In an argument with Gamebookers

**laconic** · 07-28-09, 06:33 PM

Their mediation choice of eCOGRA could maybe rule a dead heat, so getting you one sixth stake (6 team riders?) at full odds.

To me, the odds of 101, on the face of it, doesn't leap out as implying it was meant to include the team time trial.

**AimingHigh** · 07-28-09, 06:44 PM

Did any other bookmakers offer odds on that market? How did they rule?

I'm not sure whether it would make sense to apply a "dead heat" rule here. Either team stages are included, or they aren't. So either the bet wins in full or loses. But I definitely agree with the previous poster that the odds being so high suggests that Gamebookers probably didn't have team stages in contemplation when they offered the market.

I don't know about Tour cycling, but the following approach would seem to suggest a solution. Imagine that you bet on a team stage just before the stage starts: are you able to bet on individual riders winning (as part of the winning team), or just teams? (1) If just teams, this seems to suggest team stages should be excluded from this bet, and your bet lost. OR (2) If you can bet on individual riders winning team stages (as part of the successful team) and bookmakers offer odds on those individual riders, this seems to suggest team stages should be included, and your bet won.

**headgames** · 07-29-09, 01:18 AM

I wouldn't think a deat heat rule would be used here either. Either the odds and market were meant to reflect the inclusion of the team trial or they weren't.

The Astana team (of which Armstrong was a key rider amongst a number of teammates, the first five of which count towards the team time) was clear favourite at 10/13 (-130) to win the time trial. Are odds of 100/1 (+10000) to win a stage (if it included the TTT) then clearly not too high? They won the trial by 22 minutes.

As I say, the first five count towards the total yet all Astana riders on that website are shown as having won a stage because it's a team trial and not individual - technically those whose rides didn't even count to the win are shown as having won a team trial on that official website. Unfortunately, I would say that the bet didn't include the team trial because Astana are so strong to get 100/1 on a big rider likely to be top five in the team trial just sounds too big a price. Then again, maybe the key to your bet may in betting long before Armstrong announced he was to race - it would still appear a bit strange to me for a bookmaker to accept 100/1 on the basis that he's either not competing (so void) or he is competing, fit and stands a very good chance of being top 5 in the time trial with the clear favourites?

**noyb** · 07-29-09, 03:29 AM

altough that's not the issue here, even if the team time trial wasn't included in this bet the 100/1 you got on this bet sounds ridiculously (palpable) generous to me.

regardless of odds, this case is doubtfull for both sides. when gamebookers decide they aren't going to give it to you, you won't get it, and your case is not strong enough enough to go to ibas. you shouldn't have assumed the time trial was included, but should've checked with cs when placing the bet.

**teddybreak** · 07-29-09, 10:19 AM

Just a short reaction: the odds were that high because the bets were actually placed before Armstrong officially announced his comeback to professional cycling (last September I say by head).

- Read the replies so far. When a team time trial is included in a Grand Tour, the bookie always mentions with the bet if the team time trial does not count towards the bet, as this of course could create a discussion like this one, because they are considered to be (one of the) winner(s) of the Team Time Trial at the official site of the particular Tour, on which the settlement will be based. I had several other bets, with several bookmakers on the number of stages won by rider X or Team Y, and they all had the message with them of the Team Time Trial not counting for the particular bet.

I took a gamble with placing the bets at such high odds when Armstrong hadn't announced his comeback yet, but Gamebookers took the gamble too by offering these bets. After he announced his comeback the odds were immediately slashed to something like 15.00, and shortly after these special Armstrong-bets were removed completely by Gamebookers.

Usually these special bets are easy money for the bookies, but now they are on the losing side for once and I just think they need to pay me out..

**teddybreak** · 07-29-09, 01:49 PM

Ok, now I see they have limited me to like 20 Euro per bet, while it used to be 1000+. If this is their policy I'm done with them, I definately want the bet to be paid and than I'm out there. Even if it costs me all the money I would collect with the bet to get paid out.

**tomcowley** · 07-29-09, 05:49 PM

With no specific rules, you should win a dead heat amount on your bet.

**teddybreak** · 07-30-09, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by tomcowley

With no specific rules, you should win a dead heat amount on your bet.

Could you explain that a bit more, what does (or should) that mean for me concrete?

**noyb** · 07-30-09, 10:30 AM

your winnings but divided by the total number of winners.

in other words, instead of getting your stake * your odds, you would get (your stake * your odds) / number of winners, which would be the whole astana team (9) or the ones whose time counted in the win (5??, 9 makes more sense though, assuming all of them were still in-race at the moment)

**lost4** · 07-30-09, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by teddybreak

When a team time trial is included in a Grand Tour, the bookie always mentions with the bet if the team time trial does not count towards the bet, as this of course could create a discussion like this one, because they are considered to be (one of the) winner(s) of the Team Time Trial at the official site of the particular Tour, on which the settlement will be based. I had several other bets, with several bookmakers on the number of stages won by rider X or Team Y, and they all had the message with them of the Team Time Trial not counting for the particular bet.

Thus usually the Team Time Trial does not count as a stage won by rider X.
Why do you think it should count in your case? Do you know any bookmaker who counts it?

Originally posted by teddybreak

I took a gamble with placing the bets at such high odds when Armstrong hadn't announced his comeback yet, but Gamebookers took the gamble too by offering these bets. After he announced his comeback the odds were immediately slashed to something like 15.00, and shortly after these special Armstrong-bets were removed completely by Gamebookers.

You said you also bet "Armstrong to start the TdF" and "Armstrong to win the TdF". What were the odds for these?
The odds for "to win a stage" should be closer to "to start" than to "to win" if the Team Time Trial counts.

**teddybreak** · 07-31-09, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by lost4

Thus usually the Team Time Trial does not count as a stage won by rider X.
Why do you think it should count in your case? Do you know any bookmaker who counts it?

A Team Time Trial does count as a stage won by rider X, at least according to the official Tour de France site. That's why bookies always mention it with the bet if the Team Time Trial does not count.
For example:

'Lance Armstrong - will he win a stage? TEAM TIME TRIAL DOES NOT COUNT
yes 2,85
no 1,45'

You said you also bet "Armstrong to start the TdF" and "Armstrong to win the TdF". What were the odds for these?
The odds for "to win a stage" should be closer to "to start" than to "to win" if the Team Time Trial counts.

'To win' was 501 iirc (came down a bit though, think some other people bet on it during that time)
Armstrong 'to start' was 101 I think.

**teddybreak** · 08-02-09, 05:27 PM

So, any advices of what to do

?

**GoonersGuide** · 08-02-09, 08:35 PM

Astana were favourites to win that team time trial weren't they? Their win in this stage was no surprise.

As a neutral it is hardly the basis for setting a 101 price if they were including the team time trial stage in the bet - so I'm not surprised that they've said what they have.

Nothwithstanding that (and your reply that they didn't think that he would ride). You spotted what you thought was an angle at a "cheeky" punt - Obviously you did not want to ask them to clarify BEFORE and possibly warn them .. that's the risk you decided take.

While being a "rules lawyer" might win a few forum thread arguments, you'll never get any leverage to convince Gamebookers of that - if they've already ruled that the 101 price for the stage win did not include the team time trial.

So you only have three choices :

1) Continue to try and butt heads with the book - get nowhere - and get frustrated.
2) Quit the book - and take your money elsewhere
3) Stay with the book - and try and beat them another time.

I just don't see this bet getting paid out.

**Dribbelkoning** · 08-03-09, 07:30 AM

So, Armstrong won a stage with his team and not a solo stage.

If Gamebookers didn't mention at first that stages with the team don't count, they can't say later on that they exclude team stages.

As you mentioned bookies usually have the additional rule for rider stage victory bets that the team time trail doesn't count, but when they don't mention this additional rule with the bet, they can't apply this rule.
You can't apply rules that you didn't mention.

**noyb** · 08-03-09, 08:49 AM

books can do whatever they want.
unless there's an organization with any power, like a regulator, ibas or an organization like sbr, who are willing to fight this fight, this bet will not be paid. nor the regulator nor ibas will intervene because this case if way too two sided (multiple interpretations possible) and also sbr hasn't shown any interest as far as i can tell. even on this board posters don't agree the bet should be paid, let alone some organization like ibas who only rule in favour of the player in very clear cut cases.

**teddybreak** · 08-03-09, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by GoonersGuide

Astana were favourites to win that team time trial weren't they? Their win in this stage was no surprise.

As a neutral it is hardly the basis for setting a 101 price if they were including the team time trial stage in the bet - so I'm not surprised that they've said what they have.

At the time I placed my bet Armstrong hadn't even announced his comeback to cycling yet, let alone that he would ride the Tour de France, let alone that he would do that for Astana.

Nothwithstanding that (and your reply that they didn't think that he would ride). You spotted what you thought was an angle at a "cheeky" punt - Obviously you did not want to ask them to clarify BEFORE and possibly warn them .. that's the risk you decided take.

While being a "rules lawyer" might win a few forum thread arguments, you'll never get any leverage to convince Gamebookers of that - if they've already ruled that the 101 price for the stage win did not include the team time trial.

I didn't ask them because there was no reason to do so. If it isn't mentioned that the Team Time Trial doesn't count - it counts. That seams logic to me at least.

So you only have three choices :

1) Continue to try and butt heads with the book - get nowhere - and get frustrated.
2) Quit the book - and take your money elsewhere
3) Stay with the book - and try and beat them another time.

I just don't see this bet getting paid out.

Well, option 3 is out of the question anyway, they limited me at some 10 Euro's per bet.

**teddybreak** · 08-03-09, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Dribbelkoning

So, Armstrong won a stage with his team and not a solo stage.

If Gamebookers didn't mention at first that stages with the team don't count, they can't say later on that they exclude team stages.

As you mentioned bookies usually have the additional rule for rider stage victory bets that the team time trail doesn't count, but when they don't mention this additional rule with the bet, they can't apply this rule.
You can't apply rules that you didn't mention.

That's how I see it..

**teddybreak** · 08-03-09, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by noyb

books can do whatever they want.
unless there's an organization with any power, like a regulator, ibas or an organization like sbr, who are willing to fight this fight, this bet will not be paid. nor the regulator nor ibas will intervene because this case if way too two sided (multiple interpretations possible) and also sbr hasn't shown any interest as far as i can tell. even on this board posters don't agree the bet should be paid, let alone some organization like ibas who only rule in favour of the player in very clear cut cases.

Well, that would be sad

**AimingHigh** · 08-03-09, 10:37 AM

If you knew that ALL the other books you looked at specifically EXCLUDED team time trials, why didn't you clarify the terms with Gamebookers? If their odds were similar to all those other books, why would you think team time trials were included?

Whilst their terms were vague, it seems like you actually knew enough about cycling bets to know this was a cheeky bet in the hope that they'd pay out if he won a time trial.

I think you should probably just forget about it and move on. It's not a clear cut case in your favour, so it's not unreasonable for them not to payout.

I lost money recently when a book was vague. I bet on a volleyball match (my home country was playing, otherwise I know nothing about the sport!), and bet on the "full time handicap market". I thought I was betting points handicap, but it was actually set handicap.

The book's rules said that:
"Handicap markets are based on either sets or points (please refer to market title). Over/Under and Odd/Even markets based on points (unless otherwise stated)."

Neither set nor points was specified for the handicap. I assumed it meant points like the Over/Under, Odd/Even rule, and that if they meant set, they'd have specified it.

Needless to say, my team won on a points handicap, lost on a set handicap. I queried why my "winning" bet had been graded losing, only to be told it was a set handicap. I explained that their rules said that the market title would say if it was. They said that it's always a set handicap, unless it says points. I said that's not what the rules say. They said that's what it always is. So, they were vague, I made assumptions, their rules didn't reflect their practice, but I lost my money. I even suggested they just void the bet and correct their vague rules to say "handicap markets are based on sets (unless otherwise stated)." They declined any remedy, and have not corrected their rules.

Perhaps all volleyball bettors (are there many?!!) know this. I didn't, and lost. Anyway, the point of this long story is that sometimes you feel hard done by by a book, and that you "unfairly" lost your money but, like my case, where it's not very clear cut, you can forget about most books ruling in your favour. You, like me, could have been more vigilant - I could have read the rules first, seen the vagueness and had it clarified. I didn't, you didn't, and we both lost out. I lost £170 (my stake, with winnings £350 odd). Hopefully you lost less, and my story makes you feel a bit better about it.

**Dribbelkoning** · 08-03-09, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by AimingHigh

If their odds were similar to all those other books, why would you think team time trials were included?

Whilst their terms were vague, it seems like you actually knew enough about cycling bets to know this was a cheeky bet in the hope that they'd pay out if he won a time trial.

The bet was placed before Armstrong announced his comeback to cycling, so this was probably the only bookie that offered this bet at that time.
The odds of 101 were correct, given the fact that (almost) nobody expected that Armstong would plan a comeback, let alone that he would race the Tour de France.

The question basically is: If a bookie puts up a bet without additional rules, can they apply additional rules later on?

For example if you have the bet:
Will Nadal win Roland Garros 2010?
NO @ 2.50
without any additional rules.

You place a bet on NO. It turns out Nadal is injured and can't play at Roland Garros 2010.
The bookie says: We void this bet because we usually have the additional rule with this kind of bet that if Nadal doesn't participate in the tournament all bets will be void. However this time we didn't mention this rule, but we will still void it.

Is that allowed?

**AimingHigh** · 08-03-09, 11:52 AM

In your example, though, almost all books have a general rule about tennis tournaments in their rules section, so don't need to state the specific rule next to the offered lines.

For it to be comparable, you'd need a situation where Nadal won the doubles, and then the bettor said "but you didn't exclude doubles" - way more likely re. a WTA player such as one of the Williams' sisters, than an ATP player. I think most people wouldn't think the bookie should have to pay out in such a situation, and would think it was clear from the context of the market, the odds themselves, etc. that such a rule didn't need to be stated. If all other books stated that rule "excludes winning doubles" and one didn't, but they all offered about the same odds, would you really expect the one that didn't state the rule to pay out?

I can understand if someone was ignorant of the field (a bit like me a volleyball, LOL), but the OP appears to have known about cycling betting sufficiently well to have seen that the other books he/she looked at DID specifically exclude team time trials. The absence of such an exclusion by Gamebookers should have caused the OP to clarify the uncertainty, rather than hope to rely on it.

**Dribbelkoning** · 08-03-09, 12:40 PM

You should read the Nadal example as if there were no general rules that could justify a void. Which is the case in this Armstrong example.

In the case about a doubles tennistournament winner, it is common sense that this is excluded when you bet on the tournament winner: especially since there are seperate markets for the singles tournament and for the the doubles tournament.

In this Armstrong bet, a team time trial is still a stage, and when it's not mentioned in the rules that it's excluded, I think it's not fair from the bookie to exclude it.

**teddybreak** · 08-04-09, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by AimingHigh

If you knew that ALL the other books you looked at specifically EXCLUDED team time trials, why didn't you clarify the terms with Gamebookers? If their odds were similar to all those other books, why would you think team time trials were included?

No comparisons are possible in this case. I placed my bet in September of last year, when Gamebookers offered some specials on Lance Armstrong. Other bookies only offered bets on stage wins shortly before the Tour de France, in July of this year.

Whilst their terms were vague, it seems like you actually knew enough about cycling bets to know this was a cheeky bet in the hope that they'd pay out if he won a time trial.

Nothing cheeky or vague about it. When the Team Time Trial is mentioned not to count it does not count, when that isn't mentioned: it counts. There was nothing cheeky about it, as I said, at that time Armstrong hadn't even announced his comeback yet. The odds on Armstrong to start in the Tour de France were also sky-high and these bets were actually paid out.

I think you should probably just forget about it and move on. It's not a clear cut case in your favour, so it's not unreasonable for them not to payout.

I lost money recently when a book was vague. I bet on a volleyball match (my home country was playing, otherwise I know nothing about the sport!), and bet on the "full time handicap market". I thought I was betting points handicap, but it was actually set handicap.

The book's rules said that:
"Handicap markets are based on either sets or points (please refer to market title). Over/Under and Odd/Even markets based on points (unless otherwise stated)."

Neither set nor points was specified for the handicap. I assumed it meant points like the Over/Under, Odd/Even rule, and that if they meant set, they'd have specified it.

Needless to say, my team won on a points handicap, lost on a set handicap. I queried why my "winning" bet had been graded losing, only to be told it was a set handicap. I explained that their rules said that the market title would say if it was. They said that it's always a set handicap, unless it says points. I said that's not what the rules say. They said that's what it always is. So, they were vague, I made assumptions, their rules didn't reflect their practice, but I lost my money. I even suggested they just void the bet and correct their vague rules to say "handicap markets are based on sets (unless otherwise stated)." They declined any remedy, and have not corrected their rules.

Perhaps all volleyball bettors (are there many?!!) know this. I didn't, and lost. Anyway, the point of this long story is that sometimes you feel hard done by by a book, and that you "unfairly" lost your money but, like my case, where it's not very clear cut, you can forget about most books ruling in your favour. You, like me, could have been more vigilant - I could have read the rules first, seen the vagueness and had it clarified. I didn't, you didn't, and we both lost out. I lost £170 (my stake, with winnings £350 odd). Hopefully you lost less, and my story makes you feel a bit better about it.

Sorry for you, but I don't think it's comparable in any way. And the amount lost by me is way higher by the way.

**teddybreak** · 08-04-09, 12:46 PM

Dibbelkoning has some good points

**headgames** · 08-04-09, 01:50 PM

Teddy, you could follow their complaints procedure by contacting:

a dispute resolution service (such as eCOGRA Limited at 2nd Floor, Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, London W1J 6BD, United Kingdom); and/ or;

the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority (Suite 603, Europort, Gibraltar).

**teddybreak** · 08-04-09, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by headgames

Teddy, you could follow their complaints procedure by contacting:

a dispute resolution service (such as eCOGRA Limited at 2nd Floor, Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, London W1J 6BD, United Kingdom); and/ or;

the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority (Suite 603, Europort, Gibraltar).

Do you think I have any chance with them?

**headgames** · 08-04-09, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by teddybreak

Do you think I have any chance with them?

I've no dealing with either of those. I just know that the Alderney regulator has stepped in before to sort out an issue I had with one of their bookmakers so it's possible Gibraltar will at least give some time to your complaint. Look at it this way, at least it's not the Maltese regulator (LGA). I haven't noticed SBR having influence over Partybets/Gamebookers and forum debates obviously won't sort anything so not sure what other option you have but to follow a complaints procedure.

**teddybreak** · 09-08-09, 08:50 AM

Allright, I have been away for some time, but now I'm back. I currently have this to send to the Gibraltar regulator:

Hi,
I'm writing you because I'm currently in an argument with Gamebookers. While Gamebookers finds I have lost a bet, I think I actually have won that particular bet.

These are the facts:
On the 9th of September 2008 I placed some bets with Gamebookers. These bets were special bets offered by Gamebookers on cycling and in particular, Lance Armstrong. Bets like 'Lance Armstrong to win the 2009 Tour de France' and 'Lance Armstrong to start in the 2009 Tour de France'. The first one I just mentioned was correctly settled as 'lost', while the latter one was correctly settled as 'won' by Gamebookers. However there is disagreement about one particular bet I made.
That particular bet is 'Armstrong to win a stage at Tour de France 2009'. The bet is showed on the two images below:

http://i32.tinypic.com/rig4er.png

http://i30.tinypic.com/j9wk1s.png

Now, Gamebookers settled this bet as 'lost', while I think it should be settled as 'won'. In my discussion with Gamebookers about this (via mail) Gamebookers stated they base themselves on the official Tour de France website for the settlement of the bet. That seemed logical to me, but the official Tour de France website actually says Lance Armstrong did win a stage in the 2009 Tour de France as you can see on the image below (the red marks are edited in there by me):

http://i25.tinypic.com/e5g11i.png

( http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/RIDERS...ureurs/22.html )

As you can see, Lance Armstrong is considered to have won a stage in the 2009 Tour de France. The thing is, the particular stage Lance Armstrong has won was a Team Time Trial and this may have caused the confusion. However the Team Time Trial is considered as a normal stage, at the official Tour de France website at least. When bookmakers do not consider stages like a Team Time Trial (or a prologue) for bets like this (Rider X to win a stage, Team Y to win a stage) it is mentioned as an extra condition with the bet or showed when placing the bet, since these stages are considered as normal stages by the official sources used for settlement of these bets. This was obviously not the case here, no such message was with the bet, so Gamebookers has to re-settle this bet as 'won' in my opinion.

Is this good enough to send them or should I include (or remove) something? Should I attach the e-mail conversations about this with Gamebookers? Anything else?

**AimingHigh** · 09-08-09, 10:13 AM

I think it's fine. I'd definitely attach the e-mail correspondence including full headers.

I'm not sure you need to include the information on the other Lance Armstrong bets you placed as it may confuse matters. I can see that you might wish to set the context, so if you keep this information, perhaps you could make their relationship to the dispute more explicit, eg. as follows:

"On 8 September 2008, I made 3 bets on Lance Armstrong: (1) Lance Armstrong to win the Tour de France - correctly settled as lost; (2) Lance Armstrong to start the Tour de France - correctly settled as won; (3) Lance Armstrong to win a stage of the Tour de France - the disputed bet. This third, disputed bet was settled as lost, but I believe it should have been settled as won."

Whilst it's likely included in your screenshots, you might want to add one line that states the sum wagered, the odds offered, hence the disputed total of stake and winnings.

I've never filed such a complaint before, so others may have more useful advice about what's most appropriate to include/omit.

**teddybreak** · 09-09-09, 08:06 AM

Hi,

I'm writing you because I'm currently in an argument with Gamebookers. While Gamebookers finds I have lost a bet, I think I actually have won that particular bet.

These are the facts:
On the 9th of September 2008 I placed some bets with Gamebookers. These bets were special bets offered by Gamebookers on cycling and in particular, Lance Armstrong. Talking about Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France I placed three bets at Gamebookers: (1) Lance Armstrong to win the Tour de France - correctly settled as lost; (2) Lance Armstrong to start the Tour de France - correctly settled as won; (3) Lance Armstrong to win a stage of the Tour de France - the disputed bet. This third, disputed bet was settled as lost, but I believe it should have been settled as won.
That particular bet is 'Armstrong to win a stage at Tour de France 2009', with odds of 101 (decimal). I placed a bet of 70 Euro's on this one. The bet is showed on the two images below:
http://i32.tinypic.com/rig4er.png
http://i30.tinypic.com/j9wk1s.png

Now, Gamebookers settled this bet as 'lost', while I think it should be settled as 'won'. In my discussion with Gamebookers about this (via mail) Gamebookers stated they base themselves on the official Tour de France website for the settlement of the bet. That seemed logical to me, but the official Tour de France website actually says Lance Armstrong did win a stage in the 2009 Tour de France as you can see on the image below (the red marks are edited in there by me):
http://i25.tinypic.com/e5g11i.png
( http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/RIDERS...ureurs/22.html )

As you can see, Lance Armstrong is considered to have won a stage in the 2009 Tour de France. The thing is, the particular stage Lance Armstrong has won was a Team Time Trial and this may have caused the confusion. However the Team Time Trial is considered as a normal stage, at the official Tour de France website at least. When bookmakers do not consider stages like a Team Time Trial (or a prologue) for bets like this (Rider X to win a stage, Team Y to win a stage) it is mentioned as an extra condition with the bet or showed when placing the bet, since these stages are considered as normal stages by the official sources used for settlement of these bets. This was obviously not the case here, no such message was with the bet, so Gamebookers has to re-settle this bet as 'won' in my opinion.

So this is a new version, plus I will replace the screenshot of the bet with one, with the bet amount visible and I will attach the e-mail conversation with Gamebookers.

Any further/other comments?

**teddybreak** · 09-14-09, 07:51 AM

I have the revised version of my complaint ready now, but where exactly can I send this to (e-mail)?

**teddybreak** · 09-16-09, 01:08 PM

Anyone?

**headgames** · 09-16-09, 04:34 PM

http://www.ecogra.org/dispute.aspx?Page=3&OP=P for eCOGRA's dispute form.

gambling@gra.gi is an email address for Gibraltar Regulatory Authority's Gambling Division.

**teddybreak** · 09-17-09, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by headgames

http://www.ecogra.org/dispute.aspx?Page=3&OP=P for eCOGRA's dispute form.

gambling@gra.gi is an email address for Gibraltar Regulatory Authority's Gambling Division.

Ok, thank you very much!

Which one do you think I have the best chance with? Or would you send it to both?