I don't know what advice I would have for someone cheated by SIA. Maybe call in the middle of the night to speak to someone different for advice (their European office picks up at 3 a.m.). I have had an account there for years -- simply because SIA posts up some juicy favorite lines sometimes.
--
But I never recommend this book to any personal acquaintance. SIA makes mistakes aplenty and they have attempted to cheat me before. SIA is run by Europeans who go home at 5 p.m., know little about American Sports, and have complete contempt for Americans. And I think that's really the heart of the matter. In my sports book in Las Vegas, we respect our players, many of us are players (playing at our competitors). We treat our customers fairly and expect the same.
But the folks at SIA don't approach business that way. They think their players are fools and anytime someone deposits money with SIA, SIA assumes it's their earnings already. And they resent anyone who has the gall to win too often.
And anyone who finds one of their stupid SIA mistakes (and takes advantage of it) is handled in these ways: void that bet, void any similar wagers, close the account, confiscate funds, ignore e-mails, etc. (you get the idea). SIA feels they have the right to do this because they are superior and you are a stupid American.
Take it from a guy who has considerable experience with SIA: Wager at SIA at your own risk.
P.S. SIA does not follow standard "Nevada" rules. SIA makes up their own rules.
Thank You
Dweeb
--
But I never recommend this book to any personal acquaintance. SIA makes mistakes aplenty and they have attempted to cheat me before. SIA is run by Europeans who go home at 5 p.m., know little about American Sports, and have complete contempt for Americans. And I think that's really the heart of the matter. In my sports book in Las Vegas, we respect our players, many of us are players (playing at our competitors). We treat our customers fairly and expect the same.
But the folks at SIA don't approach business that way. They think their players are fools and anytime someone deposits money with SIA, SIA assumes it's their earnings already. And they resent anyone who has the gall to win too often.
And anyone who finds one of their stupid SIA mistakes (and takes advantage of it) is handled in these ways: void that bet, void any similar wagers, close the account, confiscate funds, ignore e-mails, etc. (you get the idea). SIA feels they have the right to do this because they are superior and you are a stupid American.
Take it from a guy who has considerable experience with SIA: Wager at SIA at your own risk.
P.S. SIA does not follow standard "Nevada" rules. SIA makes up their own rules.
Thank You
Dweeb
For those who are following this saga, the latest news is that SIA has offered me 12/1 rather than 8/1 (recall that the original bet was struck at 33/1). In other words, they've offered to return 16% of the money they snatched from me.
I have taken the money for the same reason that I would say yes to someone who stole my wallet and then offered to return 16% of the money in it, i.e. because it's better than nothing and I have no choice. However, I am no less annoyed now than I was before. During the course of the conversation (he phoned me up), the guy also admitted the following facts:
1. The only reason he was making this offer was because he'd been approached by Patrick McIrish from the RX forum. I asked him whether, now he'd made this offer to me, he would go back to all the other customers who've been stiffed on this bet and make them the same offer. He said no. So in other words, the only way you can get your 33/1 bet with SIA paid out at 12/1 rather than 8/1 is to write six e-mails to customers service and, when they're ignored, complain so loudly on a public forum that SIA gets bombarded with e-mails from third parties.
2. He was very sorry that my e-mails had been ignored, but said he hadn't seen any of them (although one of their customer service staff told me that she'd forwarded my mails to him - another of their customer service staff said it was company policy that the people making the decisions on such matters didn't correspond with customers!)
3. The odds setter apparently made a mistake when setting the odds at 33/1. He claims that this falls under the rule about "errors in posting odds other than the odds intended". I maintain that unless the error was in entering the odds into the system (which he admits it wasn't) the odds were, in fact, intended, whether or not they were misjudged.
4. When the odds setter discovered half way through the tournament that Philippoussis was unseeded, he decided to just cross his fingers and hope for the best rather than contact customers about the error. I can hardly believe that the guy has admitted this, but he has. The excuse is (as usual) that the odds setter was at fault and he (the boss) didn't know anything about it.
In other words, according to SIA's version of events:
(a) all three of the customer service staff I dealt with are either incompetent, dishonest or both;
(b) their odds setter is incompetent in setting odds and, when a mistake has been made, keeps it to himself rather than telling either his boss or the customers that are about to get stiffed;
(c) I've only been offered 16% of my money back because I've made so much noise on this forum, and the other people who've been stiffed on this bet (apart from two others who've also complained vociferously) have not been offered anything at all.
Anyone still feel like betting with this book?
- Alistair
P.S. As usual, copies of all my correspondence with these people is available on request to pob@betgenius.com. The guy at SIA who is now dealing with this is called Denis, and his e-mail address for anyone who's interested is denis@sportsinteraction.com.
I have taken the money for the same reason that I would say yes to someone who stole my wallet and then offered to return 16% of the money in it, i.e. because it's better than nothing and I have no choice. However, I am no less annoyed now than I was before. During the course of the conversation (he phoned me up), the guy also admitted the following facts:
1. The only reason he was making this offer was because he'd been approached by Patrick McIrish from the RX forum. I asked him whether, now he'd made this offer to me, he would go back to all the other customers who've been stiffed on this bet and make them the same offer. He said no. So in other words, the only way you can get your 33/1 bet with SIA paid out at 12/1 rather than 8/1 is to write six e-mails to customers service and, when they're ignored, complain so loudly on a public forum that SIA gets bombarded with e-mails from third parties.
2. He was very sorry that my e-mails had been ignored, but said he hadn't seen any of them (although one of their customer service staff told me that she'd forwarded my mails to him - another of their customer service staff said it was company policy that the people making the decisions on such matters didn't correspond with customers!)
3. The odds setter apparently made a mistake when setting the odds at 33/1. He claims that this falls under the rule about "errors in posting odds other than the odds intended". I maintain that unless the error was in entering the odds into the system (which he admits it wasn't) the odds were, in fact, intended, whether or not they were misjudged.
4. When the odds setter discovered half way through the tournament that Philippoussis was unseeded, he decided to just cross his fingers and hope for the best rather than contact customers about the error. I can hardly believe that the guy has admitted this, but he has. The excuse is (as usual) that the odds setter was at fault and he (the boss) didn't know anything about it.
In other words, according to SIA's version of events:
(a) all three of the customer service staff I dealt with are either incompetent, dishonest or both;
(b) their odds setter is incompetent in setting odds and, when a mistake has been made, keeps it to himself rather than telling either his boss or the customers that are about to get stiffed;
(c) I've only been offered 16% of my money back because I've made so much noise on this forum, and the other people who've been stiffed on this bet (apart from two others who've also complained vociferously) have not been offered anything at all.
Anyone still feel like betting with this book?
- Alistair
P.S. As usual, copies of all my correspondence with these people is available on request to pob@betgenius.com. The guy at SIA who is now dealing with this is called Denis, and his e-mail address for anyone who's interested is denis@sportsinteraction.com.
POB:
Judging by your E-Mail, I would assume that you are an employee of BetGenius.com.
For those who don't know, BetGenius is a well-known odds comparison service in the sportsbetting industry.
Out of curiousity, I have a couple of questions:
1. Did you find the 33/1 line at SIA by using the tools (spyders,etc.) available to you by virtue of the fact that you work for BetGenius ??
2. What were the highest odds (other than the 33/1 offered by SIA) that a competing bookmaker was offering on the IDENTICAL BET ??
Thanks in advance for your response.
Judging by your E-Mail, I would assume that you are an employee of BetGenius.com.
For those who don't know, BetGenius is a well-known odds comparison service in the sportsbetting industry.
Out of curiousity, I have a couple of questions:
1. Did you find the 33/1 line at SIA by using the tools (spyders,etc.) available to you by virtue of the fact that you work for BetGenius ??
2. What were the highest odds (other than the 33/1 offered by SIA) that a competing bookmaker was offering on the IDENTICAL BET ??
Thanks in advance for your response.
Igetp2s: If I were you I would e-mail Denis and say that you saw on the RX forum that I had been offered 12/1, and that although you still won't be happy unless you get 33/1 you think the least he can do is make the same offer to you (and everyone else who had the bet).
Halifax: Yes, I work for Betgenius, but our system doesn't include odds from SIA. I found this bet by going to the SIA site. I do not know of any other bookmaker that was offering an identical bet to this one. Areeff says in this thread that he had the field against six at 30/1 in the women's singles. I remember SIA went 75/1 the field against the seeds for that event, but I thought 33/1 the field against the seeds in the men's was a better bet. Presumably if the women's bet had won they'd have pulled a similar scam on that one. As it is, they've just pocketed the money with a smile.
One quick thing: although I work for Betgenius, my postings here are from a personal perspective and have nothing to do with my company.
Halifax: Yes, I work for Betgenius, but our system doesn't include odds from SIA. I found this bet by going to the SIA site. I do not know of any other bookmaker that was offering an identical bet to this one. Areeff says in this thread that he had the field against six at 30/1 in the women's singles. I remember SIA went 75/1 the field against the seeds for that event, but I thought 33/1 the field against the seeds in the men's was a better bet. Presumably if the women's bet had won they'd have pulled a similar scam on that one. As it is, they've just pocketed the money with a smile.
One quick thing: although I work for Betgenius, my postings here are from a personal perspective and have nothing to do with my company.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Igetp2s:
So I guess I'm not getting anything in the "settlement?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This still should be going on Iget2p's. Denis is going to be working with you in (hopefully) reaching some sort of settlement you all can live with. He was waiting to hear from one more party last I heard but let me know if you don't hear anything from him by Monday. I was under the impression he was either in touch with you or will be shortly.
So I guess I'm not getting anything in the "settlement?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This still should be going on Iget2p's. Denis is going to be working with you in (hopefully) reaching some sort of settlement you all can live with. He was waiting to hear from one more party last I heard but let me know if you don't hear anything from him by Monday. I was under the impression he was either in touch with you or will be shortly.
I find it incredible that Denis is still seeking to find a settlement everyone can "live with".
The only settlement anyone affected should live with is 33 to 1 and anything less is THEFT. Anyone decent would now pay out at 40 to 1 for all the hassle they have caused.
THERE IS NO WAY THIS WAS A BAD LINE, NO WAY.
Before the event, Roddick, hewitt, Agassi and Federer were all around 4 to 1 for starters. You would have got about 50 to 1 on Philippousis playing six matches in a row without getting injured - he withdrew from the latest event in Montreal, playing 5 in a row last week was too much for him.
These people are crooks, thieves, scammers. Have they refunded all losing bets on the 75 to 1 losing prop in the womens' event - damn right they won't have!!
Would they have paid up if an unseeded woman had made it - I doubt it very much.
I have taken out my cash and left these crooks. Unless they change their ways my aim is now to wreck their business as effectively as I have put potential new joiners off Yahoops over the past year once I realised what lousy thieves they are.
The only settlement anyone affected should live with is 33 to 1 and anything less is THEFT. Anyone decent would now pay out at 40 to 1 for all the hassle they have caused.
THERE IS NO WAY THIS WAS A BAD LINE, NO WAY.
Before the event, Roddick, hewitt, Agassi and Federer were all around 4 to 1 for starters. You would have got about 50 to 1 on Philippousis playing six matches in a row without getting injured - he withdrew from the latest event in Montreal, playing 5 in a row last week was too much for him.
These people are crooks, thieves, scammers. Have they refunded all losing bets on the 75 to 1 losing prop in the womens' event - damn right they won't have!!
Would they have paid up if an unseeded woman had made it - I doubt it very much.
I have taken out my cash and left these crooks. Unless they change their ways my aim is now to wreck their business as effectively as I have put potential new joiners off Yahoops over the past year once I realised what lousy thieves they are.
And "Cashing the Ticket" put his finger on it. SIA advertises in lots of places that cater to squares. One example would be http://www.wagerline.com -- which hosts all sorts of fun contests that are played mostly by squares. Nothing wrong with Wagerline.Com, but by advertising in places where squares see their ads, SIA attracts lots of folks who are new to betting on the internet.
We probably don't ever hear about many of the people who are treated badly by SIA because those folks don't even know about the various wagering talk forums available on the net.
Thank You
dweeb
We probably don't ever hear about many of the people who are treated badly by SIA because those folks don't even know about the various wagering talk forums available on the net.
Thank You
dweeb
Reply to "Skyweasel"
SIA pretends they follow "Vegas Rules" when it suits their purpose.
Sometimes, SIA makes up its own rules.
See this posting for a clear-cut example of an SIA "rule" that is totally out of step with what is done in Vegas:
http://therxforum.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=100090022&f=988094022&m=2943027676&p=2
Thank You
Dweeb
[This message was edited by Dweeb on August 16, 2003 at 06:14 PM.]
[This message was edited by Dweeb on August 16, 2003 at 06:15 PM.]
SIA pretends they follow "Vegas Rules" when it suits their purpose.
Sometimes, SIA makes up its own rules.
See this posting for a clear-cut example of an SIA "rule" that is totally out of step with what is done in Vegas:
http://therxforum.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=100090022&f=988094022&m=2943027676&p=2
Thank You
Dweeb
[This message was edited by Dweeb on August 16, 2003 at 06:14 PM.]
[This message was edited by Dweeb on August 16, 2003 at 06:15 PM.]
Well they've paid me the 12/1 now (did Igetp2s get this in the end as well?), and although that's better than 8/1 I'm afraid it's not the price I took, and I have therefore taken out all my funds and told Denis exactly what I think of his sportsbook. I shall also be telling everyone else I know in the industry that SIA are a bunch of crooks. One can only hope that this story and others like it encourage people to vote with their feet.
Thanks to everyone on here that's given me their support.
Thanks to everyone on here that's given me their support.
I recently questioned SIA about the Wimbledon prop.
This is their response:
"Since we last spoke I took your message to our management and we would like to explain to you what happened to the betting line, rectify the situation for your referred customers and look into correcting the problem with our customer support staff.
In July a we had a human error in our line management. We had set a prop which had
- Any unseeded player to get to the final at 33/1 (this would have
included Philipoussis as an unseeded player)
We also had a prop for
- Philippoussis to get to the final at 8/1
For this reason the first prop should not have been higher than 8/1. Hence when the mistake was realised that the 8/1 player was quoted this is what had stood as a priority for the first line.
Given this situation occurred we would like to contact your clients and rectify the situation. So we were wondering if you could provide the names of your clients or their IDs so that we may contact them personally and see what we can do for them.
To help us with improving our customer service, we ask if you would be able to provide any additional information about the call centre staff that you spoke to or the dates/times that you contacted the call centre staff about this problem."
Those of you who have had a problem with this line which has not been resolved, please feel free to contact me either by email or via the board and I'll pass the details on to them.
regards
Jason
Sports-Arbitrage free newsletter
Casino-Scalping free introduction
[This message was edited by Jason Thompson ZRA on August 18, 2003 at 06:13 PM.]
This is their response:
"Since we last spoke I took your message to our management and we would like to explain to you what happened to the betting line, rectify the situation for your referred customers and look into correcting the problem with our customer support staff.
In July a we had a human error in our line management. We had set a prop which had
- Any unseeded player to get to the final at 33/1 (this would have
included Philipoussis as an unseeded player)
We also had a prop for
- Philippoussis to get to the final at 8/1
For this reason the first prop should not have been higher than 8/1. Hence when the mistake was realised that the 8/1 player was quoted this is what had stood as a priority for the first line.
Given this situation occurred we would like to contact your clients and rectify the situation. So we were wondering if you could provide the names of your clients or their IDs so that we may contact them personally and see what we can do for them.
To help us with improving our customer service, we ask if you would be able to provide any additional information about the call centre staff that you spoke to or the dates/times that you contacted the call centre staff about this problem."
Those of you who have had a problem with this line which has not been resolved, please feel free to contact me either by email or via the board and I'll pass the details on to them.
regards
Jason
Sports-Arbitrage free newsletter
Casino-Scalping free introduction
[This message was edited by Jason Thompson ZRA on August 18, 2003 at 06:13 PM.]
