Given the response by CBS, I would maintain my original position that CBS should pay out areeff at the Pinnacle price (+435) on the full $1,000 bet (assuming, as The Guesser said, that CBS cannot provide credible evidence that areeff controlled both his own account, and the other same-state account).
Why should areeff NOT be paid the +605 on the full bet ??
1. Well, firstly because +605 was not available anywhere else, and in fact, Pinnacle's +435 was the best out there for Singles bets.
2. Secondly, and equally important for someone betting the kind of $$$ that areeff is betting, is that (as The Actuary / S.P. V said) anyone who knows the tennis market (and in particular, how CBS prices their tennis matches) can say with 99.9% certainty that CBS never purposely put up the +605 number - it had to initially be an error.
3. If areeff had 5 or 6 thousand dollars riding on this match, he should have known that, at the very minimum, he should have verified this iffy number with CBS before/while placing the bet. He has to be considered somewhat at fault here. Areeff is not a novice placing his first bet - whether he wants to admit it or not, he is a very sophisticated bettor who should be more aware of the "rules of the road" when placing big bucks on a questionable scalp. Personally, I think areeff weighed the risks of contacting CBS about the +605 line (which would have resulted in the bet being disallowed) against the risk/chance of the underdog winning this match (which was quite small), and decided to "risk it".
Why should areeff be paid out on the full $1,000 at the comparable +435 available at Pinnacle ??
1. Because if areeff did not place this bet at CBS, logic would dictate that he would go to the place with the next best price, which was Pinnacle.
2. Dave Johnson has categorized areeff as a "shot taker". While there may be some degree of truth to this, the Eurobet +650 number (which was viewable on Tip-Ex) might come to his defense. While I don't think this +650 (Trebles Minimum) should be used as a benchmark when deciding how much areef should be paid, the fact remains that if someone was in a hurry, and they were checking the Tip-Ex prices to see if the CBS +605 is "within reason", then it's understandable that the Eurobet +650 on Tip-Ex might have prompted areeff into placing the +605 bet thinking "well, the +605 can't be a bad line, since there's a +650 out there".
3. As The Guesser said, it is irrelevant whether or not areeff was using a spider program., or whether he only made value bets at CBS. I'm no different, and I suspect most of the posters here are no different - if CBS doesn't have one of the best numbers available, I won't place the bet there.
4. Dave admitted that they knew about these big $$$ bets before the match started, yet did not cancel/void/adjust the bets. This may be the most damning part of the whole situation. Why they didn't cancel these bets before the match, I don't know, and until and unless I hear a valid reason for it, I have to assume CBS was taking a free shot.
5. Paying out +300 on half of his bet, is the same as paying +150 on the full $1,000. What's that all about ??
6. And what's this crap about a $200 tennis limit, when it states $1,000 on the website.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
While Dave Johnson's response was very well written, when you disect it and get to the "meat and potatoes", it is very weak. Not only that, there were a lot of things "left out" (and not addressed) that make them look even worse.
