Sports gambling podcasters Bill Krackomberger and Rufus Peabody have accused William Hill US of intentionally delaying accepting in-game wagers in Nevada to create an unfair advantage over certain gamblers. The two said the delays are not due to technology but are deliberate actions by the book to enhance its winning percentage against gamblers.
Krackomberger and Peabody, who both have more than 28,000 Twitter followers, brought up the issue during Week 5 of the National Football League season. The debate exploded on social media on October 11.
Krackomberger said, “William Hill is the only book in Las Vegas that uses the ‘spin/hold in queue’ delay process. What that does is it gives them a chance to look at your bet then check to see if they are in line with the market. Whereas other sportsbooks have to remain on top of their game by constantly changing lines, William Hill doesn’t have to do this. Basically, the customers can play bookmaker for them since they don’t have instant approval software.”
He added William Hill occasionally will “delay the customer and not accept a bet after watching the next play if it’s in the player’s favor. Conversely, if the next play works against the player they will accept it.” Krackomberger added, “William Hill already has a 7-10-second TV broadcasting delay working in their favor. This spin delay is on top of that.” Krackomberger stated he has no confidence in the Nevada Gaming Control Board addressing this situation. “Gaming wouldn’t even understand the situation,” he said.
Peabody said, “I have not experienced it personally. They won’t let me bet. But I have experienced a lot of other shenanigans over the years when they did, and I do know many people who have experienced it directly.”
In response, a William Hill spokesperson said, “It’s an absolutely outrageous allegation. Mr. Krackomberger long has been a critic of William Hill. To criticize us is fine, but to accuse us of cheating is not. We believe this constitutes defamation and are consulting with counsel regarding next steps.”
Longtime industry observer Ed Miller, co-author of the 2019 book The Logic of Sports Betting, said the issue is due to William Hill’s “bet delay and rejection mechanic.” He explained, “Operators often place bets in a queue and intentionally sit on them for a specified period of time. I noticed that period on William Hill’s old in-play product was sometimes up to eight seconds. Then any time the operator’s traders or the traders at the third-party line providers in many cases make a line change, all the bets sitting in the queue on any side or proposition get rejected. The problem is that traders tend to move lines when they are offering their customers better bets.”
Miller added, “There may not be bad intent, but the result of the delay/reject policy is that it tends to be biased toward canceling the better bets that customers make. The longer the delay period, the stronger this bias is. I think it’s fair to think of this mechanic as offering the operator a button they can press at any time at their sole discretion that amounts to, ‘Oops, we made a mistake, undo the last X seconds.’ I noticed that this season William Hill both seems to have shortened their delay period substantially in football, and they make fewer small line changes during breaks in play. I mean they are also choosing to press the button less frequently.”
Miller said he believes William Hill is improving, with in-play betting becoming “a fairer product for the customer. However, I believe a truly fair product would have zero delay at all, zero bet rejections, and William Hill’s product hasn’t gotten there yet. In some sports, basketball for instance, this goal is tricky and may take time to attain. But I think in football because the ball is dead during 90 percent of the time elapsed that this zero delay goal is more than achievable, and I believe sports bettors should be demanding it of their books.”
