Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubster
I'm not sure if you have a learning disability or something so I'll try to simplify things for you.
There were two wagers pending when the account went into the negative. One was allowed to stand (the bet that put the account into the negative), one was cancelled (a bet that did not put the account into the negative). The bet that put the account into the negative was not cancelled. The bet that did not put the account into the negative was cancelled.
Because of this, and the ambiguous wording in their policy, one reasonable view of the situation would be that they simply cancelled the incorrect game.
Yes, that's exactly right. Not only that: They didn't just cancel it, they waited for the match to end, then upon an unfavourable result,
just deleted it and kept both the winnings and the stake. Why not just cancel the pending bet, which had quite a while till kick-off? And it never showed up in my history (as in, "void" or "cancelled") they simply deleted it, like it never existed.
Not to mention that this practice gives a huge loophole to cheating customers. Following their logic, as a bookmaker you can make a mistake like this, and if the customer makes further bets, you can just await the result of the game(s) and then delete the unfavourable ones??
Does that sound fair and reasonable? I wouldn't mind a fair correction, but this is just absurd. I want them to change this decision.
Last edited by Kathleenwins; 03-25-2017 at 01:07 AM.