[The General]

Player bets Kahn to win in 5. The fight is called in round 5 because of the bloody head of Barrera due to a head clash. How do you grade the wager?

Thanks

[headgames]

If the fight had been stopped in the first 4 rounds then a no decision would have been announced with the cut being caused by a head clash.

Since the fight was stopped in round 5, a winner could be declared using the scorecards. Khan was announced the victor by technical decision which is a recognised method of victory and unless it is specified such a method doesn't count in the market the player bet on, then I would expect to be paid out if that was my bet.

[tomcowley]

It's a win by (technical) decision in 5 rounds. Khan wins. Khan by decision wins. The under (I assume it was more than 5) wins. Khan in exactly round 5 wins. It's not the most common set of outcomes, but it's pretty clear which fighter won, how he won, and when he won. This isn't a "no contest".

[The General]

The bet was graded a push since a rule states that a decision, Technical included, reverses to the previous round for round betting. Confusing, but I like to believe it was graded this way across the board.


Edit: 031809 1025 - The bet was graded a loser.

[tomcowley]

How is it a push instead of a loss then? Can you quote that book's boxing rules, or say what book it is?

[The General]

It is Centrebet and

3.5 Boxing
All bets on either boxer to win will be decided by the judges' decision, which includes points, technical knockout (TKO), knockout (KO) or disqualification.
If a price is offered for the draw, in the event of a draw all bets on either boxer to win will be losers.
In round-by-round betting, if a boxer fails to answer the bell, the fight will be deemed to have ended in the previous round.

[The General]

The player is stating that he wagered Khan to win in 3,4 & 5 prior to the match. Apparently since it did not go to the scorecard, the wagers are losers? He was refunded the amount of his 5th round wager.

[headgames]

Barrera answered the bell and was up fighting in round 5 so the player's "Khan to win in round 5" bet was still alive.

There is nothing in the round betting rule to suggest a technical decision won't count as a method of victory. With it being a recognised method of victory then there should be no reason to exclude it anyway.

Khan was declared the victor by technical decision in round 5. You can only win by technical decision if its gone to scorecards so I don't know how centrebet could conclude scorecards weren't used! Perhaps they could just read any news report on the fight to see that it was scorecards deciding Khan won in the 5th and that grading as a push makes little sense.

[tomcowley]

The fight ended at 2:36 of round 5 and round 5 was scored on the judges' cards, as is standard for a partially completed round. He didn't fail to answer the bell for round 5. The bet should win.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...4558&cat=boxer

Centrebet is completely full of crap here and is just running an Enterbet-style freeroll. Keep all the losers and void all the winners.

[The General]

I am seeking to understand Centrebet's rules regarding this grading.

[TruckerJoe]

Betfair graded my wager on Khan to win in round 5 as a winner.

They have it nice and clear in their rules:

Who will win this fight and when? If a fight is stopped & a technical decision is awarded before the full number of rounds are completed, or a boxer is disqualified, Betfair will settle bets on the round in which the fight was stopped. This market will be suspended at the scheduled start time.

Centrebet have made a mistake IMO

[The General]

I have asked them to review this thread and also a thread at Betfair forums discussing this decision.

[headgames]

I should say that I've played at centrebet without issue for quite some time. I like them. However, after logging into betfair and going to the boxing forum to find the thread, I'm amazed by their correspondence to the player and how they are completely missing the point.


"Our terms and conditions state that for a boxer to win on points, the full scheduled number of rounds must take place for the bets to be deemed winners. As the match did not complete the pre-assigned number of rounds, your bet is not a winner. (they actually state for all bets on a boxer to win on points as you can see below)

3.5 Boxing

All bets on either boxer to win will be decided by the judges’ decision, which includes points, technical knockout (TKO), knockout (KO) or disqualification.

If a price is offered for the draw, in the event of a draw all bets on
either boxer to win will be losers.

In round-by-round betting, if a boxer fails to answer the bell, the
fight will be deemed to have ended in the previous round.

For all bets on a boxer to win on points, the full scheduled number of rounds must take place for the bets to be deemed winners.

If the scheduled number of rounds is changed all ‘pick the round’ bets are void and bets refunded."



They go on to confirm this is why they are not paying him:

"The match was decided on points at the end of the fifth round. For all bets on a boxer to win on points, the full scheduled number of rounds must take place for the bets to be deemed winners. This match did not complete the full scheduled number of rounds as it was scheduled for 12 rounds."

They are using a rule specifically about bets made on a boxer to win on points against a player who hasn't even made such a bet.

A wager on Khan to win in round 5 is not a Khan to win on points wager. The player's wager did not require 12 rounds to be completed to be settled as a winner or loser. If it did require 12 rounds, the wager couldn't win even when Khan wins in round 5! Glaringly obvious.

Using Centrebet's terms, I can only see one way to arrive at the decision:

1. All bets on either boxer to win will be decided by the judges’ decision (which it came down to, scorecards - KHAN WIN)

2. If a price is offered for the draw, in the event of a draw all bets on either boxer to win will be losers. (not applicable)

3. In round-by-round betting, if a boxer fails to answer the bell, the
fight will be deemed to have ended in the previous round. (They were 2 1/2 minutes into round 5 so the bell was answered- ROUND 5)

4. For all bets on a boxer to win on points, the full scheduled number of rounds must take place for the bets to be deemed winners. (not applicable, the bet wasn't for a boxer to win on points)

5. If the scheduled number of rounds is changed all ‘pick the round’ bets are void and bets refunded. (not applicable, the number of rounds wasn't changed).

Tighten up your rules and be more clear, sure. But don't settle incorrectly against both common sense and also your own existing terms.

[tomcowley]

I'm pretty sure that 4 and 5 got added this afternoon. I looked at the book rules and I could swear that only 1 through 3 were actually there, although I'm on 3 hours of sleep, so..

Regardless, their terms don't even cover what happened.

Edit: they didn't even get added, they're just making things up. Their full rules are:

3.5 Boxing
All bets on either boxer to win will be decided by the judges' decision, which includes points, technical knockout (TKO), knockout (KO) or disqualification.


If a price is offered for the draw, in the event of a draw all bets on either boxer to win will be losers.


In round-by-round betting, if a boxer fails to answer the bell, the fight will be deemed to have ended in the previous round.

----


Absolutely nothing to support their ridiculous position.

[The General]

We appreciate your feedback, guys.

Thank you

[The General]

If referring to the rules, I copied at the onset of the complaint and they were as listed above on the TOC's and boxing.

[The General]

I found this article while attempting to understand the decision this morning.



Northern Ireland’s Joe Swail has found himself snookered on a boxing bet with Paddy Power.

It all centres around Amir Khan’s win last Saturday night over Mexican legend Marco Antoinio Barrera.

The result caught most of the layers on the ropes as their boxing rules were not clear in providing a definitive settlement.

So it was a case of variations on a theme and while some waited for PP to pay out on cue or return stakes as is their wont in such situations, it was rival firms instead who settled on the different scenarios.

Paddy Power are sticking solidly to their view that the decision was a points win for Khan, although the fight was stopped by the doctor in the fifth round after Barrera suffered a cut through an accidental clash of heads.

Joe’s bet was for Khan to win by a knockout or a TKO (3-1) at anytime in the fight which many would view as the fight not going the distance.

But it’s not a simple as that since the introduction of a points decisions if a fight is stopped by way of an accidental cut.

The boxing authorities feel that it is a fairer outcome as a boxer could be miles in front on points and then be forced to retire through no fault of his own.

And while Barrera was on his way to defeat and would probably have been knocked out anyway, the official decision was a technical points win for Khan as he had won all five rounds on the three judges scorecards.

PP have a rule which states: “Where a contest finishes before the completion of the scheduled number of rounds and the winner is decided by the judge’s scorecard (technical decision/technical draw), then all round bets will deemed losers.”

Now while the Swail bet did not specify a round, it actually covered the fight not to be decided on points.

The firm’s argument and a correct one is that the fight was indeed decided on points.

For example, if Barrera had been ahead on the scorecards, he would have been the victor, even though he was forced to quit.

If Joe had done his bet with Coral, Hill’s, Ladbrokes or Stan James, he would have been paid as they settled on a fifth round TKO.

McLean’s settled the same way as PP. Their rule is absolutely clear, namely: “Where a contest is stopped and the result determined by points, then for betting purposes the contest has gone the distance and ‘on points’ will be successful and bets on inside the distance will be losers.”

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14231343.html


Centrebet has provided me with this note:

In regards to your query on the grading, If either fighter wins the bout
? by the other fighter being unable to continue or failing to answer the
bell ? then the market is paid on the winner and round. If the fight
goes all 12 rounds, or is determined by technical decision, the market
is paid on the winning fighter ?By Decision?.

The winning option was Khan, Amir by decision. All bets placed on
rounds 3, 4 and 5 were losing bets.

However, we understand the confusion and without setting any precedent
for the future have refunded his *** EUR on KAHN, Amir Round 5 as a
gesture of goodwill.

[tomcowley]

It's horseshit. Pinnacle, 5d, greek, DonBest, the nevada athletic commission, and whatever the english regulatory body is all consider this a r5 win by decision. With no rule on point, it's ridiculous to rule otherwise. They can't tell the difference- or are willfully obtuse- when it comes to "winning by decision" and "goes the distance". The former has nothing to do with a round bet, and the latter does, but didn't happen.

All bookies mentioned (except Mclean's, which I don't recognize and can't find on google) explicitly rule this as a round 5 win for round-by-round betting.

StanJames
Round by round betting: If, for any reason, a points decision is awarded before the full number of rounds are completed, bets will be settled on the round in which the fight was stopped. Bets which nominated 'to win on points' will only be deemed winners if the full number of rounds are completed.

Coral
41.4
Points Decision. If a fight is decided by a points decision before the full number of rounds has been completed, then the winner will be deemed to have won in the round that the fight was stopped, and bets on either fighter to win on points will be losers.
(that's plain as day- nicely written rule)

WillHill
e) Round by Round Betting: If for any reason a points decision is awarded before the full number of rounds are completed, or a boxer is disqualified, bets will be settled on the round in which the fight was stopped. Bets which nominate 'to win on points' will only be deemed winners if the full number of rounds are completed. If for any reason the selected number of rounds on which we are betting is changed, all round by round bets will be void. If a boxer withdraws during the period between rounds the fight is deemed to have ended in the previous round. The bell will signal the end of a round and the bell being sounded again will signal the start of the next round.

Ladbrokes
Round by Round betting - If a fight is stopped before the full number of rounds have been completed, or if a boxer is disqualified and a points decision is awarded, bets will be settled on the round in which the fight was stopped.

PaddyPower
Round By Round Betting
Where a boxer fails to answer the bell for the next round, his opponent shall be deemed to have won the contest in the previous round. If for any reason a points decision is awarded before the full number of rounds are completed, bets will be settled on the round in which the fight stopped. Bets which nominate to "win on points" will only be deemed winners if the full number of rounds are completed. Should for any reason the scheduled number of rounds be changed, all round by round bets will be void.


The problem is that bookies listed

Khan R1
Khan R2
....
Khan by decision

when the last line should be "Khan wins and the fight goes the distance".

In ROUND BY ROUND BETTING, it's obvious that "by decision" refers to "goes the distance". The bookies are trying to make the perverse argument that a fight that is a decision is considered to have gone the distance, but with no rule on point, and athletic commissions disagreeing, that's a ridiculous point of view to take. Paddy is just trying a monster freeroll here- calling all round bets losers by saying the fight "is considered to have gone the distance" and then not paying on "by decision" because the fight didn't go the distance. Centrebet is just wrong.

[VegasDave]

It's horseshit. Pinnacle, 5d, greek, and the nevada athletic commission all consider this a r5 win by decision. With no rule on point, it's ridiculous to rule otherwise.

I can't say I disagree... refunding the money as a "token of good will" isn't the same thing as paying the win, which it sounds like it was.

[Santo]

I think McLeans have the most logical rule, and Centrebet (and Paddy) would do well to adopt it if they want to stick with this interpretation. I can actually see this one both ways; but as in the WBC post yesterday I think if in doubt you have to settle by the letter of the rules.

As they say "For all bets on a boxer to win on points, the full scheduled number of rounds must take place for the bets to be deemed winners." the McLean rule obviously isn't in place, and thus I think they should have graded it a win.

[pbitter]

Just wanted to drop in as the guy who is actually suffering in this case...have also to mention that they had the best price on round 5 win, so I guess they have some liability which also plays a certain role in their decision finding process...

[tomcowley]

Can somebody link me to mclean's, or is it some kind of brick and mortar only shop?

[Santo]

It's an Irish Brick & Mortar shop / chain (?), no web presence. Back when I was betting horses a lot they had a teletext (not sure if you have that in the US) service where you could phone up.

[rookie]

Paddy is just trying a monster freeroll here- calling all round bets losers by saying the fight "is considered to have gone the distance" and then not paying on "by decision" because the fight didn't go the distance.

Are you sure that PP have NOT paid on "by decision" ? They have Points or decision option for Method of Victory market for this weekend's fight.

Bet365 has settled it as Technical decision win for Khan for Round betting, Round group betting and Fight outcome (method of victory) markets and they had "Khan by decision or technical decision" (NOT Khan on points) as one of the options for all three markets.

[tomcowley]

If paddy is doing that with their listed rules, then they're completely retarded. "This bet does not win. We pay it off."

Bet365 has
"For betting purposes betting on rounds or groups of rounds is for a fighter to win by KO, TKO or disqualification during that round or group of rounds. In the event of a Technical Decision before the end of the fight all bets will be settled as a win by Decision."

which is the same as the McLean's rule.

If Bet365 actually had the event listed as

Khan R1
Khan R2
...
Khan by decision or technical decision

then they're covered- they had the rule, and the market was obvious, even if the rules themselves are dumb.

I just don't understand how this is even an issue- it's not rocket science to list the event as:

Khan wins in R1
Khan wins in R2
...
Khan wins at the distance (or "Khan wins by decision after 12 (full) rounds")

and score based on what happened. The fight ended in the middle of round 5. It was a decision. Books that manage to mangle markets so badly that they list 2 bets that nominally win, need rules to distinguish these outcomes, fail to apply clear rules, apply rules that don't exist, etc... the incompetence baffles me.

[rookie]

Tom

I think you are mixing it up with two different markets vis-a-vis PP. The guy mentioned in the article made a bet on Khan by KO/TKO as Method of victory. PP seem to have settled it as Khan by Points/Decision and it seems fair because it was a TD not a TKO.

But, for round betting, they don't have "points or decision" as one of the betting options but draw is there!! It is a potential freeroll option for them given their rule.

This weekend's round betting:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action...7&disp_cat_id=

PP's rules:


Round By Round Betting
Where a boxer fails to answer the bell for the next round, his opponent shall be deemed to have won the contest in the previous round. If for any reason a points decision is awarded before the full number of rounds are completed, bets will be settled on the round in which the fight stopped. Bets which nominate to "win on points" will only be deemed winners if the full number of rounds are completed. Should for any reason the scheduled number of rounds be changed, all round by round bets will be void.


Where a contest finishes before the completion of the schedule number of rounds and the winner is decided by the judges' scorecards (Technical Decision/Technical Draw) then all round bets will be deemed losers.

But, doesn't first part in bold contradict the second one ?

[headgames]

In the case of Joe Swail, if his bet was for a Khan victory by KO or TKO, neither happened so there is nothing to complain about as a TKO is not the same as a TD.

pbitter, I'm sorry to hear of your problem with Centrebet. It's not an acceptable decision they've arrived at and they are neither following common sense nor their own rules, merely enforcing a rule upon your "Khan to win in round 5" wager which is clearly for implementation on a "Khan to win on points" wager, a wager you never made.

As well as them enforcing the wrong rule on your wager, they are also wrong in even that rule enforcement. The records show Khan won by technical decision in the 5th and not by points. Whilst points decide a victor by technical decision, it is not the same as saying Khan won on points - a result which is arrived at after the completion of all rounds and going to the judges.

[tomcowley]

You're right on what Joe's bet was. I misread. They do appear to be running a freeroll by design on round bets.

[pbitter]

By the way, I have sent this to IBAS. I will let you know how they decide.

[headgames]

Good luck, pbitter. I can see no way Centrebet can argue what they've done to you is in anyway to an acceptable industry standard or fair considering they haven't settled in accordance with their own rules, a key principle to adhere to for IBAS adjudications.

[pbitter]

IBAS response in short:
2. The Panel have established that the outcomes offered in the market the customer backed in were as follows:
- Either boxer to win in a specific round by a knockout or technical knockout.
-A decision or technical decision to either boxer in any round
- The bout to be drawn
3. As Khan was deemed the winner as a result of a technical decision at the end of the 5th round (based on the three judges' scorecards) then it is clear that Centrebet settled the customer's bet correctly as a loser.

[tomcowley]

Sorry man. What makes this disgusting is that if their exposure had been different, and they'd paid out R5 and not by decision, and a player had appealed, IBAS, SBR, and Ray Charles would have seen that their grading in that case was obviously correct and consistent with their rules.

[stardvd555]

If the fight had been stopped in the first 4 rounds then a no decision would have been announced with the cut being caused by a head clash.