[AusRace] More on BetEasy

[L.B.Loveday]

BetEasy sued for $1.2 million after punter landed monster multi-bet


By Damien Ractliffe <https://www.smh.com.au/by/damien-ractliffe-p4yvin> 


April 3, 2020 - 3.05pm

Bookmaker BetEasy is being pursued for close to $1.2 million in unpaid
winnings after it paid punter Renee Bell just $250,000 following a monster
parlay win in May 2018.

In Supreme Court documents filed on Wednesday, Bell claims BetEasy, formerly
CrownBet, was deceptive and misleading when it accepted $500 worth of
multi-bets with a potential return of $1,443,695.90 before claiming it had a
maximum payout limit of $250,000.

A $1.4 million betting payout hinged on West Coast beating Richmond during
round nine in 2018.Credit:AAP

Potential turned into reality for Bell when she successfully tipped horses
Jaminzah ($16), Marcel From Madrid ($9), Praguematist ($4.80) and Miss Iano
($9.50) to win their respective races around Australia on Saturday, May 19,
2018 as well as West Coast to beat Richmond ($1.92) on Sunday, May 20.

The $100 five-leg all-up returned $1,260,748.80, while Bell's other four
$100 bets all used the same horses and football match, but with different
combinations of three horses to place and one to win.

Those four winning parlays returned another $182,447.10.

However, BetEasy paid out just $250,000 for Bell's first successful bet plus
her $100 stake and cancelled the other four bets, refunding her $400.

According to the bookmaker's terms and conditions, "the maximum payout for a
multi-bet for a racing/sports or a combination of both is $250,000."

"It is your responsibility to ensure you stake accordingly to the limits,"
BetEasy's website says.

In the Supreme Court claim, lawyers for Bell argue that BetEasy accepted the
bets without "warning given by [BetEasy] that such maximum payout limits
applied".

"To the contrary, [BetEasy] accepted the full amount of the plaintiff's
stake for each bet without any deduction or limitation and recorded the
plaintiff's bet as returning the full amount of potential winnings," the
statement of claim reads.

"[BetEasy] ought to have paid out to the plaintiff the amount of
$1,443,695.90 in respect of the bets, but only paid the amount of $250,000,
and the plaintiff claims the difference of $1,193,195.90 as a debt."

All four horses in Bell's bets were either part-owned or bred by relatives.

Miss Iano was the first to salute with a comfortable two-length win at
Doomben at big odds, before the Chris Waller-trained Jaminzah won by a neck
in his Flemington race.

Half-an-hour later, Marcel From Madrid claimed a group 3 win at her second
career start at Morphettville before Praguematist won at Wodonga, breaking a
13-month drought.

Bell then faced a nervous sleep as all five multi-bets hinged on West Coast
beating Richmond on the Sunday, which the Eagles eventually did, defeating
the Tigers by 47 points to land the $1.4 million collect.

Alternative to the $1,193,195.90 payout plus interest, Bell is seeking
damages under the Australian Consumer Law.

The Age has contacted BetEasy for comment.

******************

If a bookmaker accepts a bet at fixed odds, the payout is pre-determined and
they should not be able to welch but should be forced to pay out the figure
on the "ticket". TAB price-based bets are not predetermined and it is
reasonable to have a limit for, eg, the First 4 that paid $1m+ on the 2012
Melbourne Cup.

IAS once accepted a multi from me to win $250 BILLION for $1 - that is
clearly fraud; their computers can restrict bets to MBL but will allow such
bets? I brought it to the attention of the NTRC, but of course they did
mothing.   

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20200421/b002a09e/attachment.html>