Beenthere-
Good post. I'm not convinced that Dave applied those rules at his disgression in a fair manner.
I would REALLY like to see SOMEBODY post a definition of bad line, like: if our line is X and you can find a line posted within Y of our value, we will honor it. (This would need to be a table for each X value of money line, point spread and total, maybe even by sport).
As far as getting off the scalp, a sharp better told me once, that if you see +150 and -140, screw the scalp. Just figure out which line is bad and bet only that one. This strategy is maximum risk for maximum gain rather than almost no risk for small gain. (Of course, getting stiffed is the risk.)
Good post. I'm not convinced that Dave applied those rules at his disgression in a fair manner.
I would REALLY like to see SOMEBODY post a definition of bad line, like: if our line is X and you can find a line posted within Y of our value, we will honor it. (This would need to be a table for each X value of money line, point spread and total, maybe even by sport).
As far as getting off the scalp, a sharp better told me once, that if you see +150 and -140, screw the scalp. Just figure out which line is bad and bet only that one. This strategy is maximum risk for maximum gain rather than almost no risk for small gain. (Of course, getting stiffed is the risk.)
This is no different than what Omni/Little Nasa did to me. They gave me three Bonus Plays. I played them all on big money lines. The first two lost, then I won the third one and they said I shouldn't have been able to bet a big dog, then they said I was "sharp" so I shouldn't of got them in the first place.
Case in point, a book can make up whatever garbage they want to try and justify their reason for not honoring a bet. If you book it, pay it. Don't accuse a player of this or that. For one, you have no proof. Secondly, even if he was using a "spider program" who cares. The match had to win for him to get paid. It won, show the man his money. Then you bring up the fact that they are in the same state. Big freaking deal. The state has 10 million people in it. What's your point on that issue.
Dave says he welcomes scalpers, etc. So the guy bets 1k at your place and 1k somewhere else, now he is out money.
You had the line at one price and moved it up. It tells me that you got action on the favorite and you are begging for action on the dog by moving it the way you did. So the players must read your mind. Every player should be a mindreader to avoid betting a bad line.
That is bs, and Casa should pay the man, and consider paying him extra for his troubles.
Case in point, a book can make up whatever garbage they want to try and justify their reason for not honoring a bet. If you book it, pay it. Don't accuse a player of this or that. For one, you have no proof. Secondly, even if he was using a "spider program" who cares. The match had to win for him to get paid. It won, show the man his money. Then you bring up the fact that they are in the same state. Big freaking deal. The state has 10 million people in it. What's your point on that issue.
Dave says he welcomes scalpers, etc. So the guy bets 1k at your place and 1k somewhere else, now he is out money.
You had the line at one price and moved it up. It tells me that you got action on the favorite and you are begging for action on the dog by moving it the way you did. So the players must read your mind. Every player should be a mindreader to avoid betting a bad line.
That is bs, and Casa should pay the man, and consider paying him extra for his troubles.
Raider-
And the definition should probably include a time limit. Dave admits the line was sitting there for 8 hours, and Areeff was unluckly enough to catch the tail end.
Football-
Good post. It gives me an idea:
How about if books like Casablanca display how much they have on each side so players don't have to mind read?
Even better... whatever the players want to bet on the game, just send Casablanca 4.5% of that amount for their hold percentage. (This is as ridiculous as their explanation.)
And the definition should probably include a time limit. Dave admits the line was sitting there for 8 hours, and Areeff was unluckly enough to catch the tail end.
Football-
Good post. It gives me an idea:
How about if books like Casablanca display how much they have on each side so players don't have to mind read?
Even better... whatever the players want to bet on the game, just send Casablanca 4.5% of that amount for their hold percentage. (This is as ridiculous as their explanation.)
Highest closing odds on Nadal:
Bookmaker__Odd__probability%__Bookmakers deduction on tennis
Pinnacle__+435__18%__3%
5Dimes__+410__19%__3%
BETCRIS__+380__20%__6%
Consensus (27 bookmakers)
Ancic__79%
Nadal__21%
Line was way off, but why cancellation of the bet came after the match? Areeff says he saw odds on Nadal between +500 and +550, but I can't. Areeff post those bookies who had those opening lines. TheRX staff can check is it true and if it is, CBS should pay winnings.
Bookmaker__Odd__probability%__Bookmakers deduction on tennis
Pinnacle__+435__18%__3%
5Dimes__+410__19%__3%
BETCRIS__+380__20%__6%
Consensus (27 bookmakers)
Ancic__79%
Nadal__21%
Line was way off, but why cancellation of the bet came after the match? Areeff says he saw odds on Nadal between +500 and +550, but I can't. Areeff post those bookies who had those opening lines. TheRX staff can check is it true and if it is, CBS should pay winnings.
It's been posted several times that Eurobet had +650. Not much more to discuss on that matter. This thread is wonderful and i have been reading all the brilliant and detailed posts and been amazed by the knowledge displayed by the RX community. At this point i don't have much more to comment as i only await the final outcome of this matter. So far Dave Johnson(Yes i have known and always know this is his alias but whats the point in discussing that) has yet to contact me or say anything to me about the matter privately. He ignores emails still.
We can hope for a resolution still. If anything this thread helped get 7/9 or 2/9 players paid that weren't going to so that is a victory for the player right there.
We can hope for a resolution still. If anything this thread helped get 7/9 or 2/9 players paid that weren't going to so that is a victory for the player right there.
WELL SHRINK YOU CAME DOWN PRETTY HARD ON DAVE JOHNSON AND CASABLANCA. THE ONLY THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS THAT I WONDER IF YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN AS FIRM IF CASABLANCE WAS PAYING YOU TO ADVERTISE HERE AT THE RX.I THINK YOUR FULL OF IT SHRINK YOU ALLOW PAID ADVERTISERS LIKE CASCADE TO BLATENLY BREAK THERE OWN RULES AND NOW YOU ARE MAKING THREATS TO CASABLANCA BECAUSE THEY DONT PAY YOU.I DONT LIKE WHAT I SEE SHRINK AND I SUPPOSE YOU WILL NEVER READ THIS BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR PUPPETS WILL PROBABLY DELETE MY POST BUT SOMEBODY MIGHT READ THIS AND REALIZE YOU TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH.SHRINK HOW COME YOU NEVER EVEN GAVE ME YOUR FEELINGS NEVER MIND A BIG WRITE UP LIKE YOU JUST GAVE DAVE AND CASABLANCA WITH MY DISPUTE WITH YOUR BUDDY LENNY AND CASCADE.MAYBE BECAUSE IT WAS ADVERTISING DOLLARS HUH SHRINK
Now that we have heard from Mr Johnson, here is the way I analyze this situation now:
1) Other posters have claimed that ANYBODY that knows Casablanca and the way they run their bookmaking operation would know that the line had to be bad because they always post a middle of the road number. Additionally it was claimed that they don't put opinions into lines or move them just because they are heavy on one side. Dave Johnson refutes this by his explanation of how their opening number was arrived at. He says he checked three books and saw +250, +300 and +350. After his review of these three numbers he decided to open at +400. This is clearly an indication that Dave put up a line with an opinion. His opening number should have been +300 if he really puts up middle of the road numbers. From this information only two possible conclusions can be reached. Either Casablanca did have an opinion on this match and their +605 number was a further attempt to draw money on the dog or Dave is lying about how he came up with his opening line.
2) The MOST DAMAGING part of Dave's defense is when he states "The Matchup was immediately closed and we started to investigate the situation." This is a blatant admission that they decided to take a shot at the players. A simple review of the nine play wager history would have revealed the "obvious" bad line (if it really was one) and immediate cancellation by email notification would have been appropriate and considered by many of the ouraged posters to have been acceptable. Cancellation after the match has won is no different than a player trying to past post a book. Casa clearly took the shot here.
3) Dave claims the book was forced into a lose -lose situation. IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE OPPOSITE.. The bet wins Casa doesn't pay, the bet loses Casa does nothing keeps the money and the investigation is over. Seems to me "bad lines" put the book in a win-win situation.
4) Dave states "If we cancell the bet completely we look like thieves in the eyes of everyone involved." INCORRECT You look like a thief when you cancel or change bets after the matchup has been played even though you knew they were a problem before the match started. As I already stated this could have been remedied with a few simple email notifications. A thief however would do as you did and wait til after the result to make a decision.
5) There is no crime in a player trying to bet at the best line available. I recall in the ncaa tournament first round pinnacle posting prices on the big first round dogs. IUPUI was +18888 and nc-ashville was +16555. If someone else had these dogs at only +14888 and +12555 respectively and had either of them won would pinnacle cry bad line and try not to pay (Of course not. No respectable book would make such a claim.) Players shop and books post lines to draw action. (Something Dave's opening line choice clearly indicated.) If you don't want to book shoppers, cherry pickers, wise guys and professionals pay off all wagers you have accepted and say adios, but don't cry bad line when someone gets the best of it on a long shot and happens to win. Offering a miniscule settlement and continued ability to stay and play or full payment and closing the account is certainly an exercisable option. Changing the wager the way Casa did it is WRONG.
6) Rule number 18 does not define an "incorrect line" and therefore is written to give BETCBS FREE REIGN TO CANCEL AT WILL. -605 +805 would have been an obvious error, however -805 +605 is not an incorrect line as it maintains the 200 cent spread of the opening -600 +400 spread. Additionally it further expresses the opening line opinion Casa put into their original +400 number which was 50, 100 and 150 cents higher than the three places they used for their opening number comparison.
7) The fact that the two players were from the same state is a ridiculous argument and doesn't mean anything. I make the following suggestions to Dave to help him remedy this same state problem in the future.
7a) Reduce your customer base to fifty players (max one per state). If you can manage those fifty you can expand your operation to handle one from each foreign country as well.
7b) Keep all your players if you have any left after this fiasco and if any of them try to bet the same side as another player from that state have a note pop up saying sorry pick another game someone from your state already bet that side. This should work real well in football after the first California player bets the Raiders. You can shutout the rest of the state on that game. You'll never have another collusion problem again.
8) Dave says "We never closed their accounts even though they were 'shoppers' because I do not discourage that type of action." WHAT HE DID WAS STEAL THEIR MONEY MOST LIKELY FORCING THEM TO CLOSE THE ACCOUNTS ON THEIR OWN. As I see it Dave welcomes that action only because he can cancel winning wagers at his whim and discretion.
9) In reference to the spider programs Dave says "I do not throw out players who use these types of programs but it does lend support to the fact that the line was off." The explanation for this practice is quite simple: Dave knows that he can use his WAGERWEB OF DECEIT to lure the spider users to bet questionable numbers. He then can keep the losers and void the winners as he has made clear is the way his book does business.
10) Dave says he takes full responsibilty for the mistake, but taking full responsibility would mean paying the bets in full as they were accepted. UNTIL THAT POINT IN TIME HE HAS NOT TAKEN FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
11) Dave says "If you have an account at betCBS and you sit online and wait for incorrect lines you will be warned the first time and then your account will be closed." I think he meant to say that YOU WILL BE WARNED AND STIFFED THE FIRST TIME.
12) As pointed out by an earlier poster Dave said the right line should have been +350 so it would appear that Dave's "more than fair compromise" of paying half the bet at +300 is another attempt to steal an additional 50 cents (not to mention the other half of the bet already stolen).
13) As for the average wager and player tendency arguements it sounds to me like Dave is opening the door for this potential problem down the road. What if a player signs up and bets $100 two team parlays everyday for three months, and then one day he decides to bet a $100 eight team parlay and wins. Dave's logic will claim that the guy is taking a shot and probably offer to pay out only what 4 two team parlays would have payed.
14) Another misconception Dave seems to have fooled all of you with is the double talk about relenting and paying two of the four guys in full. Dave says "After further review I feel the two seperate cases may have been handled to severly. I will send emails to both tomorrow and credit each one of them with the +605 bet at their average wager amount." DAVE IS NOT PAYING THESE IN FULL HE IS PAYING THEM AT THE PLAYERS AVERAGE WAGER AMOUNT. He is clearly not honoring the $1000 amounts these bets were originally made at. This still leaves four people not paid instead of two as Dave is trying to trick us into believing.
Bottom line here is simple:
Dave's case is worse now than it was before he responded:
An opinion was used in the line making process. Casa past-posted the players here. He put himself in a win-win situation. He looks like a thief and smells like one too. You can't change a wager after the event is over (especially when you knew about it before the event started). Casablanca does operate on the premise that they have free reign to cancel winning wagers at any time. Keep your fingers crossed if you ever bet there on a team from your home state (you might get voided because another homer lives in your state). Why would he close the accounts when he feels he has the authority to confiscate them. Be careful and don't get yourself caught in his WAGERWEB OF DECEIT. After claiming what the right line always was Dave still tried to steal 50 cents(once a thief always a thief). He says he's responsible but still needs to actually take responsibility. Dave gives new meaning to the term "stiff warning". Watch your tendencies when playing there (larger bets on winning selections is frowned upon and could be hazardous to your bankroll). All four players have not been made whole despite Dave's double talk.
THESE ARE THE FACTS AS I NOW SEE THEM AND I RECOMMEND ALL PLAYERS TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION IN ANY DEALINGS THEY HAVE WITH THIS BOOK.
1) Other posters have claimed that ANYBODY that knows Casablanca and the way they run their bookmaking operation would know that the line had to be bad because they always post a middle of the road number. Additionally it was claimed that they don't put opinions into lines or move them just because they are heavy on one side. Dave Johnson refutes this by his explanation of how their opening number was arrived at. He says he checked three books and saw +250, +300 and +350. After his review of these three numbers he decided to open at +400. This is clearly an indication that Dave put up a line with an opinion. His opening number should have been +300 if he really puts up middle of the road numbers. From this information only two possible conclusions can be reached. Either Casablanca did have an opinion on this match and their +605 number was a further attempt to draw money on the dog or Dave is lying about how he came up with his opening line.
2) The MOST DAMAGING part of Dave's defense is when he states "The Matchup was immediately closed and we started to investigate the situation." This is a blatant admission that they decided to take a shot at the players. A simple review of the nine play wager history would have revealed the "obvious" bad line (if it really was one) and immediate cancellation by email notification would have been appropriate and considered by many of the ouraged posters to have been acceptable. Cancellation after the match has won is no different than a player trying to past post a book. Casa clearly took the shot here.
3) Dave claims the book was forced into a lose -lose situation. IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE OPPOSITE.. The bet wins Casa doesn't pay, the bet loses Casa does nothing keeps the money and the investigation is over. Seems to me "bad lines" put the book in a win-win situation.
4) Dave states "If we cancell the bet completely we look like thieves in the eyes of everyone involved." INCORRECT You look like a thief when you cancel or change bets after the matchup has been played even though you knew they were a problem before the match started. As I already stated this could have been remedied with a few simple email notifications. A thief however would do as you did and wait til after the result to make a decision.
5) There is no crime in a player trying to bet at the best line available. I recall in the ncaa tournament first round pinnacle posting prices on the big first round dogs. IUPUI was +18888 and nc-ashville was +16555. If someone else had these dogs at only +14888 and +12555 respectively and had either of them won would pinnacle cry bad line and try not to pay (Of course not. No respectable book would make such a claim.) Players shop and books post lines to draw action. (Something Dave's opening line choice clearly indicated.) If you don't want to book shoppers, cherry pickers, wise guys and professionals pay off all wagers you have accepted and say adios, but don't cry bad line when someone gets the best of it on a long shot and happens to win. Offering a miniscule settlement and continued ability to stay and play or full payment and closing the account is certainly an exercisable option. Changing the wager the way Casa did it is WRONG.
6) Rule number 18 does not define an "incorrect line" and therefore is written to give BETCBS FREE REIGN TO CANCEL AT WILL. -605 +805 would have been an obvious error, however -805 +605 is not an incorrect line as it maintains the 200 cent spread of the opening -600 +400 spread. Additionally it further expresses the opening line opinion Casa put into their original +400 number which was 50, 100 and 150 cents higher than the three places they used for their opening number comparison.
7) The fact that the two players were from the same state is a ridiculous argument and doesn't mean anything. I make the following suggestions to Dave to help him remedy this same state problem in the future.
7a) Reduce your customer base to fifty players (max one per state). If you can manage those fifty you can expand your operation to handle one from each foreign country as well.
7b) Keep all your players if you have any left after this fiasco and if any of them try to bet the same side as another player from that state have a note pop up saying sorry pick another game someone from your state already bet that side. This should work real well in football after the first California player bets the Raiders. You can shutout the rest of the state on that game. You'll never have another collusion problem again.
8) Dave says "We never closed their accounts even though they were 'shoppers' because I do not discourage that type of action." WHAT HE DID WAS STEAL THEIR MONEY MOST LIKELY FORCING THEM TO CLOSE THE ACCOUNTS ON THEIR OWN. As I see it Dave welcomes that action only because he can cancel winning wagers at his whim and discretion.
9) In reference to the spider programs Dave says "I do not throw out players who use these types of programs but it does lend support to the fact that the line was off." The explanation for this practice is quite simple: Dave knows that he can use his WAGERWEB OF DECEIT to lure the spider users to bet questionable numbers. He then can keep the losers and void the winners as he has made clear is the way his book does business.
10) Dave says he takes full responsibilty for the mistake, but taking full responsibility would mean paying the bets in full as they were accepted. UNTIL THAT POINT IN TIME HE HAS NOT TAKEN FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
11) Dave says "If you have an account at betCBS and you sit online and wait for incorrect lines you will be warned the first time and then your account will be closed." I think he meant to say that YOU WILL BE WARNED AND STIFFED THE FIRST TIME.
12) As pointed out by an earlier poster Dave said the right line should have been +350 so it would appear that Dave's "more than fair compromise" of paying half the bet at +300 is another attempt to steal an additional 50 cents (not to mention the other half of the bet already stolen).
13) As for the average wager and player tendency arguements it sounds to me like Dave is opening the door for this potential problem down the road. What if a player signs up and bets $100 two team parlays everyday for three months, and then one day he decides to bet a $100 eight team parlay and wins. Dave's logic will claim that the guy is taking a shot and probably offer to pay out only what 4 two team parlays would have payed.
14) Another misconception Dave seems to have fooled all of you with is the double talk about relenting and paying two of the four guys in full. Dave says "After further review I feel the two seperate cases may have been handled to severly. I will send emails to both tomorrow and credit each one of them with the +605 bet at their average wager amount." DAVE IS NOT PAYING THESE IN FULL HE IS PAYING THEM AT THE PLAYERS AVERAGE WAGER AMOUNT. He is clearly not honoring the $1000 amounts these bets were originally made at. This still leaves four people not paid instead of two as Dave is trying to trick us into believing.
Bottom line here is simple:
Dave's case is worse now than it was before he responded:
An opinion was used in the line making process. Casa past-posted the players here. He put himself in a win-win situation. He looks like a thief and smells like one too. You can't change a wager after the event is over (especially when you knew about it before the event started). Casablanca does operate on the premise that they have free reign to cancel winning wagers at any time. Keep your fingers crossed if you ever bet there on a team from your home state (you might get voided because another homer lives in your state). Why would he close the accounts when he feels he has the authority to confiscate them. Be careful and don't get yourself caught in his WAGERWEB OF DECEIT. After claiming what the right line always was Dave still tried to steal 50 cents(once a thief always a thief). He says he's responsible but still needs to actually take responsibility. Dave gives new meaning to the term "stiff warning". Watch your tendencies when playing there (larger bets on winning selections is frowned upon and could be hazardous to your bankroll). All four players have not been made whole despite Dave's double talk.
THESE ARE THE FACTS AS I NOW SEE THEM AND I RECOMMEND ALL PLAYERS TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION IN ANY DEALINGS THEY HAVE WITH THIS BOOK.
Paula brings up good points as Dave surely paid them half of their max bet at +605 meaning he paid them 3030 on a 1000.00 bet so he paid +303. That is terribly wrong.
Another thing i wonder if the players average bet was 500 and they only bet 100 on this match would dave pay them their winnings on their 500.00 average bet size?
Another thing i wonder if the players average bet was 500 and they only bet 100 on this match would dave pay them their winnings on their 500.00 average bet size?
Areeff,
I didn't even bothered to post that ridiculous Eurobet line. Company which holding% on tennis is 8, can't offer best prices on dogs. Eurobet wanted action on Nadal, but could not get it.
Eurobet opened this match 6/22 1:42PM (UK time):
Ancic -665
Nadal +375
Next change 6/23 9:04AM
Ancic -1000
Nadal +475
And last change 6/23 12:06AM (match started 12:00)
Ancic -2000
Nadal +650
Opening odds on Ancic was lowest in markets (couple other had the same) and they wanted action on Nadal. No one had a chance to bet that line. It is just a trick what some bookies uses.
I am on your side in this issue Areeff, but you can't use Eurobet line in this case.
[This message was edited by Faceless on June 30, 2003 at 07:11 AM.]
I didn't even bothered to post that ridiculous Eurobet line. Company which holding% on tennis is 8, can't offer best prices on dogs. Eurobet wanted action on Nadal, but could not get it.
Eurobet opened this match 6/22 1:42PM (UK time):
Ancic -665
Nadal +375
Next change 6/23 9:04AM
Ancic -1000
Nadal +475
And last change 6/23 12:06AM (match started 12:00)
Ancic -2000
Nadal +650
Opening odds on Ancic was lowest in markets (couple other had the same) and they wanted action on Nadal. No one had a chance to bet that line. It is just a trick what some bookies uses.
I am on your side in this issue Areeff, but you can't use Eurobet line in this case.
[This message was edited by Faceless on June 30, 2003 at 07:11 AM.]
EveryGamblersDream,
If game, match or whatever is supposed to start e.g. 12:00, there won't be any book who take action after 12:00. Only exception are those with live betting-option.
If game, match or whatever is supposed to start e.g. 12:00, there won't be any book who take action after 12:00. Only exception are those with live betting-option.
No offense but that isn't true. I always see games listed at books even after the posted time & once it actually starts it is taken down.
If you'd like, log into Pinnacle as an example & watch any of the 7:05 games listed, I guarantee you atleast one of them will still be up as of 7:06 PM as it is like that daily.
Why would a place post odds on something that can't be bet anyway?
If you'd like, log into Pinnacle as an example & watch any of the 7:05 games listed, I guarantee you atleast one of them will still be up as of 7:06 PM as it is like that daily.
Why would a place post odds on something that can't be bet anyway?
