Dave,
Difficult situation.
I think you handled it well.
You can always sometimes please everyone.
I had a boss once give a player a choice when he took a shot. We will send you your payment in full and then lose my number or we will pay you at the line it should have been and we will continue to pay you weekly as we have in the past present and future.
He took the correct line and still plays with him today beating him out of thousands of dollars more than he would have taken the shot money and ran.
Difficult situation.
I think you handled it well.
You can always sometimes please everyone.
I had a boss once give a player a choice when he took a shot. We will send you your payment in full and then lose my number or we will pay you at the line it should have been and we will continue to pay you weekly as we have in the past present and future.
He took the correct line and still plays with him today beating him out of thousands of dollars more than he would have taken the shot money and ran.
Well put Shrink. The only problem is jj almost got hit by a car because he was out dancing in the streets. The bottom line here is that CBS has a chance to do the right thing and pay the guy his money. If they want to toss him after that, that is their call. They have every right to do that.
The smart thing for them to do and salvage what little credibility they have left is to pay what they owe.
[This message was edited by soccerbob on July 01, 2003 at 12:44 AM.]
The smart thing for them to do and salvage what little credibility they have left is to pay what they owe.
[This message was edited by soccerbob on July 01, 2003 at 12:44 AM.]
WOW...shrink's post is certainly the best
i've seen on this forum.
this book needs to step up and pay this guy just as they have paid the other players. by paying even one bettor the book HAS ADMITTED THAT PAYING THIS WAGER IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. to discriminate by player is "ludacrisp" as mike tyson would say.
dave-
dont want to tell you how to run your business but i'm sure you're thinking.."i'm not paying this guy, i can't undo the damage already done to my book." forget the short term, in the long run, you can probably dig yourself out of this hole by paying this guy and not finding yourself on a list of "questionable" books.
DO THE RIGHT THING, pay the man his money..then kick him out!!
i've seen on this forum.
this book needs to step up and pay this guy just as they have paid the other players. by paying even one bettor the book HAS ADMITTED THAT PAYING THIS WAGER IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. to discriminate by player is "ludacrisp" as mike tyson would say.
dave-
dont want to tell you how to run your business but i'm sure you're thinking.."i'm not paying this guy, i can't undo the damage already done to my book." forget the short term, in the long run, you can probably dig yourself out of this hole by paying this guy and not finding yourself on a list of "questionable" books.
DO THE RIGHT THING, pay the man his money..then kick him out!!
Shrink,
Dave simply gave 7 of the 9 players money they should never have seen because the bet was not cancelled promptly. The two remaining players knew they were taking a shot and should have called to verify the line. I am from the old school that a bet when written should be paid BUT, the new age offshore, non-regulated industry which feeds this site has as a general rule the ability to cancel bad lines. Dave paid 7 players he should not have paid and you are getting in his face because he did not pay 9. Billy Walters should have also paid legal fees for some of his movers but when you play on the edge, you know that sometimes things don't happen like you would hope. These guys took a shot and had it go South on them. Your position puzzles me. I would have thought you would have been praising him for paying the guys that may not have had a clue.
Dave simply gave 7 of the 9 players money they should never have seen because the bet was not cancelled promptly. The two remaining players knew they were taking a shot and should have called to verify the line. I am from the old school that a bet when written should be paid BUT, the new age offshore, non-regulated industry which feeds this site has as a general rule the ability to cancel bad lines. Dave paid 7 players he should not have paid and you are getting in his face because he did not pay 9. Billy Walters should have also paid legal fees for some of his movers but when you play on the edge, you know that sometimes things don't happen like you would hope. These guys took a shot and had it go South on them. Your position puzzles me. I would have thought you would have been praising him for paying the guys that may not have had a clue.
SHRINK, great post.
The shocking thing here is that I, and I'm sure most here, figured that after Dave explained the situation there would be some things that we didn't realize that would bolster his case. I think his case is worse now than before his response.
Dave basically said that after they catch what they consider to be a "bad line" they profile the accounts that bet into it to see if and who they want to cancel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have figured any bookmaker that intended to cancel would have just done so IMMEDIATELY. I just don't understand how a line can be "bad" for one account but not "bad" for another. It's either bad or it's not bad. If a line is truly BAD and you cancel immediately you will not get the sht that you claim in your response. But you knew very well that this line was not BAD so you figured that you'd just cancel from accounts that you thought you could successfully slander based on their other play or IP addresses or whatever. A line is either BAD or it is NOT BAD. The discrimination thing here is frightening and I'd like to think it's only CBS that has this (unadvertised) policy.
Also, ave never really articulated precisely what it was about these 4 accounts whihc accorded different treatment from the 5. Dave mentioned 5 criteria but what's the rule? 2 of 5, 3 of 5? What? It's totally arbitrary.
Dave mentions that scalpers are welcome -- he gave +250 with -240 as an example. But here, the player got +605 with...I think he said -500. So if it was +550 would that have been OK? +540? +530? I guess we all know the answer...it depends...depends on whether we like the player. Scary shit.
The shocking thing here is that I, and I'm sure most here, figured that after Dave explained the situation there would be some things that we didn't realize that would bolster his case. I think his case is worse now than before his response.
Dave basically said that after they catch what they consider to be a "bad line" they profile the accounts that bet into it to see if and who they want to cancel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have figured any bookmaker that intended to cancel would have just done so IMMEDIATELY. I just don't understand how a line can be "bad" for one account but not "bad" for another. It's either bad or it's not bad. If a line is truly BAD and you cancel immediately you will not get the sht that you claim in your response. But you knew very well that this line was not BAD so you figured that you'd just cancel from accounts that you thought you could successfully slander based on their other play or IP addresses or whatever. A line is either BAD or it is NOT BAD. The discrimination thing here is frightening and I'd like to think it's only CBS that has this (unadvertised) policy.
Also, ave never really articulated precisely what it was about these 4 accounts whihc accorded different treatment from the 5. Dave mentioned 5 criteria but what's the rule? 2 of 5, 3 of 5? What? It's totally arbitrary.
Dave mentions that scalpers are welcome -- he gave +250 with -240 as an example. But here, the player got +605 with...I think he said -500. So if it was +550 would that have been OK? +540? +530? I guess we all know the answer...it depends...depends on whether we like the player. Scary shit.
VVV,
You really can't compare internet betting to locals of past years. That was a different era, and many bookies have learned the difference the hard way.
beentheredonethat,
I don't know how much tennis you have bet, but I have found very big price ranges in the past. This is especially true when you have lines in the +400 or more range.Some books have lines that just sit there, because they don't have many customers who care about it. Other books will get a lot of sharp action.
I asked the question that I don't think anyone can answer: At what point does the line become "bad"? The only answer seems to be "I can't define it, but I know one when I see one".
The biggest problem seems to be that the book cancelled the bets after the event was over. They have made matters worse by admitting that most bettors got paid in full.
Had the bets been cancelled prior to the match, we would only be having another of the many garden-variety "bad line" debates.
You really can't compare internet betting to locals of past years. That was a different era, and many bookies have learned the difference the hard way.
beentheredonethat,
I don't know how much tennis you have bet, but I have found very big price ranges in the past. This is especially true when you have lines in the +400 or more range.Some books have lines that just sit there, because they don't have many customers who care about it. Other books will get a lot of sharp action.
I asked the question that I don't think anyone can answer: At what point does the line become "bad"? The only answer seems to be "I can't define it, but I know one when I see one".
The biggest problem seems to be that the book cancelled the bets after the event was over. They have made matters worse by admitting that most bettors got paid in full.
Had the bets been cancelled prior to the match, we would only be having another of the many garden-variety "bad line" debates.
Sun D,
The comeback of 605 vs 400 represents about a 33% variation. The 120 vs 100 is about 18% -- were do you draw the line, hell, I think when you book a bet you should pay it. But, you look at the books endorsed by this and other sites and every damn one of them has the bad line clause in their rules. I doubt the 120 vs 100 would make bad line at most places by the 605 vs 400 would every time.
Raider,
Your post is typical of a know nothing idiot that thinks you have got to have put in 400 post a month for 10 months before you have any experience. I have never read anything you have posted but what the hell does the number of post and length of time I have been here got to do with anything. I signed up to keep someone , from stealing from people in the baseball handicapping forum, Not to be a shill for anyone.
beenthere,
please keep the personal attacks (especially those completely unrelated to the subject) out of The Offshore Forum
[This message was edited by Uncle Butternutts on June 30, 2003 at 12:31 AM.]
The comeback of 605 vs 400 represents about a 33% variation. The 120 vs 100 is about 18% -- were do you draw the line, hell, I think when you book a bet you should pay it. But, you look at the books endorsed by this and other sites and every damn one of them has the bad line clause in their rules. I doubt the 120 vs 100 would make bad line at most places by the 605 vs 400 would every time.
Raider,
Your post is typical of a know nothing idiot that thinks you have got to have put in 400 post a month for 10 months before you have any experience. I have never read anything you have posted but what the hell does the number of post and length of time I have been here got to do with anything. I signed up to keep someone , from stealing from people in the baseball handicapping forum, Not to be a shill for anyone.
beenthere,
please keep the personal attacks (especially those completely unrelated to the subject) out of The Offshore Forum
[This message was edited by Uncle Butternutts on June 30, 2003 at 12:31 AM.]
