RESPONSE FROM BETCBS ON TENNIS SITUATION.......

[SunDevil]

Beenthere,

As long as you grant that it would be completely mathematically & logically inconsistent for a book to void bets based on the "bad line" rule in the case of a +605/-435 while not voiding bets in the case of a +120/+100, I'm happy. My only point is that the +120/+100 is better for the player(scalper).

 

[raiders72001]

Been- You have a case of tunnel vision. I'll be back when you take the blinders off.

 

[raiders72001]

Welcome Math Guru- Are you the same guy from MW?

 

[SunDevil]

"Guru", you needn't waste your time. I have done the derivation (free of charge)in my other thread. +120/+100 is better for the player than +605/-435. This is fact (assuming finite bankrolls). I'm not sure what they're teaching in guru school these days, but people should hold back on paying the considerable expense for the by-products.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Raider,

Mathguru is not me. As Alberto from VI days used to say, jajajajajaja

 

[raiders72001]

Beenthere- Math Guru is a well known poster from across the street. I didn't think it was you rook.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Raider,

One last question. Given that the cancellation is a arbitrary decision by the book, why do they not have the right to pay those they felt were not taking a gratuitous shot and not paying those that they decide knew what they were doing. Lets say the largest bet the player had ever made was $200 and he bet limit on the tennis match and his friend bet limit within 30 seconds from the same general geographical area. Dave decided to say screw you, I will not allow you to cheat me.(again, I disagree with the rule) I simply think that Dave has a valid point under the rules we as players have agreed to play under.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Shrink,

I challenge you to take the position that you will not take advertising from any book that has a rule allowing them to cancel a bet once written. That would certainly make the right statement for all the players.

 

[raiders72001]

Dave said that the reason for the two not being paid is that they were in collusion based upon location and IP address and that they used spiders. I don't see why using a spider program has anything to do with this. Also I never heard where only certain people were paid on a bet. This sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Raider,

Don't you think it is dangerous to allow any book to cancel a bet once it is written? Wait to you get one cancelled that you called the book and told them they had a bad line up and the linesman said, "if you think it is bad then bet into it". I have had that happen to me. We agree to the rule. It is inconsistant to bitch about the books using it as they are allowed to do --- the guys that got paid should be happy -- the guys that took the shot got what they should have known they agreed to accept when they accepted the f/ucked up rules.

 

[Java]

been there-
We don't know that it was 30 seconds, or even 30 minutes. What we DO know is that the line was up for over 8 hours for anyone to bet it and that a line manager was there. How well was he doing his job if there couldn't have been many games open at that hour?
Areeff said he found the line 35 minutes before the game went off. Dave Johnson is claiming Areeff colluded with ONE other player. But, he also said that THREE players came in within minutes (how many minutes?). So, at least one other player making a limit bet was not tied to Areeff. This other player is getting paid in full, though he made a bet near the same time Areeff and his friend did.
Don't forget, Casablanca also started the rumor that Areeff had 4 accounts.

I don't think that the "cancel any wager rule" should imply "cancel some but not others". If indeed, Areeff had two accounts, then he should have been paid the full $6050 on one of them ($1000 max bet @+605). That is fair and I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise.
However, Casablanca has not shown any proof that these are the same account, so both should be paid, since all the other bets were paid.

And don't forget: if the dog had lost, would Casablanca have refunded?

 

[mathguru]

My apology for diluting the handle of the REAL Math Guru. I just came up with the name and it very well could have been (and probably was) in my subconscious. Maybe we can change it to Math Geek or else just ban the mofo

I am NOT the Math Guru from MW, I am just some goob with a H.I.P. calculator.

Really and truly Sun Devil, you might be right and I will have a look at your equations across the street. I may need a link, we'll see.

I ask that you not lose sight of the fact that whether or not a line is "bad" is a judgment call. It is the kind of question that is traditionally answered without the use of crunching numbers. I will have a look at the logic behind your numbers.

 

[SunDevil]

Beenthere, I probably don't need to speak for Raider, but I think it's safe to say that we ALL agree that the "bad line" cancellation rule (no matter how it is written) sucks.

My point of contention is when you keep using the phrase that the players "took a shot" when in mathematical fact, they took no more of a "shot" than any player playing a slow-moving +120 when the consensus line is +100. Hence any book punishing the +605 player must (if they are to be consistent) punish the +120 player with equal or greater severity.

 

[raiders72001]

Beenthere- Just like the woman that hates all men after her first husband beat her you have a story to tell too. Go ahead and tell us how a book canceled your bet so that you can get it out of your system.

 

[mathguru]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hence any book punishing the +605 player must (if they are to be consistent) punish the +120 player with equal or greater severity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will go with that stiffer penalty mindset, I like that. Just kidding, just a joke.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Java,
You nailed the point. But it is not what you think. The books make the decision and have not higher authority which to answer. So long as books are the end authority those that have less honor that Spiros will always do things that are unacceptable. We as players agree to that BS when we accept their rules. This site and others accept advertising dollars from them knowing they have the rule in place and knowing at some point, it will be used and the player will think he has been screwed. There are many issues which Dave is potentially exposed. The eurobet plus 650 which has been posted is certainly the most damning. If the circumstances are as Dave has outlined them, then I think under his rules (again which are absurd) he has the right to cancel the plays. Sure, he should have cancelled them before they started but then the player would still have been pissed because they likely had lost their scalp opportunity and might not be able to get off it even with the notification. Granted, notification would have been better, but, it is highly unlikely that the players involved did not know they were betting into a bad line and also knew the rule allowing the play to be cancelled.

 

[mathguru]

Sun Devil, may I have the link to your derivation? grazi

 

[SunDevil]

Didn't think it was that tough to find, but here ya go...

http://therxforum.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=100090022&f=988094022&m=18510102

Prego.

 

[Otherwize]

Small time poster has to say a few words here fellas: I've had my account with them for quite awhile and I have talked with Dave twice. Once was when I called in a bad line, and expected nothing in return; the other was when one of my deposits (wire) wasn't credited when I thought it should have been there. On the first, I was offered something for calling it to their attention, but I appreciated Dave's attitude on the phone. I didn't ask for, nor get anything in return, other than feeling more secure that I got to talk to the guy at the helm. Second, my bank screwed it up, not theirs and Dave actually took the time to set up a conference call with the banks so we could get it worked out. I will always appreciate that. Not often that the busy guy takes care of a player he doesn't know. Nice work Dave, I still appreciate it.
Joey said it best when he said that there are simply some players that you don't want in your shop. I think you found some Dave.

 

[mathguru]

Sun Devil- For some reason I was looking at MW across the street. You know how us math guys are...totally out to lunch sometimes.

I am already asking myself what the significance of the break even % is. I may have to sleep on this one and drink some bourbon in the morning.