I’d lean toward saying you do have a cause for complaint.
Certainly I think you did the right thing. You noticed the ambiguity, you contacted the book seeking clarification before the match started, and your e-mail very clearly stated your position. There’s nothing in your wagering or your e-mail that comes across to me as “taking a shot” or the like. (The only thing I might suggest for next time is that in a situation where time is of the essence—that is, where you’re trying to get them to commit to whatever interpretation they choose prior to the match so that you know where you stand—you might want to phone them or try a live chat or something where you have a better chance of getting an immediate response.)
Taken in isolation, I would say it is reasonable for the book to cancel wagers like this once they become aware of the ambiguity. However, the experiences you cite of the other bettors are relevant here. Apparently there are precedents for their interpreting this style of bet—and indeed this specific bet—as being on the match and not the whole tournament. Given that, there would have to be some special justification for canceling your wager since they did not cancel all of them.
And the only apparent difference is that you took the time to alert them to the ambiguity and to ask that your wager be cancelled if and only if they intended it to be for the whole tournament. I don’t see that as sufficient grounds to “punish” you by canceling what apparently would have been a winning wager had you not spoken up.
It’s not an easy situation, because we know and they know that had Fleming not been the top goal scorer, no bettor would seek to reopen this matter and argue that the bet should be reinstated. But I would say that because they erred in posting the lines ambiguously to begin with, and because they further missed the opportunity you gave them to communicate with you on this matter and settle how it should be handled before the outcome of the bet was determined, it makes sense that they be the party slightly disadvantaged by our now knowing the outcome.
|