BCN sports hanging bad lines??

[Southpaw]

i unfortunaely agree with the Major. at my current book second half lines have been known to stay on the board in to the 2nd half. When I get burned can I ask for my money back because the bet shouldnt of been accepted?

I definitely would never bet with the place again but they made it clear before the game that there was no action.

 

[truthteller]

Major, I hope then that a player can call BCN and cancel a bet before the game goes off.

 

[peteep]

I agree that pokerface could have benefited from this had the wager lost and then there would be no bitching, but the point is still that the wager should not have been cancelled. The line wasn't off enough to warrant it.

This seems popular...so I'll add.....IMHO

 

[TheMajor+]

sportsbet, bingo with your post. Very well said.

I can't believe I am agreeing with Russ on this.

It happens

 

[D2bets]

D2bets. Are you Pokerface2? Just curious. Been doing this a long time and this is textbook ghosting/backing up the ghost 101

If a book has a rule that they can cancel a bet and give notification before the games begins. Then thats the rule. Dont bet at books with that rule if you don't want it to happen.

Pretty simple stuff here

Russ

Of course I'm not. Either throw your textbook or re-read it. I've been here and elsewhere for years and many know me. I just get upset when books abuse "rules". If that's their rule -- that they can cancel a wager whenever they feel like it for whatever reason by simple e-mail notification --then yeah, ok, that's their rule, fine, but I want everyone to know about it and it should be exposed for whatever it is. And if I owned a watchdog site I would never accept advertising from such scum.

As players, the more we allow the books to take, the more they will take. This is simply unacceptable. Who is looking out for the players? In case anyone had previously thought otherwise, it's becoming rather clear that it is NOT the RX or MajorWager.

I'd like to know if any other books have this rule as I need to know where to pull my money from. I think I'll also start a list of such sites and amybe compile examples of abuses of the rule.

I am fine with a book saying they reserve the right to cancel for "bad lines", but it is not OK for a book to cancel wagers whenever they damn well please.

Again, all IMHO, but I hope some others agree.

 

[TheMajor+]

Major, I hope then that a player can call BCN and cancel a bet before the game goes off.

Not sure Truthteller, is that in their rules? Pretty basic stuff here guys. Rules....read them.

 

[TheMajor+]

If that's their rule -- that they can cancel a wager whenever they feel like it for whatever reason by simple e-mail notification --then yeah, ok, that's their rule

It is really that simple.

Next question. Can somebody list any books that do not have that rule? I know of none.

The guy took a shot. I would speculate that he in fact did get the email and laid it off somewhere else. This is just the typical, lets sign up under a new name because I don't want my real name to lose any credibility while I try and cyber extort the book into paying me. Win Win

Just my opinion. But if it quaks!!!!!!

 

[D2bets]

From BCN's Rules and Regulations:

3.5- BCN Sports reserves the right to refuse any wager(s), at any time, from any client without explaining why such action has been taken.
3.9- When an obvious error, human or otherwise, is made on the posted line or the start of a contest all wagers placed at the time these errors were in effect will be deemed "no action" and the associated "stake" monies will be returned to the client.
3.11- BCN Sports reserves the right to refuse any wager at its discretion.

First of all, can someone explain to me why 3.5 and 3.11 are both necessary. What does 3.11 add that 3.05 doesn't? Insult to injury I suppose. But neither is clear. It says they can "refuse" any wager. The way I read that you "refuse" a wager prior to accepting it. So if I call in and ask for Atlanta Hawks +6, they can refuse to accept the wager offer. But if I place that wager and it is accepted, then they cannot "refuse" the wager -- it has already been accepted. At that point it might be "cancelled" or "voided" or no action" but it cannot be refused. So the way I read this, 3.5 and 3.11 do not apply to accepted wagers. So that leaves us with 3.9 -- an "obvious error". Accepting a +240 ML wager when other books have the ML at +220 to +236 is quite clearly not an obvious error.

So now what do we have here?

 

[peteep]

The guy didn't take a shot if the line was what he stated elsewhere. Sure, they notified him before the game went off, but it definately a questionable use of their "rules". I'm still hoping to hear their response.

 

[TheGeneral+]

In case anyone had previously thought otherwise, it's becoming rather clear that it is NOT the RX or MajorWager.

Sorry Sir, but I can't recall all the players that I have personally assisted in getting their monies from books and more of them have been non-advertisers than advertisers. You are way off base here.

As for the phone call in this matter, books are in a no win situation. If they call and Mom or wife answers the phone, then posters complain. If the book is courteous enough to send an email, well we see what they get in doing that also.

As for the wager, I am not sure whether they should honor the bad line or not as they do have a rule in place to cancel if they like and the player agrees to this rule when they sign-up.

And did this player call the book and threaten them with going to the forum? I know he made it clear in his messages to me. Books look at that as extortion and maybe they should stand their ground when players resort to such threats.

 

[TheMajor+]

reserves the right to refuse any wager(s), at any time, from any client without explaining why such action has been taken.

note the "at any time". According to this they did not even have to notify you D2bets. Was nice of them to do that

 

[D2bets]

It is really that simple.

Next question. Can somebody list any books that do not have that rule? I know of none.

The guy took a shot. I would speculate that he in fact did get the email and laid it off somewhere else. This is just the typical, lets sign up under a new name because I don't want my real name to lose any credibility while I try and cyber extort the book into paying me. Win Win

Just my opinion. But if it quaks!!!!!!

Ya know what, it's not that simple, IMO it doesn't matter if the rule says that. The back of a ticket to a sporting conest also says it releases the stadium, the teams, the players, etc from any and all liability arising from the event. LMFAO. Yeah...right! Courts have a word for **** like that -- unenforceable. I'll use another fance legal term -- UNCONSCIONABLE. Unconscionable terms are void on their face. This is that. Everyone is with cancelling wagers for obviously bad lines. We may argue over exactly what that is on ocassion, but we agree with it. But cancelling whenever the book freaking feels like it for no reason whatsoever is not acceptable, it is unconsionable, and do you know how we know it is unconscionable? Because it doesn't happen. This is the first instance I can ever remember (if in fact this is what the book is claiming) of a book cancelling a wager on a line that they are not claiming is a "bad line". Now if they are claiming it's a bad line, OK, let's examine that. But otherwise, it is unacceptable and unconscionable, regardless of what the rules may say. The rules can say they're entitled to my firstborn if I win my first 3 wagers, but that doesn't mean that if I sign up and play with them that they can take my firstborn.

A little common sense folks, just a little. Simple or not.

 

[pokerface2]

Major: it took awhile before some negativity hit this thread. The only true thing you said was that I had a scalp on the game. This was indicated to the GENERAL in email as I said that I would have been happy if the BCN wager had lost. But regardless of what my position was on the other side of the game or if I had bets at 25 different sportsbooks with various lines, RULE 3.9 of the BCN website is the issue here and they cancelled a wager contrary to their own rule according to everyone elses viewpoint that Ive talked to or read,,except for you. Furthermore, do you really think a scalper is going to just let themselves be exposed on a game and hope to recover a cancelled bet if it wins by running to the forums for help? when all they have to do is just rebet once they become aware of the problem and limit their losses which is the original intent in the first place. Your opinion can be to side with the book on their decision but all that other stuff you said is nonsense and has nothing to do with the fact of the matter.

 

[lander]

Well, I think we all learned a few things here.

1. BCN is in the wrong.
2. Major is recruiting advertisers

 

[TheMajor+]

Lander , they have been an advertiser since they opened so please correct your statement to "major is protecting his advertiser" . Thanks

d2bets you say

I'd like to know if any other books have this rule as I need to know where to pull my money from. I think I'll also start a list of such sites and amybe compile examples of abuses of the rule.

I am fine with a book saying they reserve the right to cancel for "bad lines", but it is not OK for a book to cancel wagers whenever they damn well please.

Please check out pinnacles rule #3 in the general rules section.

Perhaps the greatest book known to man. Still, same rule.

Anyways. I have made my points. Have a great night and GL on the game.

Russ

PS, Pokerface, use your real posting name or nobody will take you seriously. You look like a tool making up a name and then trashing the book for a free roll.

 

[D2bets]

reserves the right to refuse any wager(s), at any time, from any client without explaining why such action has been taken.

note the "at any time". According to this they did not even have to notify you D2bets. Was nice of them to do that

I still say you are reading that incorrectly. You cannot refuse something that you have already accepted. You can refuse only PRIOR to acceptance. If I tell you to jump off a cliff, you can refuse to do it. If I tell you to jump of a cliff and then you do jump off a cliff, then you can no longer refuse to jump off that cliff. Can you? (even if you survived the fall

Why do I feel like I'm in a George Carlin routine -- if you're going to use the language, then follow the rules that we've agreed on. (there's no such thing as self-help books, if you got help then it wasn't self-help, it was HELP!).

 

[D2bets]

Lander , they have been an advertiser since they opened so please correct your statement to "major is protecting his advertiser" . Thanks

d2bets you say

Please check out pinnacles rule #3 in the general rules section.

Perhaps the greatest book known to man. Still, same rule.

Anyways. I have made my points. Have a great night and GL on the game.

Russ

Have they EVER used that rule in the way BCN has here? I've changed my thought on this somewhat -- I don't give a flying beep what the rule says -- it is unenforceable and silly. The "bad line" rule we all know about and all accept, but books cannot cancel wagers whenever they feel like it for whatever reason. It's that simple. It does not matter what their catch-all rule may say or not. Just like ti doesn't matter what the NBA's catch-all laibility disclaimer says. It isn't worth the ink it was written with. Trying to argue otherwise only makes it clear who's pocket you are in.

I'd still like to hear from BCN. Maybe there is an explanation that we have not heard yet. But what you're trying to argue is insidious.

Oh and you might also notice Pinnacle says "...refuse, restric, cancel or limit..." Might this be because those terms have different meanings? Once again, you cannot refuse something that has already occured.

re·fuse<SUP>[size=-1]1[/size]</SUP> ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (r

-fy

z

)
v. re·fused, re·fus·ing, re·fus·es
v. tr.

1. 1. To indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow: <CITE>She was refused admittance. He refused treatment.</CITE>

Note "an uwillingness to ACCEPT". The wager had already been accepted. When I click submit and the wager goes into my pending wagers and the funds frozen -- the wager has been accepted. You cannot refuse something that has been accepted. Thereofore, BCN 3.5 and 3.11 are inapplicable. Simple as that.

Gee, if they're gonna try to screw us with onerous crappy rules, the least they can do it hire someone with a grasp of the English language to write those rules. Sheesh. Is that too much to ask.

 

[peteep]

The "bad line rule" is fine to be used.....when it's a bad line. When it's not, as in this case, it makes no sense.

Can a book simply cancel certain wagers, claiming a bad line, to make sure they have even action on each side? Of course not, but this "rule" seems to give them the power to claim whatever they want.

 

[TheMajor+]

Hey man, if your new position is that "rules dont count anymore"...well... not much I can do to argue that.

I figured you would take that stance after reading Pinnacles rule. It is worse than BCN's. All books have it and USE IT.

Will you still be taking out your money as promised?



Pet, the way most books rules are written, they do not even need a bad line to cancel the bet. They can cancel it for any reason. The rule sucks, there is no question. But, it is a rule.

 

[lander]

Major,
My bad. It's been I while since I had posting privledges