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

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

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?

Asking for a friend who placed a double on Thursday on Pretty Gorgeous in the 1,000 Guineas with Thunder Moon in the 2,000 Guineas who thinks he get a single on Thunder Moon - as Pretty Gorgeous was withdrawn on Friday. I thought that this will be classified as antepost and therefore it will be settled as a loser. Can someone clarify?