Bookie Refusing to Pay is Not Exactly News is it?

Question of the day: If St. Kilda has the Saints, should not the AFL either change the name or add a new club called the Sinners?

Never try to write about footy and listen to The Rolling Stones at the same time, our old schoolmaster used to say, but that was before we were professional writers on a closed course.

Now, we can always get what we want.

Today’s footy story will strike a chord in the hearts of every punter who has learned the rude reality of wagering.

A young punter named Jonathan Simon had a three-leg multi for $36 on Dusty Martin winning the 2017 Coleman Medal and Billy Slate to win the 2017 Clive Churchill Medal.

Simon placed the punt with Tabcorp, which refused to pay, using as the argument that the bet had the same bet in different legs, which produced the effect of the odds being increased exponentially.

Tabcorp tried to buy off Simon for $5,000, but the young university student told the Herald Sun that he would not back down.

“It’s a matter of principle, I don’t like to be wronged,” Simon said. Tabcorp’s arguments for not paying the bet just don’t make sense. I’m legally entitled to $150,000.”

The actual dividend should have been $147,456, according to Simon’s bet slip. One would think that a maths whiz such as Simon, who is studying statistical Mathematics at Monash, would not have resorted to rounding, but they image of Simon’s receipt seemed to indicate that he is due the money, as Tabcorp accepted his wager.

This sort of thing is all too common, with winners being denied, having limits placed on their wagers, or being banned entirely, but his is nothing new.

For truly shocking news, we would like to learn that high-roller Zeljko had placed a $1 million punt on the Derby, backing favourite Thinkin’ Big, only to see Extra Brut salute, but that TAB had given Ranogajec a refund.

Wait… they already do that. Change that to every poor punter who had a fiver on Thinkin’ Big.