Tennis: What happens when a player forfeits a match? Sportsbook T&C

[MarcoV]

C.28.2 
“Match” bet offers are based on the general principle of tournament progress or tournament win, depending on which phase of the competition the match refersto. The player/team progressing to the next round or winning the tournament is to be considered as the winner of the bet regardless of match duration, withdrawals, disqualifications, etc. These bets require at least one set to be completed for bets to stand.

Let’s say you place a bet on Rafael Nadal to win against Andy Murray. During 6th game of the first set Murray gets an injury which unfortunately leaves him with no other choice than to forfeit the match. In this scenario, we’ll void any match bet offers, since Murray withdrew from the match during first set. Nadal was already leading 4-1 in first set, having a good chance to win the first set and the match. We understand it may be frustrating to bet on a player that is most likely to win the match, but because the first set wasn’t finished, your bet ends up getting voided. It’s indeed a relevant argument that Nadal was about to win the first set and more important actually won the match, but the rule states that we void any match bet if the first set isn’t completed.
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.

 

[Alex1978]

Im a new customer.  I've just had a bet settled as lost.  Carreno busta WAS winning. Had won the first set.  To lose £18 because of an injury even though he was winning is not acceptable. Rules or no rules. That selection should be void and the rest of it carry on. I would even accept a total bet void. 

[AndreiBN]

---

@Alex1978 wrote:

Im a new customer.  I've just had a bet settled as lost.  Carreno busta WAS winning. Had won the first set.  To lose £18 because of an injury even though he was winning is not acceptable. Rules or no rules. That selection should be void and the rest of it carry on. I would even accept a total bet void. 

---

@Alex1978 , No, it doesn't work like that. Rules are rules in a company. And you agree to those rules when creating the account. And you can not say if he was winning for sure, as he barely won the 1st set in the tie breaker. And if he had not retired and continue playing with his injury, how do you think the game would have been from him? So you can not just say that he was winning as a 100% thing, cause all the real aruments are against you. 

Some customers who bet against Busta are happy now, so this will always be a 50-50 thing. It is not fun when the player you bet on leads with 6-0 ; 5-0 and in the last game his opponent retires and you bet gets voided, no? So this rule has benefits and disadvantages , exactly the same as it goes when you bet gets voided.

[Alex1978]

Sorry I don't fall for that big company 'read the policy' standard reply crap. When a player is 6-0 and 5 up on the verge of winning that doesn't matter to you cuz its effectively gone - way gone !! But when a player retires in bustas position (How do you know what he had would stop him from winning after winning the first) he won that set twice in the end after not serving it out)  it benefits you not the punter and for that reason I'm out....Thanks for replying quickly though. 

[JeppeL]

Hi @Alex1978 and welcome to the community. I understand the frustration - your player looked like he was going to win -  but I have to say that from our side it's not about just having a standard reply, but principles that we stick to.
In that sense, everyone who bet on the opposite outcome were paid out at the same time as your bet was lost, and I find it hard to argue that their bet should all of the sudden be settled as lost - which we should be able to if this were to happen.

/Jeppe 

[Correctsc0re]

Typical maffia. Your 'rules' seem to work always in your favor! 
Had multiple bets being 'voided' by unibet, when the game was going in MY favor!

Good word choice by the way, 'voiding' players'',  'filling' your pockets !

scum

[FreedoM]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if your bet is voided, it means that you get your stake back?

[Stubbe-Unibet]

@Correctsc0re, it does suck when rules don't go your way, and I understand your post is probably written in a very frustrated state. As explained in OP, the rule is this way, as it's what we believe is most fair and result in the least complaints - we do have quite a few years of data and experience to base this on :)

No matter what this particular rule would be - related to when a player forfeits - we'd always have unhappy players, unfortunately. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't, but I don't see how anyone can claim it's unfair or in our advantage.