General --
You're misunderstanding what I said when I said I didn't notice the error.
When I said I didn't notice the error, I didn't mean I saw the line at +1255, thought that to be a reasonable line, and bet the game.
I bet the game on a ticket with many others, saw the line, and assumed it was +125 -- just as I'm sure whoever typed it in when setting the lines for the book glossed over the extra five as well. As a matter of fact, I may not have noticed the line at all -- I liked the wager and just took it for a hundred bucks. When you're in a hurry, placing a flurry of bets just before game time, you don't always notice everything you're betting on...at least I don't.
Clearly +1255 is a wrong number -- but again, I didn't notice the extra '5', just as whoever typed it in for the book didn't notice the extra '5' either. If I had seen it at the time I placed it I would've known it was an error -- I'm not stupid. Once the book pointed out the error I looked in my record of settled action, saw the bogus line, and obviously acknowledge that it's clearly a bad line. The problem is they didn't inform me until 4 days later, once I requested a payout and had wagered close to $50K in other action.
I'm not arguing that they should let the bet stand because it's a reasonable line. I'm just saying that giving me the money, allowing me to play with it, allowing me to make decisions on the basis of thinking I have it in my account, and then taking it away only once I request a payout is absurd. Again, if they had called me or emailed me on the day the bet was placed, or when it was graded, and said "hey, you bet a bad line, and we're not going to honor it", that would be fine, and standard practice for the industry. But I make decisions on how much I can afford to wager on subsequent games on the basis of how much I have in my bankroll. If I knew I was going to lose those winnings, it would've affected every subsequent decision I made.
You're misunderstanding what I said when I said I didn't notice the error.
When I said I didn't notice the error, I didn't mean I saw the line at +1255, thought that to be a reasonable line, and bet the game.
I bet the game on a ticket with many others, saw the line, and assumed it was +125 -- just as I'm sure whoever typed it in when setting the lines for the book glossed over the extra five as well. As a matter of fact, I may not have noticed the line at all -- I liked the wager and just took it for a hundred bucks. When you're in a hurry, placing a flurry of bets just before game time, you don't always notice everything you're betting on...at least I don't.
Clearly +1255 is a wrong number -- but again, I didn't notice the extra '5', just as whoever typed it in for the book didn't notice the extra '5' either. If I had seen it at the time I placed it I would've known it was an error -- I'm not stupid. Once the book pointed out the error I looked in my record of settled action, saw the bogus line, and obviously acknowledge that it's clearly a bad line. The problem is they didn't inform me until 4 days later, once I requested a payout and had wagered close to $50K in other action.
I'm not arguing that they should let the bet stand because it's a reasonable line. I'm just saying that giving me the money, allowing me to play with it, allowing me to make decisions on the basis of thinking I have it in my account, and then taking it away only once I request a payout is absurd. Again, if they had called me or emailed me on the day the bet was placed, or when it was graded, and said "hey, you bet a bad line, and we're not going to honor it", that would be fine, and standard practice for the industry. But I make decisions on how much I can afford to wager on subsequent games on the basis of how much I have in my bankroll. If I knew I was going to lose those winnings, it would've affected every subsequent decision I made.
Dogs24, hearing your situation I think the book should at least give you $350 for their mistake. They should have more competant staff or don't offer these prop bets. I think this is fair for everyone because the book doesn't lose that much and they don't get bad publicity for not running their place properly. If you were my customer I would pay you half of your prop bet because that is clearly my mistake.
I think that when a $1255 winner hit your account, you would have looked at your bets and seen the mistake, knowing then you were overdraft. I think after betting in a flurry that a bettor goes back and reviews the wagers
I think your problem is unique, but I also think late justice is as good as no justice.
I think the book owes you $125 for your $100 bet.
Giving $50,000 in action over 4 days makes me believe you are no rookie at this game.
Maybe a little xtra comp from the book is a good idea as well.
I think your problem is unique, but I also think late justice is as good as no justice.
I think the book owes you $125 for your $100 bet.
Giving $50,000 in action over 4 days makes me believe you are no rookie at this game.
Maybe a little xtra comp from the book is a good idea as well.
dogs:
The idea that someone could mistakenly bet a +1255 line, thinking it said +125, is believable. It could happen.
However, I'm 99% sure you're lying, and 99% sure you were/are taking a shot.
Why ??
1. You say "Player bets the prop for a smaller-than-usual amount of money and wins." You say he "actually bet significantly less on that prop than he did on others."
Why would you bet a "smaller-than-usual amount of money", unless you were hoping that it would fly under the book's radar screen? Obviously, if you bet the max at +1255, the book would have a high 4-figure or low 5-figure liability on their hands from a prop bet - they would notice this, and most certainly they would void the bet.
2. If you didn't notice the +1255 line at the time you placed the bet, you most certainly would have noticed the windfall profit in your account the next day (after the bet was graded). You said you proceeded to give them $40K or $50K in action during the next 4 days, so you definitely would be aware of your account balance.
In fact, you say "But I make decisions on how much I can afford to wager on subsequent games on the basis of how much I have in my bankroll." If you didn't notice the +1255 line when you placed the bet, you most certainly knew it after the bet was graded, and you had the extra $$$ in your account.
3. You have the audacity to bring this to the forums, thinking you deserve something from the book. If you can drum up enough support in the forums, then you can play the "name the book" card to the sportsbook. Well, you do deserve something from the book - the boot.
-------------
So to sum it up ... yeah, you tried to take a shot.
The idea that someone could mistakenly bet a +1255 line, thinking it said +125, is believable. It could happen.
However, I'm 99% sure you're lying, and 99% sure you were/are taking a shot.
Why ??
1. You say "Player bets the prop for a smaller-than-usual amount of money and wins." You say he "actually bet significantly less on that prop than he did on others."
Why would you bet a "smaller-than-usual amount of money", unless you were hoping that it would fly under the book's radar screen? Obviously, if you bet the max at +1255, the book would have a high 4-figure or low 5-figure liability on their hands from a prop bet - they would notice this, and most certainly they would void the bet.
2. If you didn't notice the +1255 line at the time you placed the bet, you most certainly would have noticed the windfall profit in your account the next day (after the bet was graded). You said you proceeded to give them $40K or $50K in action during the next 4 days, so you definitely would be aware of your account balance.
In fact, you say "But I make decisions on how much I can afford to wager on subsequent games on the basis of how much I have in my bankroll." If you didn't notice the +1255 line when you placed the bet, you most certainly knew it after the bet was graded, and you had the extra $$$ in your account.
3. You have the audacity to bring this to the forums, thinking you deserve something from the book. If you can drum up enough support in the forums, then you can play the "name the book" card to the sportsbook. Well, you do deserve something from the book - the boot.
-------------
So to sum it up ... yeah, you tried to take a shot.
Jeezus Halifax --
You're relentless! I was *NOT* expecting an attack on my character or integrity from posting to this forum. The book believed me when I told them I wasn't taking a shot because I've given them a *LOT* of action over an extended period of time and there has *NEVER* been a question about the fairness of my wagers. NEVER.
So the question of whether I was deliberately trying to scam the book was never on the table, is irrelevant, and I certainly don't have to justify myself to you. But since I brought up the topic, and you have so graciously chosen to participate, I'll honor your nastiness with a cordial response to each point you raised:
1. On the day the wager in question was played, I played about half my bets for a nickel and the other half for a C-note. The bad line bet was one of the C-note games. SUBSEQUENT to that day, the vast majority of my plays were for a nickel on all games.
2. I'm not the most astute record keeper in the world. You're right -- I probably should've noticed an extra dime in my account the next day, but I didn't. I can understand how someone would be incredulous about a claim of not noticing. But the bets I placed were done in a flurry and a hurry before stepping out for the evening, and also included some $23,000 in casino wagering on the site, during which no records are kept. I honest to goodness didn't notice the extra funds.
3. YOU have a helluva lot of nerve, audacity, and gall to assume I have some ulterior motive in bringing this up. For the record, the requested payout occurred DAYS ago, and I did *NOT* bring up the issue in the forums because I wasn't looking to embarrass the book. They have excellent CS and a very good GM -- we have already come to an agreement about what will happen to my account! Only AFTER we reached a decision did I come here to gauge people's reactions, to see how they would've ruled on the situation, objectively.
To be frank, my intentions or lack thereof in placing the bet in the first place are completely irrelevant as I see it -- just as the book gauging whether or not they could make money off of me in the future would be a terrible way of determining whether or not I should be paid for the bet in question. I'm asking objectively what people think should be done. That's all.
I am *NOT* revealing the name of the book and I am not blackmailing them.
You're a real nasty, presumptuous prick with a helluva lot of gall to make all of those accusations, and make them public too. Get off your sanctimonious high horse.
You're relentless! I was *NOT* expecting an attack on my character or integrity from posting to this forum. The book believed me when I told them I wasn't taking a shot because I've given them a *LOT* of action over an extended period of time and there has *NEVER* been a question about the fairness of my wagers. NEVER.
So the question of whether I was deliberately trying to scam the book was never on the table, is irrelevant, and I certainly don't have to justify myself to you. But since I brought up the topic, and you have so graciously chosen to participate, I'll honor your nastiness with a cordial response to each point you raised:
1. On the day the wager in question was played, I played about half my bets for a nickel and the other half for a C-note. The bad line bet was one of the C-note games. SUBSEQUENT to that day, the vast majority of my plays were for a nickel on all games.
2. I'm not the most astute record keeper in the world. You're right -- I probably should've noticed an extra dime in my account the next day, but I didn't. I can understand how someone would be incredulous about a claim of not noticing. But the bets I placed were done in a flurry and a hurry before stepping out for the evening, and also included some $23,000 in casino wagering on the site, during which no records are kept. I honest to goodness didn't notice the extra funds.
3. YOU have a helluva lot of nerve, audacity, and gall to assume I have some ulterior motive in bringing this up. For the record, the requested payout occurred DAYS ago, and I did *NOT* bring up the issue in the forums because I wasn't looking to embarrass the book. They have excellent CS and a very good GM -- we have already come to an agreement about what will happen to my account! Only AFTER we reached a decision did I come here to gauge people's reactions, to see how they would've ruled on the situation, objectively.
To be frank, my intentions or lack thereof in placing the bet in the first place are completely irrelevant as I see it -- just as the book gauging whether or not they could make money off of me in the future would be a terrible way of determining whether or not I should be paid for the bet in question. I'm asking objectively what people think should be done. That's all.
I am *NOT* revealing the name of the book and I am not blackmailing them.
You're a real nasty, presumptuous prick with a helluva lot of gall to make all of those accusations, and make them public too. Get off your sanctimonious high horse.
Dogs - doubt you wll like my reply either but I will be honest. This would never come up with me because I don't want what's not mine. Once they bring it to my attention and it is clear there is a mistake it is their money, not mine. My only beef would be making sure they got it all out of my account and back to the proper owner. I would not be trying to build a case to show there is wide spread belief I should get paid, you couldn't give me the money.
Before anyone accuses me of being Mr GoodyTwoShoes it's not that either, it's just a jinx when I take something that does not belong to me.
Before anyone accuses me of being Mr GoodyTwoShoes it's not that either, it's just a jinx when I take something that does not belong to me.
I believe your intentions were honorable if all the facts are as outlined. And yes you`re right this forum is full of sanctimonious assholes. I`m never as ready to give the "book" the benefit of the doubt as most are. Too many yrs of getting f*cked by bookies of various descripton. A lot depends I think on your prior relationship w/the entity in question. Pat Mc I feel your Irish/Catholic angst, I`m also afflicted! Terrible burden for a gambler!!
It's interesting to read how all of you feel.
Many of you have sided with the book (with the contingency that they should compromise by giving a comp or paying slightly more than +125, but not +1255), and that's fine. I appreciate the feedback.
There are two interesting things I glean from this: 1) the fact that you're all gamblers AND you side with the book indicates to me that in all likelihood, the book is right! If even gamblers, who have a love-hate relationship with books and who somewhere in their subconscious probably want to screw all books for money lost over the years, still side with the book, then perhaps the book is indeed right.
The second interesting thing is how different this case is/should be treated vs. a similar situation in any other business. In any other business, a similar screw-up on the part of the business would definitely have to be eaten by the business. Can you imagine having a meal at a restaurant, paying your bill based on the prices in the menu and on your tab, going home, and then four days later having the restaurant call you and tell you they accidentally undercharged you, and that you have to return to pay the rightful balance of the bill? It would never happen. A business that advertises one price for a product cannot turn around and claim it was a 'mistake' -- and certainly not AFTER the customer has already bought the item.
I remember several years back, I went to the Wiz in New York to buy a big screen TV. I forget the exact numbers, but the price tag on the TV in the showroom was significantly less than the TV should have cost (and I did *NOT* notice that at the time either!). The model number on the tag corresponded to the model number of the TV, but apparently, the price was several hundred dollars less than the Wiz intended to sell it for. When I went to the cashier to pay, they caught the error...but because the price was advertised clearly as being the cheaper price, they honored that price and sold it for several hundred dollars less. And there, they would have had even more right to negate the sale/demand the higher price, because the TV had not yet been purchased -- unlike in the hypothetical case of the restaurant or the real-life case with this book, when the bet was paid days earlier.
This, I think, is a natural risk of doing business, incorporated into company's bottom lines: they have to take errors of their own making into account, and eat those costs rather than risk enraging customers who are duped -- whether inadvertently or deliberately -- into believing they're getting a product for one price and then falling victim to bait and switch. I'm sure y'all would agree with my restaurant analogy and Wiz story, that the company has to eat the cost...why is the book any different?
Just asking for curiousity's sake, please don't flame me or berate me!
(Incidentally, the Wiz is now out of business. Perhaps that tells you something
Many of you have sided with the book (with the contingency that they should compromise by giving a comp or paying slightly more than +125, but not +1255), and that's fine. I appreciate the feedback.
There are two interesting things I glean from this: 1) the fact that you're all gamblers AND you side with the book indicates to me that in all likelihood, the book is right! If even gamblers, who have a love-hate relationship with books and who somewhere in their subconscious probably want to screw all books for money lost over the years, still side with the book, then perhaps the book is indeed right.
The second interesting thing is how different this case is/should be treated vs. a similar situation in any other business. In any other business, a similar screw-up on the part of the business would definitely have to be eaten by the business. Can you imagine having a meal at a restaurant, paying your bill based on the prices in the menu and on your tab, going home, and then four days later having the restaurant call you and tell you they accidentally undercharged you, and that you have to return to pay the rightful balance of the bill? It would never happen. A business that advertises one price for a product cannot turn around and claim it was a 'mistake' -- and certainly not AFTER the customer has already bought the item.
I remember several years back, I went to the Wiz in New York to buy a big screen TV. I forget the exact numbers, but the price tag on the TV in the showroom was significantly less than the TV should have cost (and I did *NOT* notice that at the time either!). The model number on the tag corresponded to the model number of the TV, but apparently, the price was several hundred dollars less than the Wiz intended to sell it for. When I went to the cashier to pay, they caught the error...but because the price was advertised clearly as being the cheaper price, they honored that price and sold it for several hundred dollars less. And there, they would have had even more right to negate the sale/demand the higher price, because the TV had not yet been purchased -- unlike in the hypothetical case of the restaurant or the real-life case with this book, when the bet was paid days earlier.
This, I think, is a natural risk of doing business, incorporated into company's bottom lines: they have to take errors of their own making into account, and eat those costs rather than risk enraging customers who are duped -- whether inadvertently or deliberately -- into believing they're getting a product for one price and then falling victim to bait and switch. I'm sure y'all would agree with my restaurant analogy and Wiz story, that the company has to eat the cost...why is the book any different?
Just asking for curiousity's sake, please don't flame me or berate me!
(Incidentally, the Wiz is now out of business. Perhaps that tells you something
I read this earlier this morning, and thought other s did a nice job. Upon reflection, just thought I'd add
1. Agree with most that when you try to take a shot you have to expect it to be cancelled
2. If it was a truly honest mistake on the players part (not taking a shot), it is at the books discretion how they would like to compensate you ($0-void bet, small comp, partial pay, or pay at correct odds)
3.The part that troubled me was that the book did not say anythng until you tried to cash out after 4 days. While it may have been a normal review, I fear they may have known all along and just hoped you'd lose it out without having to admit to their error. 4 days is an exceptionally long time to have an error corrected (I can't believe they didn't get more action than yours on the prop). But you can never prove what was in their heart.
If you feel the book has not taken care of you in this matter, I am sure other books would love a player of your magnitude. Good luck.
1. Agree with most that when you try to take a shot you have to expect it to be cancelled
2. If it was a truly honest mistake on the players part (not taking a shot), it is at the books discretion how they would like to compensate you ($0-void bet, small comp, partial pay, or pay at correct odds)
3.The part that troubled me was that the book did not say anythng until you tried to cash out after 4 days. While it may have been a normal review, I fear they may have known all along and just hoped you'd lose it out without having to admit to their error. 4 days is an exceptionally long time to have an error corrected (I can't believe they didn't get more action than yours on the prop). But you can never prove what was in their heart.
If you feel the book has not taken care of you in this matter, I am sure other books would love a player of your magnitude. Good luck.
