- Status
uppy:Sure it might be "the general rule" at most books, but when I used to bet totals with locals 15-20 years ago, the standard rule on totals was that pushes were losses, so you'd never see a half point line on a total. If you bet over 186 and the score was 186 and you tried to argue it was a push, they'd say "You bet over 186 and did it go over? No."
Just because rules like these are standard doesn't mean they are fair, particularly when the rules can be misleading.
Just because rules like these are standard doesn't mean they are fair, particularly when the rules can be misleading.
Coach-
I don't know anything about horse wagering , so I didn't want to comment on something I know nothing about...the way I read it though I would have sided with the player if it were up to me...I also saw a few posters who I know are horse players who said he should have known better and he was lucky to get what he got.
I don't know anything about horse wagering , so I didn't want to comment on something I know nothing about...the way I read it though I would have sided with the player if it were up to me...I also saw a few posters who I know are horse players who said he should have known better and he was lucky to get what he got.
Good job by WSEX
I was going to come and further side with Smokey. I still agree with Smokey and will give two more reasons why, but I want to commend WSEX for paying fairly. WSEX has been an industry leader for years and once again have done the right thing. I hope everyone here recognizes this.
Sometimes books will make mistakes. The key is that they realize this and that they promptly correct it. It is more than reasonable that no one at WSEX on Sunday night had the right to correct this. It is possible after a very busy Saturday most the top management was not in Sunday. Monday morning it has been corrected and that is prompt.
Regarding 2 more reasons why Smokey should and has been paid:
For instance, if the book had rules that say NFL wagers are capped at $5000, but at the top of the Superbowl page, it said Max wager $25,000. People would believe the max wager supercedes the buried rules. No one would say they should not pay a $25,000 wager because of a rule listed elsewhere on the site. I believe saying we pay actual track payouts on the Derby, is akin to this. It supercedes the buried rule table on the biggest race of the year - especially when WSEX definitely knows only a few books pay actual track payouts.
Further, would any trifectas pay less than 300X? I mean the top three horses were like 7/1 with a big vig already built in. This would give us about 320/1 with the 3 faves placing in the top 3. Having a cap of less than the worst trifecta should pay (Or very close) is ridiculous. I can understand a book like WSEX capping horse wins at $100,000 or something so they don't go under if three 50/1 long shots on a small race come in, but capping it below what any trifecta would pay is dubious at best.
ALL THIS BEING SAID - WSEX PAID THE MAN IN FULL TODAY. I hope they paid anyone else who hit the trifecta. It is a class move.
-Sean
I was going to come and further side with Smokey. I still agree with Smokey and will give two more reasons why, but I want to commend WSEX for paying fairly. WSEX has been an industry leader for years and once again have done the right thing. I hope everyone here recognizes this.
Sometimes books will make mistakes. The key is that they realize this and that they promptly correct it. It is more than reasonable that no one at WSEX on Sunday night had the right to correct this. It is possible after a very busy Saturday most the top management was not in Sunday. Monday morning it has been corrected and that is prompt.
Regarding 2 more reasons why Smokey should and has been paid:
For instance, if the book had rules that say NFL wagers are capped at $5000, but at the top of the Superbowl page, it said Max wager $25,000. People would believe the max wager supercedes the buried rules. No one would say they should not pay a $25,000 wager because of a rule listed elsewhere on the site. I believe saying we pay actual track payouts on the Derby, is akin to this. It supercedes the buried rule table on the biggest race of the year - especially when WSEX definitely knows only a few books pay actual track payouts.
Further, would any trifectas pay less than 300X? I mean the top three horses were like 7/1 with a big vig already built in. This would give us about 320/1 with the 3 faves placing in the top 3. Having a cap of less than the worst trifecta should pay (Or very close) is ridiculous. I can understand a book like WSEX capping horse wins at $100,000 or something so they don't go under if three 50/1 long shots on a small race come in, but capping it below what any trifecta would pay is dubious at best.
ALL THIS BEING SAID - WSEX PAID THE MAN IN FULL TODAY. I hope they paid anyone else who hit the trifecta. It is a class move.
-Sean
I should also add from the books point of view
They are in a bind - not with this issue, but with booking horse racing.
I have to believe books that have built their reputation on fairness - the WSEX, Cris, Pinnys, Hollywood, etc of the world - the top notch most fair books really do not want to offer unfair bets. I do not believe they want to offer bets that pay 100/1 when they should pay 5000/1.
On the other hand, they do not want to have exposure that could topple them. I would feel very insecure playing at a book that has no cap on superfectas or whatever. What if someone hit a $100 superfecta for $100,000,000 or whatever and put Pinnacle under... These books are not in the business of offering lotteries without the security of a pool.
More than likely these books really don't want to book any of these exotics. They are in a no win situation - book it fairly and chance huge exposure. Book it unfairly and look sketchy.
The problem is the client demands they book the action. More than likely 90+% of the people who bet a trifecta yesterday have no idea what the real odds should pay. They bet football all year, have a few bucks at Pinny or WSEX and are happy to lay down $2 to win $600 and are happy to win $600 when they win. If these books did not offer horse racing, these customers would be upset and go to a book that does.
Thus, each book must offer horse racing even if they don't really want to offer unfair bets.
You can't fault the books for doing this.
But that being said, I think their limits should be very clear -especially on the derby. YOu can assume anyone betting the tampa roundtrack horse race will know to look at rules, but most betting $2 on the derby will not. Every book knows this and if someone goes to bet a trifecta or superfecta or any bet that could go over the books limit for risk, on the confirmation page in huge bold letters, it should say "Regardless of what is paid at the track, our limits on trifectas (Or whatever) are 300-1 or 1200-1 or whatever. We keep these limits to provide a secure wagering environment."
Then no one ever has a complaint.
Another option for the books is to buy insurance. I doubt these books want to take the time to lay off all their exotics, but they could buy insurance. For instance, when Taco Bell offers a free taco to the whole world if a meteor hits a target in the ocean, they buy insurance from a company like Lloyds of Londonm, etc. They probably pay Lloyds a hundred grand and are covered for the $50M in tacos if the target is hit. Lloyds is in the business of taking risk like this by selling 1000s of low likelyhood policies. A book like WSEX could buy a policy from Lloyds for a reasonable price that would pay off all horse wagers that win over $100K or $1M or whatever they want. They could then be the industry leader with actual payout odds and be secure doing it.
-Sean
They are in a bind - not with this issue, but with booking horse racing.
I have to believe books that have built their reputation on fairness - the WSEX, Cris, Pinnys, Hollywood, etc of the world - the top notch most fair books really do not want to offer unfair bets. I do not believe they want to offer bets that pay 100/1 when they should pay 5000/1.
On the other hand, they do not want to have exposure that could topple them. I would feel very insecure playing at a book that has no cap on superfectas or whatever. What if someone hit a $100 superfecta for $100,000,000 or whatever and put Pinnacle under... These books are not in the business of offering lotteries without the security of a pool.
More than likely these books really don't want to book any of these exotics. They are in a no win situation - book it fairly and chance huge exposure. Book it unfairly and look sketchy.
The problem is the client demands they book the action. More than likely 90+% of the people who bet a trifecta yesterday have no idea what the real odds should pay. They bet football all year, have a few bucks at Pinny or WSEX and are happy to lay down $2 to win $600 and are happy to win $600 when they win. If these books did not offer horse racing, these customers would be upset and go to a book that does.
Thus, each book must offer horse racing even if they don't really want to offer unfair bets.
You can't fault the books for doing this.
But that being said, I think their limits should be very clear -especially on the derby. YOu can assume anyone betting the tampa roundtrack horse race will know to look at rules, but most betting $2 on the derby will not. Every book knows this and if someone goes to bet a trifecta or superfecta or any bet that could go over the books limit for risk, on the confirmation page in huge bold letters, it should say "Regardless of what is paid at the track, our limits on trifectas (Or whatever) are 300-1 or 1200-1 or whatever. We keep these limits to provide a secure wagering environment."
Then no one ever has a complaint.
Another option for the books is to buy insurance. I doubt these books want to take the time to lay off all their exotics, but they could buy insurance. For instance, when Taco Bell offers a free taco to the whole world if a meteor hits a target in the ocean, they buy insurance from a company like Lloyds of Londonm, etc. They probably pay Lloyds a hundred grand and are covered for the $50M in tacos if the target is hit. Lloyds is in the business of taking risk like this by selling 1000s of low likelyhood policies. A book like WSEX could buy a policy from Lloyds for a reasonable price that would pay off all horse wagers that win over $100K or $1M or whatever they want. They could then be the industry leader with actual payout odds and be secure doing it.
-Sean
I should be ashamed of myself? :think2:
let me see?
1) I immediatly got in touch with smokey via email
2) I immeditaly got on the phone with STEVE @ WSEX.....
3) I polled everyone in the board room & all my collegues at the RX....
***I SAW BOTH SIDES & SIDED TO A LARGE DEGREE WITH SMOKEY, why should I be ashamed of myself***
I think those who were making vile threats without even waiting for monday morning to roll around should be ashamed of themselves.
let me see?
1) I immediatly got in touch with smokey via email
2) I immeditaly got on the phone with STEVE @ WSEX.....
3) I polled everyone in the board room & all my collegues at the RX....
***I SAW BOTH SIDES & SIDED TO A LARGE DEGREE WITH SMOKEY, why should I be ashamed of myself***
I think those who were making vile threats without even waiting for monday morning to roll around should be ashamed of themselves.
SportSavant said:
Actally, I got the impression you were definetly more sided with Smokey on this issue than not
For certain you kept an open mind to both parties involved and feel you should be tremendously applauded for all your hard work in this dispute..........here in the forum, as well as behind the scenes.
-FH-
Fishhead said:
you know fish, GREENHEAD has always had a hard on for me for some reason, so I can understand the statement, & frankly I could care less of any comment coming from him, but it does hurt a bit coming from guys like coachlt; not sure how I should be ashamed of my self for volunteering to help with this situation & disecting every angle of it. Helping smokey control his anger & wait a few days & encouraging posters not to go off the deep end & wait before they start printing T-Shirts......
SportSavant said:
I've always had a hard on for you? WTF are you talking about.I dont even know who you are.As I said I re-read this thread and cant believe how stupid you looked.Why dont you reread your first post.You were FLAMING Smokey from the begining.Than you changed your stance I dont know how many times.Then you lied and lied about 95% of the books have the same rules.WRONG its more like 5%.I can go on and on but I'm not going to bother because you had 0 % to do with Smokey getting his money back.You were backing up WSEX and flaming Coach Lt,flaming Smokey putting out false facts and looking stupid.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED of yourself.Why dont you reread Journeys last post and learn from a pro."I didnt want to comment on something I didnt know anything about."
its not a black & white issue GREENHEAD (hence the going back & forth), even FISHHEAD said it was a 50/50 type thing for him, difficult to reconclie. Or why dont you take a look at the POLL where voting is SPLIT 50/50 on this issue.
You dont know who I am? now who is lieing? you have had words for me before..... or maybe its because you are always a negative asshole that you dont remember?
as for making up lies? I think 95% of the posters here know I shoot straight & if my post was inaccurate it was not intended to be & serves no good to be picked apart by you. maybe the 95% was an exageration, but I was referring to 'general business practices on horses' & erred when I typed it....
You dont know who I am? now who is lieing? you have had words for me before..... or maybe its because you are always a negative asshole that you dont remember?
as for making up lies? I think 95% of the posters here know I shoot straight & if my post was inaccurate it was not intended to be & serves no good to be picked apart by you. maybe the 95% was an exageration, but I was referring to 'general business practices on horses' & erred when I typed it....
I haven't said much in this thread for personal reasons
What I do find offensive are statements like the following:
THIS WILL COST THEM WAAAAAAAY MORE THAN THIS 11,400.......
GOING TO BE SOME GREAT T-SHIRTS TO TAKE TO VEGAS FOR THE BASH............
Where does Smokey or anyone else get off using the Rx. Bash to promote their own agenda. The entire incident got blown way out of porportion and could have been handled without references like WSEX scammed, stole, robbed etc. The I will make it my cancer was also totally classless.
This was not an attempt by any one to scam or steal money, just an unfortunate use of terminology. Although I never would have made the play without actually checking the payout table. Call me crazy.
In the end I hope the right thing was done but if it was my call I would have contacted Steve privately and tried to handle the matter with some class.
wil.
What I do find offensive are statements like the following:
THIS WILL COST THEM WAAAAAAAY MORE THAN THIS 11,400.......
GOING TO BE SOME GREAT T-SHIRTS TO TAKE TO VEGAS FOR THE BASH............
Where does Smokey or anyone else get off using the Rx. Bash to promote their own agenda. The entire incident got blown way out of porportion and could have been handled without references like WSEX scammed, stole, robbed etc. The I will make it my cancer was also totally classless.
This was not an attempt by any one to scam or steal money, just an unfortunate use of terminology. Although I never would have made the play without actually checking the payout table. Call me crazy.
In the end I hope the right thing was done but if it was my call I would have contacted Steve privately and tried to handle the matter with some class.
wil.
- Status
