Are Tennis Rules Fair - Retirement

[Conman]

Speaking through my pocket (slightly) but tennis rules don’t appear fair.

I backed Ajla Tomljanovic to win 2 sets to nil. Despite winning the first set, leading in the second and the opponent Emma Raducanu retiring hurt this bet has been voided and my stake returned.

However my reading of the rules suggests anyone who backed Raducanu to win 2 sets to Nil lost their stake all other bets in this market are returned - giving a no risk profit to the bookie.

Looks like the rules are Heads you lose Tails I don’t lose - in favour of Unibet.

Am I reading this right?

[cris1285]

Obviously there is no way for Raducanu 2-0, so thats lost. But thereotically she still could have won a set, so Tomlja 2-0 is void, at every single bookie. Tomljanovic advanced so the simple moneyline is a winning bet (on unibet). 

[Pionrj]

@ConmanOf course it's fair. When a bet can't go right anymore It's a loss. If the outcome is still a question, it should always be voided IMO. This is not the case in all situation which is kind of stupid, but it can all be found before betting in T&C so it really doesn't matter is it fair or unfair. You're taking the risk when making a bet. 

[Joco]

You guys missed @Conman's point.

• Correct Score bets should be voided if there is no eligible final score (2-0 or 2-1) OR
• Correct Score bets should not be voided (if the 1st set has been played) instead the winner should be awarded the final set as a win by default. (1(2)-0 or 1(2)-1)

Technically speaking 2-0 is no longer possible if a player is down 0-1 so marking the bet lost is correct in that sense but it does heavily favor the bookmaker as stated above because they don't have to pay out any wins in this case while the players either have a voided or a lost bet.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Joco

[Pionrj]

@JocoNo, I didn't miss the point. This is how every site I know does it. When a bet can't go right, it's a loss. Yes, there's a huge house edge on these situations added with their % of expected value with odds. But still, they take the risk by offering you the chamce to win money and you take the risk by betting on those odds and with those T&C they've made. 

[Conman]

Having slept on it and read the comments above. It’s clear to me that the rules are clear but are unfair.

Probably the fairest way to payout would be to settle at the cash out value of the bet at the time of the retirement- although this would lead to other claims of the house profiteering.

I recognise that my bet was a 1/6 shot that I backed at 15/8 but settled as a non runner - but there are other guys out there who had backed the 2-1 results who got a non runner refund on a 4/1 shot that was trading at 10/1+.

The rules are the rules - but they aren’t fair - House Rules.

Close

[Stubbe-Unibet]

I still don't see how it can be unfair in any way, even if you haven't read the rules and are unaware when placing them. The rules are reflected in the odds, obviously. Just like when you place a bet on a goalscorer in football and he has to start on the pitch (on our site, some sites will have the bet valid if player is subbed on with 1 min left of the game).

The rules are this way after decades of experience with custom complaints: this is what we believe is the most "fair" in the sense that the rules are sensible and result in the least complaints possible.

[Conman]

Stubbe, 

thanks for your comment - but I don’t agree.

this is one market I won’t be betting on again - as it is too tilted in your favour.

regards

Conman

 

[User_45339]

It should simply be voided.