Just found this little nugget from SBR, posted just last week...
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=0 bgColor=#ffffff border=1><TBODY><TR><TD class=mainbox>
Amen!
Probably not my business to get involved, but I've noticed The Major trashing SBR before over various things, but it seems rather clear to me as between them who is the true players' advocate.
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=0 bgColor=#ffffff border=1><TBODY><TR><TD class=mainbox>
11.30.2004 (6:27 AM CST)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>As of January 1st, 2005, SBR will no longer recognize broad “catch-all” sportsbook rules. Rules such as “Management reserves the right to change or amend any rule without notice” will no longer be recognized by SBR in any future dispute resolution, review or rating regardless of whether it appears in the Terms of Service (TOS) and has been agreed to at some point by the player, normally during registration. Amen!
Probably not my business to get involved, but I've noticed The Major trashing SBR before over various things, but it seems rather clear to me as between them who is the true players' advocate.
cancelling a wager at +240 they say should be +220 is draconian. books offshore seem to be getting more and more liberal with our money and bets as to what constitutes a " bad line" or ' error". It seems to me they dont like the individual and his action more than they cant stomach the +240 on this bet, so they decided to screw him. :nono5:
I think BCN made a pretty big mistake. I dont see how anyone could be confident betting a even SLIGHTLY better than average line there anymore. And like I said, that leaves betting on the average lines there, which you may as well do instead at a place that has an A+ reputation and history of fast payments.
I think BCN made a pretty big mistake. I dont see how anyone could be confident betting a even SLIGHTLY better than average line there anymore. And like I said, that leaves betting on the average lines there, which you may as well do instead at a place that has an A+ reputation and history of fast payments.
PEople can go back and forth all day long quoting rules. At the end of the day, the issue is about trust. For post up players, the issue is can we trust that if we place a bet, and the bet is accepted, that the bet will be honored.
BCN has yet to explain why this wager was cancelled. And unitl they can offer a satisfactory explanation, I can't see what thier selling point is. Clearly if you are someone simply looking for another out, thier lines will provide no added value. The impression I get is that the only thing they offer is a 12% or 15% bonus, and fast payouts. And if you have a problem collecting, you come to the forums. But the downside is if you place a bet, you don't know whether the wager will be honored. ANd if it is honored and you win, they give you the boot.
You have to wonder whether these guys really know how to run a book.
BCN has yet to explain why this wager was cancelled. And unitl they can offer a satisfactory explanation, I can't see what thier selling point is. Clearly if you are someone simply looking for another out, thier lines will provide no added value. The impression I get is that the only thing they offer is a 12% or 15% bonus, and fast payouts. And if you have a problem collecting, you come to the forums. But the downside is if you place a bet, you don't know whether the wager will be honored. ANd if it is honored and you win, they give you the boot.
You have to wonder whether these guys really know how to run a book.
To me it's pretty obvious what happened here. The money line on their software automatically defaults to a 20 cent line. When they changed their line someone did not adjust the take back to +220. So they basically had a wrong line up. The bettor saw the bargain and hit it. Anyone who is sharp enough to be scalping is sharp enoug to know no book uses a 20 cent $ line when the line is that high. So be it. A book should still honor the bet. Which BCN did. I have no problem with they way they handled this. They used common sense and arrived at the correct descion which is all I can ask of a book.
How ironic, I just seen a complaint today about a book that would be in the top 5 list of books for every poster that replied in this thread, but it didn't hit the forums. The issue was a little grey as the book made a very slight mistake on an offered wager and cancelled each wager, emailing the players a couple hours before the game went off. That book did not budge and stood by their decision. The fact is even the Pinnacles, WWTS's, Oly's, & Cris's of the world do the same thing occasionaly. The complaint could be put in the same category of this BCN complaint.
We can only hope that books are open to reason when they make decisons that are contested. I have no idea how strong BCN is, but they did repair the problem and that is all I can ask of them in this instance.
For those who feel this is a "grave" misjustice, I suggest you stop playing offshore as every book you play at has and will again do something similar.
We can only hope that books are open to reason when they make decisons that are contested. I have no idea how strong BCN is, but they did repair the problem and that is all I can ask of them in this instance.
For those who feel this is a "grave" misjustice, I suggest you stop playing offshore as every book you play at has and will again do something similar.
D2bets said:Just found this little nugget from SBR, posted just last week...
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=0 bgColor=#ffffff border=1><TBODY><TR><TD class=mainbox>11.30.2004 (6:27 AM CST)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>As of January 1st, 2005, SBR will no longer recognize broad “catch-all” sportsbook rules. Rules such as “Management reserves the right to change or amend any rule without notice” will no longer be recognized by SBR in any future dispute resolution, review or rating regardless of whether it appears in the Terms of Service (TOS) and has been agreed to at some point by the player, normally during registration.
Amen!
Probably not my business to get involved, but I've noticed The Major trashing SBR before over various things, but it seems rather clear to me as between them who is the true players' advocate.
RX when will you guys do that? I realize it takes time to discuss and define and such but this is a MUST have. The General just gave another example of this stuff.
Judge,
There is a very good chance that the player knew something was wrong. Still there was no way to know whether the -260 was wrong or the +220. But they handled it in a very poor fashion. They had to know that by cancelling the wager they were going to create a whirlwind of problems. If they were upset the player placed the bet, they should have simply given the player the boot the next day.
Cancelling a wager should be the absolute last thing a book does. The fact that they were so quick to cancel this wager has to give one pause. BCN has yet to explain the rationale behind cancelling the wager, and what their policy is.
There is a very good chance that the player knew something was wrong. Still there was no way to know whether the -260 was wrong or the +220. But they handled it in a very poor fashion. They had to know that by cancelling the wager they were going to create a whirlwind of problems. If they were upset the player placed the bet, they should have simply given the player the boot the next day.
Cancelling a wager should be the absolute last thing a book does. The fact that they were so quick to cancel this wager has to give one pause. BCN has yet to explain the rationale behind cancelling the wager, and what their policy is.
Guys, I don't think there will ever be a standard rule as to what constitutes a bad line. When I was running a shop I honored the line I dealt. But I didn't have a ton of sharps circling overhead looking for a soft line. I don't know the player involved in this incident, which believe it or not is going to effect how a book handles a situation like this. I still think the book got it right in the end which to me is an indication of prudence and reason on their part. I would feel comfortable playing there, but would understand if someone else is not.
reminds me of a post I made in August...
thread title was
olympic soccer. Pinnacle has Portugal at -524, most other shops have them at -340
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1>Pinnacle you losers! (kidding) I cant believe that you steered me to lay that much wood at another shop on Portugal thinking it was the right side. I thought you were so sharp. damn.
serioulsy a game like this is why I have a problem when any sportsbook claims "bad line" after an event has started and would try not to pay a confirmed wager.
Here is a true example where great books all had different prices on Portugal (-250 points different, and including the 5 dimes lines they wanted to give very different. 5dimes, pinnacle, vipsports, all different all OK to wager on.
Dont want to hear of any "bad line" stuff for a -180 line being posted -120 by mistake. stuff like that.
seriously that group defining length of time for slow pay (6 months, 3 months) why not make a definition on what is and what is not a "Bad line" and stick the off shore books and the players to it. down grade books that claim a "bad line" that are outside of the guidelines set up. That would be a great idea.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
thread title was
olympic soccer. Pinnacle has Portugal at -524, most other shops have them at -340
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1>Pinnacle you losers! (kidding) I cant believe that you steered me to lay that much wood at another shop on Portugal thinking it was the right side. I thought you were so sharp. damn.
serioulsy a game like this is why I have a problem when any sportsbook claims "bad line" after an event has started and would try not to pay a confirmed wager.
Here is a true example where great books all had different prices on Portugal (-250 points different, and including the 5 dimes lines they wanted to give very different. 5dimes, pinnacle, vipsports, all different all OK to wager on.
Dont want to hear of any "bad line" stuff for a -180 line being posted -120 by mistake. stuff like that.
seriously that group defining length of time for slow pay (6 months, 3 months) why not make a definition on what is and what is not a "Bad line" and stick the off shore books and the players to it. down grade books that claim a "bad line" that are outside of the guidelines set up. That would be a great idea.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>
Im out and about now and I haven't had a chance to erad all of the threads since my last post. I just want to respond to this point.
"Book X reserves the right to cancel any wager......blah blah blah"
That rule is a safety valve and is should only be invoked in the most extreme cases. It is there for the unexpected, the matter that nobody can imgine happening, an event that makes you say, wow, I never thought of that scenario.
It's not there to be invoked at the whim of the book or for something as trvial as a 200+ line off by 20 cents. The players have entrusted the books with the rule above because it is a necessity but it's not supposed to be abused.
By the literal reading of that rule a book could just cancel all winning wagers every night unil they had no more customers. Would it be defended as "being in the rules?" I don't think so.
Another third tier book lives to book another day.
"Book X reserves the right to cancel any wager......blah blah blah"
That rule is a safety valve and is should only be invoked in the most extreme cases. It is there for the unexpected, the matter that nobody can imgine happening, an event that makes you say, wow, I never thought of that scenario.
It's not there to be invoked at the whim of the book or for something as trvial as a 200+ line off by 20 cents. The players have entrusted the books with the rule above because it is a necessity but it's not supposed to be abused.
By the literal reading of that rule a book could just cancel all winning wagers every night unil they had no more customers. Would it be defended as "being in the rules?" I don't think so.
Another third tier book lives to book another day.
I will tell a true story and I hope nobody thinks I am a shill for the sportsbook I will mention. About 6 or 7 years ago I only had accounts at 2 books..... Carib and Big Book. I lived in Oregon then while I presently reside in Las Vegas. Although I had an account at Big book, I was out of $$ there { This happens to me quite often }. Anyway, Carib was really my only source so I made a wager there and luckily I won. However, when I went to my Carib site I discovered that my wager was scored as canceled instead of a win. Of course I called up and asked why ? They put me thru to the manager who politedly told me the posted line was an obvious error and they had the right to cancel as per their rules. However, He told me that from my wagering pattern over the years, the suspect wager was right in line with the normal amount that I usually wagered. Therefore He told me that He would give me the benefit of the doubt and that He would honor my wager. Now I am telling you that I actually was not aware that it was a bad line but it was ! The fact that the Book paid it anyway is what I call great customer service and I brought Carib many customers over the years. I am not a Carib shill and I recently have blasted their deposit bonus but this my friends is how a sportsbook can keep their customers and spreads good will for many years !
