lesson to be learned is not to bother placing a bet with Sportingbet where the payout is greater than $50,000. It also raises serious concern as to what other restrictive liability caps might exist on other betting sites.

Are other online agencies doing this? I'm right to think a boycott of Sportingbet is surely in order aren't I, not that I regularly use them?


Links:
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blog...ortingbet.aspx

Middletons | Media | Sportingbet's cap on bet payouts challenged as unfair

Read the fine print

[Duff85]

Pretty industry standard to have max payout caps.

It's in place to stop this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/horseraci...387627594.html

It's hard with the books using TAB odds but I guess they shouldn't be allowed to take bets that could potentially break their limits. In my opinion the onus should be on the book to ensure that it is happy with the amount of action that they have taken on and not the punter. That said all punters need to be aware of the max payout that they can win on a particular event at every book that they bet at. Some even have win limits on how much you can win in a particular day etc.

[Duff85]

By the sounds of it too the guy tried to angle shoot their limits:

"In August 2010, Mr Horwitz placed 25 identical First Four bets worth $32 each via Sportingbet's internet site at Race 7, Warwick Farm. He won. Based on the declared dividend of his chosen TOTE, he expected to be paid a total dividend of $510,992.50. Mr Horwitz's expectation that he would be paid the full declared dividend by the TOTE arises from Sportingbet's practice of matching the dividend declared by the TOTE for any winning bet."

[chenyan]

In my opinion the onus should be on the book to ensure that it is happy with the amount of action that they have taken on and not the punter.

Agreed. One of my main concerns is the fact that the book will take your bet and limit your payout should the return be over $50k; but they will not refund any losing wager where the return comes up in excess of $50k. They shouldn't be taking the bet; it's double dipping

That said all punters need to be aware of the max payout that they can win on a particular event at every book that they bet at. Some even have win limits on how much you can win in a particular day etc.

Yes. This is the main reason I posted this snippet. A warning to punters here to beware that trifectas, quaddies and other potentially high-paying bets should not be placed with Sportingbet (and other books shown to have restrictive liability limits).

By the sounds of it too the guy tried to angle shoot their limits:

"In August 2010, Mr Horwitz placed 25 identical First Four bets worth $32 each via Sportingbet's internet site at Race 7, Warwick Farm.

Hard to tell. Obviously his lawyers will not announce news that will create such an implication and the news outlets may have simplified this element of the facts. He may have had a 3200% payout, or have had a large group of trifecta bets placed which overlapped.

If he is shown to be angleshooting, so phrase it, then I don't think he should be entitled to protection from the terms of the site. Another beef I have with this term is the fact that it is effectively hidden away within the rules of the site, when the implications of the term are potentially massive.

All in all, yes, this is to a degree industry standard (50k seems awfully low; I've been told Sportsbet.com.au is 200k). I'm not opposed to a limit being in place theoretically; provided it is not hidden and it's operation is not unfair. I'm led to believe the cap only extends to exotic bets like tri's, F4, quaddies, etc. I am just alerting amateur punters out there like myself who like to place potentially lucrative trifecta and first four bets to beware the online book; read the terms carefully.

[whitey9999]

It sounds pretty shitty that he only got like 10% of what he shouldve. I wouldve said he was angle shooting as probably thought that the limit was applied to each individual bet and not an event.