BETCBS/CASABLANCA STEALING Thousands of dollars AFTER AN EVENT HAS HAPPENED/POST HERE IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE.

Halifax · Jun 25, 2003

EGD:

You can argue all you want that a book should always honour whatever number they put up on their website, no matter how out of whack it is, but you and I both know that's not going to happen.

My point in my last post was that BetCBS definitely did not purposely put up the +605.

[This message was edited by Halifax on June 25, 2003 at 06:56 PM.]

EveryGamblersDream · Jun 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
EGD:

You can argue all you want that a book should always honour whatever number they put up on their website, no matter how out of whack it is, but you and I both know that's not going to happen.

My point in the last thread was that BetCBS definitely did not purposely put up the +605.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So lets say they did make a mistake, it isn't the consumers fault & they shouldn't be robbed which clearly is the case here.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by krackman:
AREEF- I SPOKE TO THE POWERS THAT BE AT CASABLANCA

E-MAIL ME

KRACKMAN33@HOTMAIL.COM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Krack - let me know if something major comes up as I have another player I am working on this with as well. Thanks.

patrickmcirish@hotmail.com

lurkerforages · Jun 25, 2003

Halifax, I see where you are coming from but this is not a clear case.
As already pointed out a book may shade a line to get more action on one side.
I think by accepting this behavior by the book we would be handing out a licence to steal.

The funny thing is that in the long run this type of behavior by 2nd and 3rd tier books only makes players only play at places that will pay without question.
A flight to quality.
If this would have happened at a top european book or a top offshorebook I am sure they would have paid without question.
If the bet was -600 and they posted +600 thats a different matter but that doesnt appear to be the case here.
The book made the mistake so why should the player have to eat the books mistake?
If I make a mistake in life I would expect to pay a price for that mistake.

skirmish · Jun 25, 2003

Hali:

My next question would be the following :

If a Book hangs a "Bad" number is that the Books fault or the players ?

In your professional opinion do you think that if a Book hangs a number ( be it right or wrong for whatever reason they decide to use later as an excuse) the Book should be allowed to renege on that wager when a game has been over for several hours ?.

Or should the Books management have caught the erroneous line and contacted all those involved in betting it to void the wagers before the game started ?.

Do you not think that in this scenario this was a FREE ROLL for Betcbs , if the wager loses they keep the players funds but when the player wins they cry wolf ?.

Is this a FREE ROLL on the Books behalf or not ?.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Halifax:

My point in the last thread was that BetCBS definitely did not purposely put up the +605.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fill me in on how you "definitely" know this Hal. You know how much action they took on this bet? You a clerk there or work in some other capacity? I am keeping an open mind but want to hear why you are so definite on this. Not saying I don't believe you if you have proof, just curious how you know the facts.

Thanks.

OneLove+ · Jun 25, 2003

I understand that Dave Johnson will be back next Tuesday and he will make this right. They would kind of appreciate a cooling down of this until then. Dan has been handling the situation very professionally. Mr. Johnson has simply been out of the office, and the situation will be addressed and rectified.

I would like to point out that I have yet to hear anyone mention a shop where the line was over +500. I am not saying that areef should get nothing, but he should probably get paid somewhere in the +400 range, or whatever a "good price" was. Keep in mind that from an objective point of view (and looking at acct. history), he was taking a shot here and he may have even known it. No offense areef, but you know it and that is what players do.

Anyway, I am happy to hear that Dave is going to negotiate. I would hate to see a guy like DJ get a bad label--and kudos again to Dan for discussing the matter in a rational and patient way.

Kudos of course to THE SHRINK and Patrick McIrish who will handle things from here as far as this forum is concerned. Hats off to everyone including areef who spotted the bad number. Who knows if you would have gotten paid, but I hear that betcbs provides a generous reward when you call in a bad line.

It is in everyone's best interest to handle these situations honestly and fairly.

Bless you all

areeff · Jun 25, 2003

2 other people have emailed me regarding this bet and i'ms ure there are more because not everyone reads RX/MW. They are just waiting to see what happens with my case.

There was nowhere else to go max would not even put dave on the phone to discuss the matter and he did not return emails. When someone says its case closed what do you do? When they don't reply you HAVE to take the hard line.

In case noone noticed last night pinnacle hung a +210 and then even moved it to +215 on childs as that was scalpable with almost every other book that is saw. They wanted dog action as they knew what they were doing.. childs lost in straight sets..

Halifax · Jun 25, 2003

"I didn't bet the match but I'm making a point. You are swearing by the fact Pinnacle had the best line eventhough you can't say that with 100% accuracy in my opinion. It is your burden to prove they had the best line & not with a few examples of what others had closing lines at."
---------------------

EGD:

Why is it my burden of proof to prove that Pinnacle had the best line ??

I'm not an apologist for BetCBS, I'm simply stating some facts, and correcting a few of areef's mistakes.

Areeff made it sound like +500s and +550s were readily available elsewhere - I posted a cross-section of odds from 15-20 books showing that these odds were not readily available.

Areeff then said that Victor Chandler and William Hill's odds were definitely in the +500s - I subsequently posted the closing odds for these two books, which in actuality, were +250 and +300 respectively.

I have done my part in bringing some clarity to the issue of what the competing odds were. If you think there was better than +435 available, you're welcome to look, but I have looked enough.

[This message was edited by Halifax on June 25, 2003 at 07:01 PM.]

SENDITIN · Jun 25, 2003

The player knew full well this was a bad line. He made the statement "I would have been OK if they had pulled the bet down before the match started." Why would you be OK with that if it was a "good" line? Because you would have time to hedge the other side of the scalp? As I said before you live dangerously scalping large bucks at smaller joints. It will take a lot of scalp to make up that kind of a loss. Hopefully CBS will come up with a better settlement offer and this issue will go away as they have some responsibility for not catching this before game time.

skirmish · Jun 25, 2003

Hali :

Would you be so kind as to answer my questions since I am wrong .

Thanx

Halifax · Jun 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Patrick McIrish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Halifax:

My point in the last thread was that BetCBS definitely did not purposely put up the +605.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fill me in on how you "definitely" know this Hal. You know how much action they took on this bet? You a clerk there or work in some other capacity? I am keeping an open mind but want to hear why you are so definite on this. Not saying I don't believe you if you have proof, just curious how you know the facts.

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

McIrish:

Ask any of your friends / acquaintances who have made any amount of bets with CBS, and ask them if they have EVER purposely gone out on a limb like this on ANY match?

If you can find one who says that they have done so, I will retract my words.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 25, 2003

Love - good post and I agree with it. We have heard plenty of opinions but very little is being done productively. Again not to beat a dead horse but we may have already had this deal done had we known about it first. Kudos to Dave if he is in fact willing to negotiate on this, some books get damn stubborn and refuse to budge. I also have another poster I want to have his wager looked into as well. Left Dave a message on his answering machine.

I agree with Love, let's give BetCBS time to look things over before we carry this on much longer. The goal should be to reach an accord of some sort not to get ugly with each other just for the sake of doing so.

skirmish · Jun 25, 2003

Pat :

What is there here to "negotiate" ? the player should be paid against the line he bet PERIOD.

Book makes mistake player gets STIFFED since when has that been negotiable?.

Halifax · Jun 25, 2003

skirmish/lurker/EGD:

To save me a lot of two-finger typing, here is a link to a thread at Bet2Gamble where I basically summed up my opinion on this situation. If you have any questions after you read it, you can ask me.

BetCBS

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 25, 2003

Hal - not looking for you to retract anything, just was curious what you were basing your opinion of definitely on. I don't know you from Adam, maybe you do work there. Basically you are saying it's definite based on past observations of how they work their lines, right? I don't want to characterize what you are saying incorrectly. Anyway thanks for the answer.

Skirmish - if there is no negotiation than the players are left with what they have now? I don't have time to split hairs with you but basically there need to be some negotiations (or talks) if these players are to get paid. The fact someone is coming to the table is always a good sign something can be worked out.

skirmish · Jun 25, 2003

Hali:

Read the thread glad we agree on somethings.

I still think this was a FREE ROLL for the Book in question without a doubt they would have NOT refunded had the player lost .

Thanx

skirmish · Jun 25, 2003

Pat:

Exactly my point why should a player have to negotiate anything ?

The player should be paid for the wager he made and won .

The Book in question was at fault for whatever excuse they care to use the player should not be penalized for the Books error Period .

Halifax · Jun 25, 2003

"I still think this was a FREE ROLL for the Book in question without a doubt they would have NOT refunded had the player lost ."
------------
skirmish:

I too am quite sure that these bets would NOT have been refunded had they lost.

However, I very much doubt that CBS planned this by purposely hanging a +605 to attract dollars. Most likely, by the time they realized their liability, the match had already started. They did not have enough time to void the bets before the match started, so they just let it ride, figuring it was highly unlikely that the underdog would win.

BEANTOWNJIM · Jun 25, 2003

HALIFAX I WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ON MY DISPUTE WITH CASCADE.DO YOU THINK LENNY TOOK A FREE SHOT AT ME.HE ACCEPTED A BET 15 MINUTES AFTER A GAME STARTED THEN GRADED IT A LOSS.DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART LENNY WOULD HAVE PAID ME IF MY WAGER HAD WON.HE JUST SAT BACK AND LAUGHED THIS IS WHAT GIVES THE OFFSHORE A BLACK EYE.THIS GUY SHOULD BE PAID IN FULL NO QUESTIONS ASKED WE ARE GAMBLERS NOT MIND READERS THERES NO WAY CBS RETURNS THIS GUYS MONEY IF HE HAD LOST TOTAL BULLSHIT JUST LIKE LENNY AND CASCADE

I JUST CANT BELIEVE MCIRISH WOULDNT BACK ME IN MY DISPUTE IT WAS A CUT AND DRY CASE OF A SPORTSBOOK TAKING A SHOT AT A PAYING CUSTOMER.I JUST WANTED TO JOIN THIS THREAD.MCIRISH YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PLAYERS NOT THE SPORTSBOOKS LETS LOOK AT IT LIKE YOU ARE A PLAYER NOT A SPORTSBOOK HUH PAL