BCN sports hanging bad lines??

[Halifax]

Let me understand this ... BCN cancelled the +240 bet because their line was -260 / +240 when it should have been -260 / +220 (according to them) ??

Totally unacceptable move by BCN. The +240 was not a bad line ... that's the bottom line. On games similar to this, you will see a 20 cent or greater variation in the moneyline all day, every day ... it's nothing unusual.

While I would agree that the typical dog number for a -260 favourite is usually +220 at a standard vig shop, this is not always the case. Many times, I have seen tight moneylines for one reason or another at various shops ... in fact, I have often seen games involving heavy favourites and big underdogs where Olympic's moneylines are actually tighter than Pinnacle's. I have seen series prices at PlayASAP that were -2300, comeback +2200 ... a theoretical hold of less than 1%. Bet 365 often has no vig games, where the moneyline is (for example) -300 / +300. So these tight moneylines do exist.

There are only two things that matter here:

1. Was the +240 a "reasonable" number, compared to what the number was at other shops ? Apparently it was ... +240 is close enough to +220, that the bad line question shouldn't even come into play here.

1. Was the "minus" number (on the favourite) larger than the "plus" number (on the dog) at BCN ? Yes, it was (-260 vs +240).

It's not our job to determine whether or not the vig that BCN is charging on their moneyline is appropriate. As long as the favourite was priced higher than the dog, and as long as the +240 number was "reasonable", there's no way that it should be considered a bad line.

 

[Horseshoe]

Sherm, I agree, this thread was a much better view than that pair of NFC retreads.

 

[Muddy]

I was going to post up with his book but Im gone stay away from this book for now. Dont like NEW books with STUPID rules that do stupid things. I guess this means they dont have deep pockets!

If you play at this book triple check your balance and wagers every day and keep good records, you never know, they may delete a graded wager from 17 days ago and dont have to explain why or what wager because thats their policy!

 

[TOW]

I just got off the phone with BCN Management. As anticipated last night BCN has accepted the mediation of TOW, MW and The Prescription and agreed to honor the bet at +220. The player's account will be adjusted this morning accordingly.

We understand that BCN had initially decided to stand by their rule because they felt being bullied by the player who immediately threatened them instead of seeking a viable solution.

It is a fact that BCN tried to call the player 3 times however the area code of the phone number in file was giving an error message.

It is a fact that in a direct phone contact with the Book the player admitted he was aware he had wagered a bad line. At that time BCN was still available to directly mediate with the player, who instead immediately threatened them to publicly expose the issue should have BCN refused to honor the bet at the wrong line.

The General has also reported earlier in this thread that the player had renewed said threats in him email correspondence with TheRX.

BCN is a small but steadily growing operation. They are aware it will take time to build their business but, unlike other start ups, they are unwilling to "give the store away" to facilitate a more rapid but otherwise dangerous growth.

I proudly vouch for them given their choice to secure players funds by having their escrow audited on regular basis by a third independent party.

I believe that this issue would have not hit the forum should the player had been more reasonable and had he decided to give more time to the party ( TheRX ) he had initially requested assistance from.

Lastly I read that another watch dog site has posted a false report on this very issue on their Web site, falsely accusing BCN to cancel "winning wagers".

All readers here are aware that the wager in question had been cancelled prior to the gaming going off the board.

I wish to express, also on behalf of Russ, Ken and The General, who have been working along behind the scenes, gratitude to BCN for having decided to rectify their decision.

 

[Fishhead]

Let me understand this ... BCN cancelled the +240 bet because their line was -260 / +240 when it should have been -260 / +220 (according to them) ??

Totally unacceptable move by BCN. The +240 was not a bad line ... that's the bottom line. On games similar to this, you will see a 20 cent or greater variation in the moneyline all day, every day ... it's nothing unusual.

While I would agree that the typical dog number for a -260 favourite is usually +220 at a standard vig shop, this is not always the case. Many times, I have seen tight moneylines for one reason or another at various shops ... in fact, I have often seen games involving heavy favourites and big underdogs where Olympic's moneylines are actually tighter than Pinnacle's. I have seen series prices at PlayASAP that were -2300, comeback +2200 ... a theoretical hold of less than 1%. Bet 365 often has no vig games, where the moneyline is (for example) -300 / +300. So these tight moneylines do exist.

There are only two things that matter here:

1. Was the +240 a "reasonable" number, compared to what the number was at other shops ? Apparently it was ... +240 is close enough to +220, that the bad line question shouldn't even come into play here.

1. Was the "minus" number (on the favourite) larger than the "plus" number (on the dog) at BCN ? Yes, it was (-260 vs +240).

It's not our job to determine whether or not the vig that BCN is charging on their moneyline is appropriate. As long as the favourite was priced higher than the dog, and as long as the +240 number was "reasonable", there's no way that it should be considered a bad line.

I AGREE 110%!

Say a player made this bet looking for a scalp and laid 1000 to win 2400 on what was definetly not a BAD LINE at +240.

Aftet placing the bet, the individual now goes and places a bet to complete the scalp at say a price of -235 for 2350 to win 1000.

He or she may never even be by at the computor for the next 4-5 hours and then comes back and learns his or her bet as been CANCELLED........and then is stuck with a wager risking $2350??????

This is not right!

The FACTS ARE...........

THIS IS IN NO WAY WAS A BAD LINE...........NO FREAKING WAY and BCN should honor the +240!

Accepting this mediation by the player at +220 is giving in to the book in my estimation and furthermore SETS A BAD EXAMPLE FOR THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY!

What HALIFAX has stated in his above post is PRECISELY ON THE MONEY.............and would hope everybody can see that plainly!

If this happened in VEGAS, do you think the GAMING CONTROL BOARD would not allow the customer to be paid at +240.......................OF COURSE THEY WOULD.

I applaud the work the SHRINK, TOW, and THE GENERAL have done in this case and getting the player paid at the +220 price has it is better than nothing obviously.

 

[D2bets]

Exacellent post Fish.

I'm trying to figure this one out, from TOW...

"It is a fact that in a direct phone contact with the Book the player admitted he was aware he had wagered a bad line."

I don't believe that for a second. There is simply no way anyone betting into a +240 when the consensus is +220 would think it was a bad line. Period. They wouldn't think it because it is not. Not even close.

Poker, did you 'admit' this, or think that it was a bad line?

 

[trytrytry]

I just got off the phone with BCN Management. As anticipated last night BCN has accepted the mediation of TOW, MW and The Prescription and agreed to honor the bet at +220. The player's account will be adjusted this morning accordingly.

We understand that BCN had initially decided to stand by their rule because they felt being bullied by the player who immediately threatened them instead of seeking a viable solution.

It is a fact that BCN tried to call the player 3 times however the area code of the phone number in file was giving an error message.

It is a fact that in a direct phone contact with the Book the player admitted he was aware he had wagered a bad line. At that time BCN was still available to directly mediate with the player, who instead immediately threatened them to publicly expose the issue should have BCN refused to honor the bet at the wrong line.

The General has also reported earlier in this thread that the player had renewed said threats in him email correspondence with TheRX.

BCN is a small but steadily growing operation. They are aware it will take time to build their business but, unlike other start ups, they are unwilling to "give the store away" to facilitate a more rapid but otherwise dangerous growth.

I proudly vouch for them given their choice to secure players funds by having their escrow audited on regular basis by a third independent party.

I believe that this issue would have not hit the forum should the player had been more reasonable and had he decided to give more time to the party ( TheRX ) he had initially requested assistance from.

Lastly I read that another watch dog site has posted a false report on this very issue on their Web site, falsely accusing BCN to cancel "winning wagers".

All readers here are aware that the wager in question had been cancelled prior to the gaming going off the board.

I wish to express, also on behalf of Russ, Ken and The General, who have been working along behind the scenes, gratitude to BCN for having decided to rectify their decision.

This is a very good write up and explains much. But it misses one impoprtant detail. What was the specific logic, the specific thought process that led BCN to argue this was a misline in the first place??? If they wanted a 40 cent spread then why did they not aruge that it was to be -280 and +240, or -290 +250, or -270 +230 some 40 cent spread, how is it obvious that the error was at the low end. did they also cancel all the -260 wagers as the line set was "wrong"??? If so show the evidnece the emails, the cancel stamp on those. A mis line, human error is a misline both ways, its like complete misinformation. Why did they not argue that it was to be -280 +240 for example?

How can a sportsbook manager possibly differentiate between a +240 and a +220 as a misline? or a -280 and a -260 as a misline.

we need a definintion. This was a confirmed wager on a POSITIVE expectation spread for the HOUSE. And it was attempted to be cancelled??? And then not paid in full.


HOw that is not paid at +240 to the player is stunning to me. :nono5:

 

[trytrytry]

Exacellent post Fish.

I'm trying to figure this one out, from TOW...

"It is a fact that in a direct phone contact with the Book the player admitted he was aware he had wagered a bad line."

I don't believe that for a second. There is simply no way anyone betting into a +240 when the consensus is +220 would think it was a bad line. Period. They wouldn't think it because it is not. Not even close.

Poker, did you 'admit' this, or think that it was a bad line?

since the industry and this forum does not have a definition for misline how would a player even be able to admit to a misline if asked??? HOw would you even answer that question???????????????? your yes or no answer would be meaningless

 

[THE SHRINK]

In my opinion, there is NO WAY that BCN MEANT to put up the line that they displayed. If one looks at their history, it shows that BCN has NEVER posted such a tight spread before at this level.

I commend BCN for paying the player because I know that there are some sports books out there who would NOT have done this...

At least when one decides whether or not to post up with BCN, he or she will also know they are open to discussion with various people in this biz in case a dispute arises...

THE SHRINK

 

[kermit16]

I am glad that this post was brought to the forum even though some of the Posters thought it should have gone to mediation behind closed doors ! Why ? So that the sportsbook would escape the public scrutiny that they deserved for making a very petty cancelation of a wager that wasn't made on anything close to a bad line. This is a watchdog site, isn't it ? I presently don't have an account with BCN and I was contemplating opening an account there. However, I will wait a little longer to see if there are any more problems. Fish brought up a very good example where this type of action by a sportsbook can cause very bad results for everyone except the Book. Thanks to Pokerface for starting this Post and some great arguments by D2 and a lot of others !

 

[D2bets]

try, well no not in every case, they're talking about the subjective thought process of the bettor. If he had bet into a +2400 line then he certainly could have admitted knowing that was a bad line. It would have been obvious that they meant +240 not +2400. But if you're line shopping and you see some +220's, some +225, a +236 and a +240....nobody on this planet would think that +240 is a bad line. I don't even understand why we are arguing this. It's ludicrous. Some things never cease to amaze me.

 

[D2bets]

In my opinion, there is NO WAY that BCN MEANT to put up the line that they displayed. If one looks at their history, it shows that BCN has NEVER posted such a tight spread before at this level.

I commend BCN for paying the player because I know that there are some sports books out there who would NOT have done this...

At least when one decides whether or not to post up with BCN, he or she will also know they are open to discussion with various people in this biz in case a dispute arises...

THE SHRINK

That may or may not be true, but quite frankly it does not matter. It cannot be incumbent on the player to know all of the nuances of each individual book's linesmaking history and philosophy. You may know that information, SHRINK, but most do not and most do not think that they way...and they should not have to. Reasonableness in these instances here has to be based on a general industry-wide standard. And in that vein, a +240/-260 spread is categorically not a bad line on its face.

 

[Fishhead]

D2bets-

You make tremendously valid points!

 

[kermit16]

I can't believe that there are still a lot of people that consider this a bad line ! The difference between + 220 and + 240 is shopping for the best line. Every handicapper I have ever heard tells you to shop. Also, Shrink says He knows a lot of books out there that would have never accepted the mediation of + 220. I think I for one would like to know which books those are that He is referring to as I would surely never have an account with any of them. BCN really should have honored the + 240 without even a debate as this wasn't even close to a bad line. It was a good line by a person that shops to find the best line IMHO

 

[THE SHRINK]

Some excellent feedback in favor of the gambler. However, MANY of you KNOW that whever you see a -$2.60 ML out there on the Favorite , it is almost AUTOMATICALLY followed up with a + $2.20 take back for the Dog.

Come on guys, GET REAL!!!

Was this line way off?

NO!!!!

But one must ask themselves knowing the history of most sports books, whether or not this was intended to be such a tight line?

And unless you are dealing with PINNACLE, I know of NO OTHER SPORTS BOOKS on this planet, well maybe a couple more, but HUNDREDS of others would NEVER have dealt out a + $2.40 return...

Bottom line is they PAID and LISTENED to the feedback...

This is a BIG POSITIVE when considering to send money offshore...

One again, I commend BCN for PAYING...

THE SHRINK

 

[kermit16]

Hats off to D2bets ! You are a very intelligent person and a great debater !

 

[kermit16]

Like I said before Shrink. Yes they did pay but they only paid + 220 and I believe they should have paid the + 240 without a battle. I will give them a C for at least paying the + 220 but I would have given them an A if they had poaid the + 240 without wimper.

 

[trytrytry]

That may or may not be true, but quite frankly it does not matter. It cannot be incumbent on the player to know all of the nuances of each individual book's linesmaking history and philosophy. You may know that information, SHRINK, but most do not and most do not think that they way...and they should not have to. Reasonableness in these instances here has to be based on a general industry-wide standard. And in that vein, a +240/-260 spread is categorically not a bad line on its face.

Shrink

I agree looking at the books historical spreads is one piece of information to use. That way you can rule out a -280 +280 or a -280 +2400 misline situation. so yes 40 cents was the norm. but then Id say it could have been well meant to be a a -280 +240 line by BCN. But they see a Rx poster or a sharp customer hit the other side so they went the other way.... there is no way to go to the +240 automatically and move it downdowndown its a coin flip at best.....pay the man the +240....

 

[trytrytry]

Some excellent feedback in favor of the gambler. However, MANY of you KNOW that whever you see a -$2.60 ML out there on the Favorite , it is almost AUTOMATICALLY followed up with a + $2.20 take back for the Dog.

Come on guys, GET REAL!!!

Was this line way off?

NO!!!!

But one must ask themselves knowing the history of most sports books, whether or not this was intended to be such a tight line?

And unless you are dealing with PINNACLE, I know of NO OTHER SPORTS BOOKS on this planet, well maybe a couple more, but HUNDREDS of others would NEVER have dealt out a + $2.40 return...

Bottom line is they PAID and LISTENED to the feedback...

This is a BIG POSITIVE when considering to send money offshore...

One again, I commend BCN for PAYING...

THE SHRINK

shrink its a COIN FLIP why not -280 +240

 

[THE SHRINK]

Here is where I agree with you guys. If it were MY SPORTS BOOK, I would have HONORED the LINE I put out...

While it was off a tad, it was OUT THERE, period and not totally out of whack...

Therefore, I will call BCN and see if I can talk them into paying out the remaining amount...

It would clearly do them MORE GOOD in the long run...

THE SHRINK