William Hill recently introduced a pretty interesting concept: you can tweet them at @WilliamHill with the hashtag #YourOdds asking for lines on a certain bet for which there is no offering on their website. They will do their best to provide odds, as per your request. I think that’s brilliant!
They benefit from a solid reputation, so you don’t need to worry about them ripping you off. The company is listed on the London Stock Exchange, so you know they are serious. They have around 16 000 employees and over 2000 brick-and-mortar shops. We are not talking about a start-up here!
If you enjoy live in-play betting, you will be served well here. They have lines on many games and leagues. You won’t believe how many options there are at William Hill (especially on Western European leagues).
A fantastic feature associated with their live betting structure is you can watch some games online in real-time, thanks to their video feeds (live streaming)! That’s a very unique characteristic that punters have praised a lot.
Their lines are generally sharp, but I have witnessed some cases where they were a bit off-base. For example, I was able to grab the Houston Rockets to win the series against the Oklahoma City Thunder at -600 (the equivalent of 1.167) on April 19, 2017 when they were up 1-0 in the series. Other bookies had set their lines at Houston -750 versus Oklahoma City +650. Also, the Minnesota Wild to win the series against the St. Louis Blues was at -150 or 1.67 in decimal format before the series began, which provided an arbitrage opportunity with many other sportsbooks, as some had the Blues up to +165 (or 2.65 in decimal odds). I’m a big CHL fan (the Canadian Hockey League, where some of the best junior players are); William Hill posted lines on the Memorial Cup tournament, but they did not make much sense to me so I was able to take advantage of them. Perhaps they aren’t too sharp on smaller leagues like this one.
If you cannot find a deposit method that suits you at William Hill, then we have a problem! They have lots of different options in this regard.
As for payouts, they are known to be one of the quickest to handle requests.
Their prop bet selection on each game is large, which is nice if you enjoy looking for lines that may provide value since fewer people focus on them.
The website is easy to use. I’ve had absolutely no problem with it. The available sports are clearly listed at the top of the page, along with an “In-Play Betting” button if you wish to see what’s in progress.
William Hill’s betting limits are pretty high.
It’s easy to get in touch with a customer representative, whether via phone, live chat or email. They are courteous at all times and act like professionals.
William Hill’s bonuses and promotions are not the most generous in the world. They vary from one country to the other, and sometimes there aren’t any offered. To be fair, though, they do tend to offer some free bets under special circumstances. At the time of writing, a punter gets his stake back if just one lets him down on accumulators (parlays) of five or more selections. Another example is getting your money back if you try to predict who will score the first goal in a Super League match, but that player ends up scoring the second goal instead. That resembles more the type of bonus offered by this bookmaker.
I have mentioned several positive aspects related to live betting on William Hill, but there is one thing that bothers me a little bit. There seems to be a relatively long delay before the user knows the odds have been updated on a live event. It has happened to me several times that I would try to place a bet by clicking on the odds displayed on their site, only to realize in the bet ticket that they had significantly changed (99% of the time not in my favor, of course).
The juice (“vigorish”) on smaller markets is fairly high. In other words, if you wish to bet on more obscure sports or leagues, be aware that they are taking a higher commission by offering fairly low odds that makes it harder for punters to beat them.
- Same as deposit methods
- Bank wire
- Credit card
- Debit card
- Paypal (UK, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden)
- Instadebit (Canada only)
- QIWI Wallet (Russia, Ukraine)
- Yandex Money (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)
- Moneta (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine)
- SafetyPay (Austria, Mexico, Spain, Costa Rica, Peru)
- Personal Bank Cheque (UK only)
- Pingit (UK only)
- CashDirect vouchers (UK only)
- EPS (Austria only)
- Euteller (Finland only)
- Fast Bank Transfer
- iDeal (Holland only)
- POLi (New Zealand only)
- Przelewy24 (Poland only)
- Sporopay (Slovakia only)
- Todito Cash (Mexico only)
- Trustly (Estonia, Finland, Poland, Spain, Sweden)
- AstroPay (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela)
A player from Europe claims to have trouble withdrawing a portion of his 2800 euros balance. William Hill asked to verify his account by getting several documents (like passport, driver’s license, utility bill). The user affirms he sent the documents several times, but the bookmaker says they aren’t visible enough. He sent more documents (up to 15, according to him), but the verification process is still stalling.
ANALYSIS: The verification procedure is standard in the industry. Upon reading the guy’s full story, the big problem seems to come from the documents’ readability. He just needs a better scanner with higher resolution! I don’t believe a big sportsbook like William Hill would play games for such a small amount of money...
A student nurse named Julius Ndlovu went to court to claim ₤1000 winnings from a 2000 to 1 odds bet on tennis player Roger Federer to win a set 6-3 against Tomas Berdych. William Hill first refused to pay the player because they claimed the line was a human error. The court ended up ruling in favor of the player who was paid ₤1826.99 to cover the amount won, interest and fees.
ANALYSIS: The article doesn’t mention specific details regarding Mr. Ndlovu’s evidence and proofs shown to the judge, but the ruling is pretty surprising. Sportsbooks regularly cancel wagers in the case of obvious mistakes; as a matter of fact, such policy is always stated in the bookie’s rules. As mentioned in the article, a William Hill spokesman said: “The court found in Mr. Ndlovu’s favour but the judge ruled that the clause relating to palpable error was fair.” I would love to know more about the plaintiff’s arguments because 2000-1 odds on Federer to win a set 6-3 clearly looks like an error to me.