Reminded - changing bet terms

[incognito123]

Just a reminder to everyone. Unibet can make a bet with you on a set of terms. Then later one-sidedly change the terms. MGA seems to be in on it. I sent pics of the terms on my betting slip and it was just ignored, both Unibet and MGA merely said "These are the terms", referring to the new terms which do not appear on my betting slip.

Poker and other games are OK, there the rules are programmed in. But don't put yourself in a position to be robbed by Unibet by betting with them. Plenty of other sites out there.

 

[psrquack]

Interesting. Exactly what happened? They have modified your bet stake/odds after it was placed?

[Stubbe-Unibet]

Can you post the screenshot and the relevant terms as well? If I agree we messed up, I'll be happy to look into it for you 🙂

[incognito123]

@psrquack I had a on 2020 election with Unibet, since Unibet offered the best terms: A bet on the election result being sorted on the election day or the bet would be void. It had one clause:  "Winner decided by who reaches the required number of Electoral Votes on Election Day. ".

I figured that if the election happened in a day, Trump would take it.. Biden could only win by a longer process (and that's exactly what happened).

However, sometime after placing my bet, Unibet changed the terms. Any new bets had a clause of "If there is no clear winner on election day the offer will be settled as soon as a candidate is projected to win beyond reasonable doubt". Naturally I did not place any further bets with these terms.

 

Unibet then decided that the original terms would not apply, and that they'd be augmented by the addition. And they claimed me trying to get them to respect the original terms (which meant the result in the bet being void) was just trying to get money back from a bad bet.

 

I tried appealing to MGA, even offering to donate any money received to charity, as this is about principle and not money. MGA just rubber stamped Unibet's view and didn't even address my points. Seems like a fair "unbiased arbitrator" to me.

And it's exactly why I'll keep coming back to this and other forums to remind people of this.

 

@Stubbe-Unibet I fell for that once.. I took my complaint off to the side, into PMs.. and then you guys strung me along until dumping me . So no thanks on that. Let's just talk publicly. Please explain to me in simple terms how you can change the terms of my bet retroactively?

 

 

 

[psrquack]

@incognito123: just put the screens of the original terms, your bet id and maybe the time of changing the bet's terms and conditions here, and Stubbe will look on them.

Alternative way would be the Alternative Dispute Resolution (thanks Mr. Tool) here instead of gambling authority: https://ecogra.org/forms/adr-dispute-step-1

[Stubbe-Unibet]

Didn't realize you're on about this bet again. It's already all been covered and discussed here: 

@incognito123, what exactly do you interpret "reach" to mean in this context? Are you claiming you thought 100% of the votes - or enough votes for outcome to be decided 100.0% - had to be counted on election day? Obviously not; never happened and never will (unless the process and law changes). Seems like you're trying to find a bad excuse to recover the loses.

An argument can be made that Biden did reach the required number of votes on election day, as he won the election and all votes were cast on or before election day. Furthermore, the general T&C apply in this case, and it's all been settled according to the terms you've accepted, regardless of how you choose to interpret the text:

2) Unless otherwise specified below or in conjunction with the bet offer, all bets which fall under this section are valid until a result is officially declared regardless of any delays in the announcement, extra voting rounds, etc. which would be needed for the outcome to be announced.

I agree it could be more clear - which is also why it was later clarified/elaborated - but I'm afraid you simply put don't have a case.

Above is my own personal take on it, but the T&C can't really be bend in such a way that they favor you in this context.

[incognito123]

On 11/25/2021 at 12:26 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

 

 

 

Didn't realize you're on about this bet again. It's already all been covered and discussed here:

@incognito123, what exactly do you interpret "reach" to mean in this context? Are you claiming you thought 100% of the votes - or enough votes for outcome to be decided 100.0% - had to be counted on election day? Obviously not; never happened and never will (unless the process and law changes). Seems like you're trying to find a bad excuse to recover the loses.

An argument can be made that Biden did reach the required number of votes on election day, as he won the election and all votes were cast on or before election day. Furthermore, the general T&C apply in this case, and it's all been settled according to the terms you've accepted, regardless of how you choose to interpret the text:

2) Unless otherwise specified below or in conjunction with the bet offer, all bets which fall under this section are valid until a result is officially declared regardless of any delays in the announcement, extra voting rounds, etc. which would be needed for the outcome to be announced.

I agree it could be more clear - which is also why it was later clarified/elaborated - but I'm afraid you simply put don't have a case.

Above is my own personal take on it, but the T&C can't really be bend in such a way that they favor you in this context.

Let's go through this a little bit.. In order of your questions/statements.

1. "reach" is one possible interpretation of the word "saa". In this context it could mean get/reach/have/etc.. The point (and MY interpretation) is that the winner is the one who gets/reaches/is assigned/has the REQUIRED AMOUNT (or more) of electors on the ELECTION DAY.

Why would I make such a bet? Because I believed the mail-in voting would go Biden's way, but it would also delay everything and that there'd be no winner on election day unless it was Trump. I figure, hey, it's most likely a push, but a chance for a win too. Good bet if you go by the terms agreed.

-Please feel free to tell me what YOU think it means.

-Also, if this is about PERSONAL opinions, what about the opinions of your collegue (see attached pics) who has since abruptly stopped communicating with me (even though he is still active on this board). Are you only allowed to express PERSONAL opinions if they are against the player?

 

2. Once again you try to throw this off by claiming I'm after money on a bad bet. I HAVE STATED I AM OK IF THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO CHARITY! My interested is seeing that you don't get money by "stealing" it from bettors. I'm not the one fighting to keep the money wrongly. I believe UNIBET made a bad bet terms and is trying to fix it retroactively.. as you did for later bets, they had different terms, didn't they?

-Please answer instead of dodging this

 

3. You say "An argument can be made that Biden did reach the required number of votes on election day, as he won the election and all votes were cast on or before election day. " ... the BET SAYS NOTHING ABOUT VOTES! IT'S TALKING ABOUT ELECTORS! Besides, if we start making up arguments, how about this: Many of the votes were NOT cast on election day, they were mail-in votes, so they should not count... <-- I'm not making that assertion, I'm just showing you that anyone can make a stupid argument, but that doesn't make the argument true.

 

4. You say: "I agree it could be more clear - which is also why it was later clarified/elaborated - but I'm afraid you simply put don't have a case."

-So you admit the terms were modified later, atleast we agree on something. The terms were clear, you're just pulling T&C out of you a$$ to somehow justify retroactively changing a bet. My bet slip says one thing, you interpret/change it to say another.. <--- THIS IS MY CASE!!