hintofsarcasm Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 What's the deal with Unibet classing an accumulator or bet as a loss after a player retires midway through a match?I've had two accumulators lose because Nick Kyrgios retired after the second set. I had similar accumulators on with Bet365, Coral and Ladbrokes, they all voided this match and the accumulators continue without it.It might be in Unibet's terms that this is how they do it, but it's a terrible term. By players for players? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreiBN Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 @hintofsarcasmThe rules are different from a betting company to another.On Unibet,if more than a set it's been played,and one of the player retires during the match,the win goes to his/her opponent.Some other companies void all bets,regardless if one of the player retired,even when maybe there is only one game to be played.This had positive and negative sides both ways.Many times i lost my bets on Unibet ,because in the decisive set ,my favourite player retired ,even if she was in the lead.But there has been also good times,when the player that i had my bet on was playing really bad,but his/her opponent retired,and i won the bet.So,there is no general rule about this,it's up to the betting company to set thier rules,and we agree to them when we create an account "When things are bad, it's the best time to reinvent yourself" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hintofsarcasm Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 Yeah, but it's still a terrible term and now I know it exists (who reads these things, really?) I'll be closing my account, and calling Unibet out to my 50k followers on social media, so they all know this term exists and not to use Unibet. Go somewhere that has better terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreiBN Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Well, i think we are all grown ups here and can decide ourselfs where we want to spend our money and which sportsbook to chose.And like i've said in the previous post,many times i've won becuase of this rule,so doesn't change to much for me at least :) Good luck! "When things are bad, it's the best time to reinvent yourself" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeppeL Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 @hintofsarcasm wrote:Yeah, but it's still a terrible term and now I know it exists (who reads these things, really?) I'll be closing my account, and calling Unibet out to my 50k followers on social media, so they all know this term exists and not to use Unibet. Go somewhere that has better terms.Sorry to hear that you're not happy with the settlement rules @hintofsarcasm, if you don't mind posting your twitter, I'd really like to see what your followers there has to say about it.My colleague, Marco, wrote some more about why we settle tennis bets according to this rule in how-to section:On the other hand, we’ve also received complaints in the past from customers betting on a player that gets an injury after the first set is finished, which leads to a valid bet (lost). You might feel that the settlement is unfair, now that your player didn’t lose in a proper manner as the match wasn’t played to the end.The rule for settling a bet on this kind of tennis match variates for each bookmaker. Some bookmakers void all bets in any situation where a player forfeits a match, regardless if the first set has finished or not. Other bookmakers remain all bets as valid, as long is the first ball is served.After several evaluations Unibet has set the line for voiding bets at the end of first set as we believe this rule favours both sides as much as possible. We think that the match has to be played to a certain extent in order to settle bets properly even though a player gets an injury. Unfortunately we’ll never be able to satisfy all customers in tennis matches where a player gets an injury, since there are good arguments on both voiding all bets as well as settling all bets validly./Jeppe Former Community Manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonusPater Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Can you explain how it's more fair to void all bets when a player retires? If you bet on the winner of the match, why shouldn't the bet be won, if the opponent retires? Having the rule that the first set must be played, seems like an ideal solution to me. Kyrgios would have lost the match, even if he hadn't retired.It honestly sounds like you're just butthurt because you lost your (bad) bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psrquack Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 @testuser1 wrote: Can you explain how it's more fair to void all bets when a player retires? If you bet on the winner of the match, why shouldn't the bet be won, if the opponent retires? Ok, then pay the winning ones and void the others. That seems me more fair solution than yours.😛 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonusPater Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 @psrquack, haha, a shame Unibet isn't a charity, would be nice :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.