Newbies Beware: Stay Away From Sportsbook.com

[cincy_]

If anyone thinks a thread like this makes a difference, they're naive.

I have opened threads like this in the past (search 2002 and 2003), and met with responses like:

• Well, I have been there from 1999 and they have always paid
• They have great lines, and free XYZ
• They are the biggest sportsbook in the world and they are a publicly traded company
• They have a 25% bonus on reloads, and blah blah blah
• They blah blah blah

It doesn't matter how many threads you open ... it won't matter if the RX put this thread on a sticky ... people will play there until they get screwed, and then they will complain ...

THINK OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO GOT SCREWED ON THIS CORRELATED PARLAY DEAL ... DID THEY NOT IGNORE THE WARNINGS AGAINST SPORTSBOOK.COM? DIDN'T THEY REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE BAD RAP THAT THIS BOOK HAS?

Don't blame the RX for taking advertising money or not taking a stand ... if they refund the advertising money, who does it help? ... what purpose does it serve? People want the RX to take a stand ... but don't say how it will help steer people away from that book ... believe me, it won't ... not until people stop using them.

Put the onus on the players and the book ... you play at a shit book, you need to be prepared to face the consequences ... don't blame the RX for someone else's decisions and don't say the RX should forfeit revenue as a result of it ... blame the book or blame the players.

 

[Barney44]

What is a correlated Parlay

Call me naive but what is it. I consider my self an astute bettor but obvioulsy I am not.

 

[fhmesq44]

Call me naive but what is it. I consider my self an astute bettor but obvioulsy I am not.

In short it is when the result of one of the plays is highly related to the result of the other. Examples would be betting Dallas to win the 1st half with Dallas to win the game, Dallas ML to Dallas -5, ManU +2 and under 3 in soccer, or high spreads with the over in football such as USC -45 to over 56 (and the opposite, Stan +45 to under 56). Most books' software won't even let you place those wagers.

 

[Cutter]

What % of games where the underdog covers does the game also go under? I am talking about everygame. I would think that 65% of the time that an underdog covers, the game also went under the total. Would that be about the correct number?

you would be way off.

more like 51%.

many games the dog is actually correlated to the over. being that the favorite sits on the ball late in the game instead of cramming in another TD.

posts like your original post that are not true (1st half to game, team to itself, and the like) do a disservice to what is going on right now with SB.com.

when we deal with half facts this is dangerous. knowing that the software won't allow these parlays, i think you set the debate behind by a lightyear or so.

sportbook.com may not even know what parlays are correlated. they are taking money from bigger fish so that they can survive. bigger fish make bets with a small edge in addition to handicapping by making parlays that make their bet slightly more favorable. most books have no problems with these. or they don't put a total up for the games with large spreads. or they disallow same game parlays with those few games that would make an obvious correlation.

 

[fhmesq44]

The question I have asked and I don't think has been answered is:

Did they refuse to pay out on ALL "correlated" parlays (such as X -3 to X over 63) or just ones that shouldn't have been allowed to begin with?

 

[steaktartar]

The question I have asked and I don't think has been answered is:

Did they refuse to pay out on ALL "correlated" parlays (such as X -3 to X over 63) or just ones that shouldn't have been allowed to begin with?

i dont know for fact but i would guess they axed the real ones not -6 to over 44 but -29 to over 44

 

[cincy_]

They axed the ones they lost money on ...

The correlation co-efficient is a number between 0 and 1 ... where 0 is no relationship and 1 when things are totally correlated ... and every number (like 0.567 and 0.231) in between is a measure of the strength of the correlation.

If you asked them for a correlation co-efficient that they used as their threshold (like 0.65 and higher), and their methodology in computing it, they would probably wouldn't be able to answer ... because they weren't worried about the people playing those parlays, they were pissed that people won money playing them.

 

[teazeman]

good to see Cutter posting, smart guy that knows his shit in case you've never read his stuff.

 

[PO69]

I would say that any spread over -30 with a total within 10-15 points of the line would be considered correlated for this type of example.



A few years ago, Oklahoma was favored by 54 points and the under was around 63. People did bet that parlay and the books paid, but after that game, most of them wised up and wouldnt accept those bets later.

We made a few threads about this a few years ago. I will see if I can find one of them. Not too many guys posting in this thread were here then though

 

[fhmesq44]

I would say that any spread over -30 with a total within 10-15 points of the line would be considered correlated for this type of example.



A few years ago, Oklahoma was favored by 54 points and the under was around 63. People did bet that parlay and the books paid, but after that game, most of them wised up and wouldnt accept those bets later.

We made a few threads about this a few years ago. I will see if I can find one of them. Not too many guys posting in this thread were here then though

VD or someone else posted that they typically use a formula, something over 35% is considered too correlated to be played. FWIW, I just tried to play WVU to the over this week and 5dimes wouldn't take it.

 

[PO69]

Here is one of the old threads. Ironically enough, it appears to be missing a few posts. I remember that we discussed taking Baylor and The under together.


http://therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=199336&highlight=oklahoma

 

[trytrytry]

How do you have 62,000+ posts and not be a moderator? Anyway how can any moderator not agree with Fishhead unless they're told not to by the owners. Money does talk like I said earlier and this group of Yokels are turning out to be no better than the Shrink days. It's a shame necause it looked like this crew was turning it around when they took over. Players are better off playing with ESB and the Atiyeh boys because atleast they take correlated plays and will only stiff you if you win big. Dam you mightr as well advertise here and get hundreds of new players then not pay them. That is what is happening here.

ESB is still around? where?

 

[xpanda]

The formula, according to Steak Tartar, is to divide the total into the spread and if it's higher than 35%, it's correlated.

 

[trytrytry]

most of these wagers were not even positive expecatation wagers long term...sure they were better odds than a normal crappy paying 2 team 12.5 -5 parlay but not even positive ROI long term. sportsbook.com should be ashamed ashamed ashamed at this. take these clowns down RX its the only choice you have.

 

[teazeman]

The formula, according to Steak Tartar, is to divide the total into the spread and if it's higher than 35%, it's correlated.

he knows his shit, and this sounds correct!!!!!!!!!

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Yeah, we used to use a 1/3rd ratio which is almost the same thing. Problem is I don't think it's roundly accepted anywhere what the cut-off point is, all same game parlays are automatically correlated if you want to get techncial about it. And anytime there is a gray area the shit books are going to take a shot at you from time to time. License to steal.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

And BTW while I prop the person who started it, these threads never work. All the RX has to do is come out and face the initial onslaught, Rick did that last night. Then you bunker down and stay low for a few weeks while you get some of the more determined posters that want to vent, soon the thing is back burner and folks move on. Players get beat by open net goals, last second buzzer beaters, their wife discovers they are cheating and so on. In short life goes on. Except for a comment every now and then the posters get over it and of course the RX still hasn't burned any bridges with someone that will fill the coffers. A new stiff job appears from another sponsor that takes even more light away from this, then we repeat the above procedures all over again.

No +EV in doing the right thing if you are the RX, their money is safe. The more lambs they can lead to the slaughter the better it is for them. Just my opinion guys, carry on.

 

[boatboatboat]

And BTW while I prop the person who started it, these threads never work. All the RX has to do is come out and face the initial onslaught, Rick did that last night. Then you bunker down ad stay low for a few weeks while you get some of the more determined posters that want to vent, soon the thing is back burner and folks move on. Players get beat by open net goals, last second buzzer beaters, their wife discovers they are cheating and so on. In short life goes on. Except for a comment every now and then the posters get over it and of course the RX still hasn't burned any bridges with someone that will fill the coffers.

This is a fragile bizz. The diff between owing a cash cow vs a milk cow are slight. Things have a way of taking there toll. Will this be the straw that breaks the camels back? prolly not....... but it moves you one straw closer to the one that will.

 

[mamatried]

Sounds very bogus to me. I mean, if they took the bet, and the lines weren't way off, then they should definitely honor it.

Did they refund the money of any people who made "correlated" bets and lost? If not, they truly are scamming scum.

 

[boatboatboat]

Did they refund the money of any people who made "correlated" bets and lost?

EGG-ZACT-LEE.

To me that is a very important aspect of this.