10bet voiding Mullinax 175/1 and paying out at 100/1 – Have You Been Impacted?

Last week Bookiebashing and the Smart Betting Club’s Weekly Golf Value service both highlighted Trey Mullinax as a value bet with the bookmaker “10bet” on the Barbasol Championship on Wednesday the 6th July. He won the event with a birdie on the last hole on Sunday the 10th July.

Two days after the event completed (12th July) we received reports from our members that 10bet had zero-ed their accounts – in that (1) limits were zero on all bets and (2) their balances had been removed.

When they went on live chat they were told that the 175/1 was an error, and they were to be paid out at 100/1.

Bookiebashing & the Smart Betting Club deem this to be predatory and unacceptable behaviour. We understand mistakes happen on occasions and we are not in the business of betting on genuine mistakes or taking advantage of them. If a bookmaker misprices a 10/1 bet as 100/1 then we would sympathise and expect the bet to be paid out at 10/1. There are three reasons why we deem 10bets behaviour in settling Trey Mullinax at 100/1 rather than 175/1 as unacceptable:

  1. The price was reasonable when compared with the rest of the market. Mullinax was 150/1 at sportnation, redzonesports and bet365 (all same terms, 5 places 1/4) and 125/1 at betway (7 places, 1/5) at the time that 10bet were offering 175/1 (5 places 1/4).
    Edit: Update to this after feedback in 24 hours since I wrote this blog:
    200/1 VIrginbet – paid out
    175/1 Sportnation – paid out
    175/1 Redzonesports – paid out
    270.0 Betfair Exchange – paid out
    175/1 10bet – voided through a “pricing error”.
  2. The bet was voided 48 hours after it had won. Had this been a genuine mistake 10bet could have voided the bet before the event, or even on Day 1 through to Day 4. All evidence points to 10bet taking on too much liability and penalising the customer through changing the terms 48 hours after Mullinax won.
  3. A price of 270.0 was available on the exchange for Trey Mullinax to win at the time the 175/1 bet was advised. If 10bet had reached their liability they could have easily hedged this bet to assure themselves profit or adjusted the price downwards. The 270.0 available on the exchange shows that a price of 175/1 cannot be an “error” and that it was also not an ‘arb’.

Bookiebashing & the Smart Betting Club intend on raising awareness to this issue and demand that 10bet settle this bet at the original 175/1 price. If you have been affected by this please email us at [email protected] or [email protected] and let us know:

  1. How much you had on
  2. When you placed the bet
  3. The communication you have had from 10bet

We will add you to an email list to keep you updated on the exposure we will be giving to this issue and what we recommend the next steps are. For now we recommend that you tell 10bet that you will not be accepting a payout at 100/1 and that you will be escalating this issue unless they payout at the full odds by the 19th July.

Post Note

For ROI history purposes we will record Trey Mullinax at his 2nd price – 150/1, 5 places 1/4 odds. We hope to apply enough pressure to over-turn 10bets decision, at which point we will revert the ROI history to 175/1.