- Status
To clarify things, so people wouldn't be misled in the future and to avoid situations like yours. But the rule about their caps on payouts were there, and have been there for years. They are just highlighting them more now to avoid any confusion, referring people to their rules page. Should they have done that all along? Perhaps, but they figued people playing horses there would do it automatically. You proved they don't, so they are taking steps to steer people to the right place. I know I went to bet the Derby yesterday and checked on about 5 books, WSEX, Carib, Olympic, SIA, Sportfanatik. The rules were easy to find, and I bet accordingly.SmokeyWins said:
I can understand books having limits on the payouts but this is the biggest fucking horse race of the year. To cap it at 100-1. There should have been an asterik next to "full track odds".
This is very bush by WSEX. I have an account with them but there should have been a disclaimer and there wasn't.
Very weak.
This is very bush by WSEX. I have an account with them but there should have been a disclaimer and there wasn't.
Very weak.
guys... one more time...
i would agree that they are right if they never had that verbage on the site...
AND TODAY THEY CHANGE IT????
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FINE PRINT AFTER I READ...
"PAYOUTS BASED ON ACTUAL TRACK PAYOUTS"
IF I HAD READ WHAT THEY HAVE UP THERE TODAY I WOULD HAVE SIMPLY BET ELSEWHERE AND/OR DRIVEN 30 MINS DOWN THE ROAD.....
STARTING TO THINK SOME OF YOU ARE ON THIER PAYROLL....
ARE YOU SERIOUS??
i would agree that they are right if they never had that verbage on the site...
AND TODAY THEY CHANGE IT????
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FINE PRINT AFTER I READ...
"PAYOUTS BASED ON ACTUAL TRACK PAYOUTS"
IF I HAD READ WHAT THEY HAVE UP THERE TODAY I WOULD HAVE SIMPLY BET ELSEWHERE AND/OR DRIVEN 30 MINS DOWN THE ROAD.....
STARTING TO THINK SOME OF YOU ARE ON THIER PAYROLL....
ARE YOU SERIOUS??
I don't play horses, so i am not at all familar with how other books handle their payouts. But there seems to be an inherent unfairness here.
Had the player lost, WSEX would have kept his full stake amount. But when he won, they only paid out about 5% of the winnings. (you'll recall there was a similar situation with intertops, when a play bet a future on the marlins to winn the world series, but the win amount exceeded the max pyaout amount) If WSEX were to readust all the wagers, win or lose, so that the final win amounts are at or below there cap, then I would say it's fair. But in this case they took a wager that they were in no way prepared to pay. The software should have rejected the wager.
Maybe horse wagers ar eused to being screwed. But in other sports the sentiment tends to be, if the book was prepared to keep my full stake if I lost, they have to be prepared to pay in full. Lastly, in fainress to the player, it is not at all uncommon to see promos where the rules of the promotion supercede the general rules. Just as an example, Nojuice has a rule of a max $500 bonus per 30 days. for Breeders cup they are offering a $1000 max Bonus Play bonus. Now in theory it should not be possible to get the $1000 bonus since the rules clealry state a max of $500 per month, but the promotion is the exception to the rule. It's not unreasonable for a player to assume, that if the book is advertising full track odds, that it means that the caps are going to be lifted.
Had the player lost, WSEX would have kept his full stake amount. But when he won, they only paid out about 5% of the winnings. (you'll recall there was a similar situation with intertops, when a play bet a future on the marlins to winn the world series, but the win amount exceeded the max pyaout amount) If WSEX were to readust all the wagers, win or lose, so that the final win amounts are at or below there cap, then I would say it's fair. But in this case they took a wager that they were in no way prepared to pay. The software should have rejected the wager.
Maybe horse wagers ar eused to being screwed. But in other sports the sentiment tends to be, if the book was prepared to keep my full stake if I lost, they have to be prepared to pay in full. Lastly, in fainress to the player, it is not at all uncommon to see promos where the rules of the promotion supercede the general rules. Just as an example, Nojuice has a rule of a max $500 bonus per 30 days. for Breeders cup they are offering a $1000 max Bonus Play bonus. Now in theory it should not be possible to get the $1000 bonus since the rules clealry state a max of $500 per month, but the promotion is the exception to the rule. It's not unreasonable for a player to assume, that if the book is advertising full track odds, that it means that the caps are going to be lifted.
Rules are rules. The whole reason I moved my horse action originally from Oly was b/c of the cap and getting hit on it. It only took one time for it to happen on the win end, and I decided that wouldn't happen again. All I can say is that you should play horses at Pinny and never worry about this stuff. When there is a limit per race, things are much easier to figure out.
That being said, while I understand the wording they used, I can see where someone with limited horse playing experience might have problems with it. I further think its possible that on 1 of the 2 biggest racing days of the year, that the book might indeed pay off more due to the massive increase in wagers. So the wording was less than ideal.
I feel for you. I would be pissed too.
That being said, while I understand the wording they used, I can see where someone with limited horse playing experience might have problems with it. I further think its possible that on 1 of the 2 biggest racing days of the year, that the book might indeed pay off more due to the massive increase in wagers. So the wording was less than ideal.
I feel for you. I would be pissed too.
I believe that some of the posters that are in WSCREWs corner are letting their dislike of Smokey color their opinion. I guarantee that if this happened to a MOD or someone like Insiders, Woofdaddy, or other well respected posters, this place would melt. Wsex did themselves a lack of credibility by TRIPLING their payouts today. They KNOW that what they did was wrong and are now trying to look like the good guys. Screw these MOTHERLESS BASTARDS!
Hitman26 said:
thats a good idea..
this smell bad....fwiw you now change the wording and now only increase the payouts on triple crown days...--wtf
the increase should be for everyday ( you would have more customers that way)
actually you should this guy in full----- your only a multi multi million dollar company for god sakes..
so the shirt should read
" wsex stole over 9,500 dollars from me on DERBY DAY"
What a bunch of crap. Read the rules Smokey-not just at Wsex, but the same\similar rule that is in place at 90% of offshores.
You're DAMN LUCKY to be getting a cent more than $600, and you're STILL BITCHING!!!!
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, and anyone with a clue is WELL AWARE of the rules.
....and people wonder why people hate touts :nohead:
You're DAMN LUCKY to be getting a cent more than $600, and you're STILL BITCHING!!!!
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, and anyone with a clue is WELL AWARE of the rules.
....and people wonder why people hate touts :nohead:
TTinCO said:
Would you have the same attitude to a new person to the world of betting offshore or the horses who came out just to bet the Derby? The same people who read about the life changing payouts & wanted their stab at glory?
It seems the hatred people have for this guy because he is a tout is clouding the real issue of confusing verbage which has now been corrected. Lets hope other books do the same.
The rules sure didn't seem clear to me and I bet at WSEX. This will hurt their credibility and as a matter of fact I am taking out whatever money I have in there.
100-1 max on one of the biggest fucking races of the the year???
what a bullshit place.
100-1 max on one of the biggest fucking races of the the year???
what a bullshit place.
EGD,
I can say that his standing in the sports betting world has no bearing on my thought with this matter. I don't know you, Smokey or 99% of the posters here from a hole in the wall. That being said, I still think the liability falls on Smokey's shoulders. It's a rule. Could it have been clearer? Yes, but the rule is still in place.
On a side note, three major contributors to the horse forum have all fallen on the same side of this issue whereas the majority of others that don't frequent the horse forums (and likely don't play horses offshore very often if ever) feel like the player is getting jobbed somehow. It's part of playing horses offshore.
I can say that his standing in the sports betting world has no bearing on my thought with this matter. I don't know you, Smokey or 99% of the posters here from a hole in the wall. That being said, I still think the liability falls on Smokey's shoulders. It's a rule. Could it have been clearer? Yes, but the rule is still in place.
On a side note, three major contributors to the horse forum have all fallen on the same side of this issue whereas the majority of others that don't frequent the horse forums (and likely don't play horses offshore very often if ever) feel like the player is getting jobbed somehow. It's part of playing horses offshore.
- Status
