[Phats1313]

Here is the link to the thread for the I-Pad promo:
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...-free-pts.html

How you do interpret this rule that is listed in Lou's OP?

1. iPads will only be awarded to SBR Pros. Non-Pros may participate; "1st Non-Pro to win each promo will receive 10K casino points w/ 10x rollover."


I understand it as, since Non-Pros can't win the iPads, they can still win 10K casino points if they are the first Non-Pro to post a promo win. Since I was the first Non-Pro to win the roulette promo, I should receive 10k casino points with 10x rollover right?

Rules didn't say the Non-Pro has to be the VERY FIRST PERSON (Pro or Non-Pro) to post the win to win the 10k casino points, just the "1st Non-Pro".

Need some opinions in case I have to fight Lou more on this Maybe it's just me though, not reading it right or something.

[WvGambler]

I'd side with you, but I've never heard of ya. Since I've heard of Lou, I'll side with him....even though you're right.

[boeing power]

He definitely didnt word it properly if that's the proper quote.

But I knew he meant the first person to win and then promo is over.

[Phats1313]

Lou is a good guy, I'm sure he will stick with what he said in that thread "1st Non-Pro", how can you interpret that any differently?


This is what was said in our PMs so far:

Just wanted to send you a PM to let you know I was the first non-pro to win the roulette promo for 10k points. I posted my win in that thread last night, not sure if you saw it so just wanted to let you know. Thanks! Great promo!

The promo was for four iPads. The terms stated only SBR Pros could win the iPads, but that if a Non-Pro happened to win one of the promos, freeplay points would be credited.

SBR Pros happened to win each of the promos and post their scores in the thread as specified, ending that promo.

Best regards,
Lou

The rules said:

1st Non-Pro to win each promo will receive 10K casino points w/ 10x rollover.

I was the 1st Non-Pro to win the roulette promo, the rules didn't say if a SBR-Pro won the promo first then a Non-Pro could not win anything.

I guess I didn't make myself clear in my original PM that I had won.

[SBR Lou]

Each promo was for one iPad. Only SBR Pros could win that promo prize. To not totally exclude non-Pros, each promo allowed them to aim at the goalpost: that is, participate, and instead of winning an "iPad", win some pts.

SBR Pros won each promo and were the first to upload their winning sessions, effectively ending that promo as the grand prize was won. If a non-Pro would have won first, the promo would go on until an SBR Pro won.

Hope this helps.

[convick]

There can only be one winner, Pro or non-pro. Giving an iPad and 10k free play would be two winners.

Youre out of luck.

[Phats1313]

I know 4uk4life interpreted it the same way I did, he posted this in that thread after I posted my win:
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...l#post15855104

[ArunSh]

Sorry have to side with SBR on this. Intent was clear even if wording was ambiguous.

[Phats1313]

Each promo was for one iPad. Only SBR Pros could win that promo prize. To not totally exclude non-Pros, each promo allowed them to aim at the goalpost: that is, participate, and instead of winning an "iPad", win some pts.

SBR Pros won each promo and were the first to upload their winning sessions, effectively ending that promo as the grand prize was won. If a non-Pro would have won first, the promo would go on until an SBR Pro won.

Hope this helps.

I wish you would have put that in the rules, what you intended to say and what you said are totally different. Can you agree on that? I wasted my time and points then to win this because the rules said "1st Non-Pro"

[yisman]

Sorry have to side with SBR on this. Intent was clear even if wording was ambiguous.

Agreed. The way I understood it when I read the rules originally is the way Lou said it. It's an iPad promo but so as not to shut non-pros out completely, if they can be first, they can also win something.

The writing could've been clearer to avoid this but I think Lou thought people would understand and that it wasn't necessary to make it something that would hold up in court, and which would avoid loopholes.

[SBR Lou]

I wish you would have put that in the rules, what you intended to say and what you said are totally different. Can you agree on that? I wasted my time and points then to win this because the rules said "1st Non-Pro"

You appear to be the only person confused. There was one winner to each promo.

[Phats1313]

You appear to be the only person confused. There was one winner to each promo.

Apparently, you didn't see my post just above where 4uk4life read and understood it the same way I did. And when I posted my win in that thread, nobody corrected me and said, "Oh sorry Phats, you had to be the first person to post it." So apparently, most people understood it the same way I did. Good thing you don't do technical writing Lou, you'd fail miserably.


1. iPads will only be awarded to SBR Pros. Non-Pros may participate; 1st Non-Pro to win each promo will receive 10K casino points w/ 10x rollover.

By the way, your "one winner for each promo" is no where in the rules. Any logically minded person would read your OP in that casino thread and come to the conclusion that each SBR Pro winner for the 4 promos would win an I-Pad and each Non-SBR Pro winner for the 4 promos would win $10k casino points.

Next time you do a promo Lou, send me a PM first with the promo details and list the rules so I can correct them with what you intended them to mean. Since simply saying the below is too hard I guess.....

A Non-Pro will only win a casino prize if no other person has posted a win for the same promo yet. (e.g. You would win the casino prize if you're a non-pro and the first to post a win for the roulette promo)

[Phats1313]

Apparently, saying "Sorry, I didn't say what I intended to say, I'll try better next time" is not going to happen.

[convick]

If you thought the wording was ambiguous you should have asked for clarification in the thread Lou posted. Otherwise, you need to learn how to read better. I dont understand why people try to blame other people for their stupidity and lack of comprehension.

[Phats1313]

If you thought the wording was ambiguous you should have asked for clarification in the thread Lou posted. Otherwise, you need to learn how to read better. I dont understand why people try to blame other people for their stupidity and lack of comprehension.

Why ask for clarification when it said, "1st Non-Pro to win each promo will receive 10K casino points w/ 10x rollover."

How can you not understand that statement? Are you that stupid dude? You are telling me I need to learn how to read better, lol you idiot, there is nothing to "read better" or "comprehend" more about that rules statement......there is NOTHING that says a Non-Pro cannot win anything after a Pro wins. 1st pro that hits a promo wins an ipad, first non-pro that hits it wins casino points. He worded it so that anybody who can comprehend English would think there are 2 prizes for each promo, one for pro's and one for non-pro's. That is what I understood, and that is what 4uk4life understood it as along with the other people in that thread.

Got a website for you to visit:
http://www.hookedonphonics.com/

[Duff85]

Angle shooting for 10k points. lol.

[Nittany Lion]

Angle shooting for 10k points. lol.

It's not angle shooting, whoever wrote the rules did a poor job. I understood them the same as phats, go to that link he posted and read the 1st post that Lou made for the casino promo thread. I'm sure many others understood the rules the same way, they just don't see this thread or probably just don't care since there is nothing for them to gain by coming in here and defending him.

I know everybody wants to trash phats because he's not SBR PRO and nobody wants to see a non pro win anything, but the guy has a point. He should at least be credited with the points he lost trying to win. No since in arguing this anymore though, rules were poorly written, and 10,000 casino points with a 10X rollover would have been a bitch to rollover anyways. But I understand your frustration, you just got to question everything on here and most contests do not favor NON PROS.

[KGambler]

The wording was definitely poor. But I thought the intent was clear. And I commented on that when I saw non-pro's posting their "wins". I said that I didn't think they had won and that they should ask for clarification from Lou before playing further. So there was at least one poster who disagreed with you.

But you are right, the wording is pooor.

[playersonly69]

Dude you cant use the points anyway!!!!


Give it up because no one is going to agree with you here

[trytrytry]

Phats ur kidding right?

[Cheme82]

Sorry have to side with SBR on this. Intent was clear even if wording was ambiguous.

How can you interpret clear intent from ambiguous wording? Being able to read minds (which is the only way to do what you are suggesting) is not admissible proof.

[trytrytry]

How can you interpret clear intent from ambiguous wording? Being able to read minds (which is the only way to do what you are suggesting) is not admissible proof.

i see guys looking for semicolons, off words, typos, where is waldo in my threads where I give away points in also..just have to put up with 3% of clueless people..a non pro beggin and PROs voting for his side is weak..

lock this thread its embarassing..

[Cheme82]

Agreed. The way I understood it when I read the rules originally is the way Lou said it. It's an iPad promo but so as not to shut non-pros out completely, if they can be first, they can also win something.

The writing could've been clearer to avoid this but I think Lou thought people would understand and that it wasn't necessary to make it something that would hold up in court, and which would avoid loopholes.

I have to disagree with you on this one Yis, it would have taken a couple of sentences to make this clear. No need to hire a lawyer to write it.

Now Lou is saying that if a non pro would have won first the promo would have kept going until the iPad was given to the first pro that won. How do we know they wouldn't have said "Well a winner was already found, sorry but no iPad for you".

Lou ****** up, John proofread it because of the double zero thing but still didn't point out that the rules weren't clear. SBR should pay the dude.

[Cheme82]

If you thought the wording was ambiguous you should have asked for clarification in the thread Lou posted. Otherwise, you need to learn how to read better. I dont understand why people try to blame other people for their stupidity and lack of comprehension.

I posted and even PM'd about whether the same person could win more than one promo. Never received and answer.

Funny how you are implying the guy is stupid and needs better reading comprehension when the wording was obviously not what Lou meant to communicate. Just because a badly written text gets "understood" by you doesn't make it a good text, and definitely doesn't make the OP stupid and lacking comprehension.

[Cheme82]

Angle shooting for 10k points. lol.

This wasn't angle shooting. The rules were written wrong, and now SBR is doing the same thing sportsbooks do when they hang a bad line. "Oops, we ****** up. Your winnings will be taken back and you might be banned because we are idiots and didn't double check our line."

I've always thought that practice by sportsbook is bs. Lets say you are playing poker and someone makes a bet to you and you call. Then when the hand is played through you realize you miscounted the outs on your drawing hand, would you ask the dude for your money back because your stupidity?

[Cheme82]

i see guys looking for semicolons, off words, typos, where is waldo in my threads where I give away points in also..just have to put up with 3% of clueless people..a non pro beggin and PROs voting for his side is weak..

lock this thread its embarassing..

3xtry, I've played thousands of points on your thread and remember reading about an issue with another poster that bet whether or not there would be a new WR posted on an event, that wasn't even close to what happened here. The rules where written wrong and the dude has a point.

You guys make such a big deal about the pro vs. non pro shit it isn't even funny. I've read posts by non pros bashing pros for being condescending, etc. and I always thought they were just hating. After reading the tone that some pros have in this thread I can finally see the non pro's point of view.

[Phats1313]

The wording was definitely poor. But I thought the intent was clear.

Where is the intent clear? He hardly wrote anything for the rules to find out what his intent was.

And I commented on that when I saw non-pro's posting their "wins". I said that I didn't think they had won and that they should ask for clarification from Lou before playing further. So there was at least one poster who disagreed with you.

I think you are mistaken, I was the first and only non-pro to post a win, so you couldn't have seen "non-pro's posting their wins" and where is this comment of yours at? Link me?

[Phats1313]

Thanks Cheme82 and others, glad a Pro came in here and understood it the same way I did.

i see guys looking for semicolons, off words, typos, where is waldo in my threads where I give away points in also..just have to put up with 3% of clueless people..a non pro beggin and PROs voting for his side is weak..

It's not like I'm trying to nitpick at the rules, did you even read the OP Lou wrote or this thread for that matter?

1st Non-Pro to win each promo will receive 10K casino points w/ 10x rollover

How am I clueless/beggin when I was the 1ST NON-PRO TO WIN THE ROULETTE PROMO

[Cheme82]

Sorry Phats but it seems you will get ****** on this one. Shame on SBR for not cleaning up their mess.

[DrStale]

Reading it the way it is written would make it appear that phats is the one in the right here. You can't argue with the wording. Making it worse is that rather than admit his mistake Lou gets combative. This isn't a guy taking a shot, if I were in his position i'd be rightfully annoyed as well.

[ArunSh]

How can you interpret clear intent from ambiguous wording? Being able to read minds (which is the only way to do what you are suggesting) is not admissible proof.

Ok, let me be clearer. I've seen many situations like this in many arenas - someone writes something of which the intent is clear to them, but sometimes people can interpret things in a way which you, the writer, would never have expected when you wrote it. That's just the way things work, no matter how something is written, it's always going to be possible someone is going to find some wording loophole (which perhaps no one else would have ever thought of) to turn things to their advantage.

If we are to believe that anyone thought that Lou meant it the way Phats claims he thought it was (that there was one prize for Pros and one separate prize for Non-Pros) - when has any promotion on SBR ever worked in that fashion where Non-Pros got a separate prize just for them? I've never seen that in all the SBR Promotions that have been done and is something which is completely in-congruent with their strategy of trying to get everyone to turn Pro. As such, the intent of what this promotion was advertising was entirely clear to me (and to apparently nearly everyone else). Yes, as I said, if one looks deep enough they can always find a wording loophole to turn to their advantage (many lawyers wouldn't be in business if that weren't the case). But this is not a courtroom nor were the rules for this promotion written up over several weeks by some large legal contingent. Common sense should prevail.

[convick]

Reading it the way it is written would make it appear that phats is the one in the right here. You can't argue with the wording. Making it worse is that rather than admit his mistake Lou gets combative. This isn't a guy taking a shot, if I were in his position i'd be rightfully annoyed as well.

There was no mistake, get a clue. Shame on you cheme82 for siding with this clown. You cant be serious....

[Phats1313]

If we are to believe that anyone thought that Lou meant it the way Phats claims he thought it was (that there was one prize for Pros and one separate prize for Non-Pros) - when has any promotion on SBR ever worked in that fashion where Non-Pros got a separate prize just for them?

Actually, if you read what Lou wrote, there were 2 separate prizes. If a Non-Pro would have won a promo first, they would have won the 10K casino points. Then a Pro could have won the same promo and got the I-Pad. So there were 2 SEPARATE PRIZES that could both be won on the same promo, the problem is Lou NEVER said that once a Pro wins a promo, a NON-PRO cannot then win.

Also, how am I suppose to know how previous promotions worked? This was the first time I tried a casino promotion. I read the rules and read through the entire thread, and then started playing because "1st Non-Pro to win each promo will receive 10K casino points w/ 10x rollover" was clear enough to me.

[DrStale]

There was no mistake, get a clue. Shame on you cheme82 for siding with this clown. You cant be serious....

Work on your reading comprehension then get back to me. Whether the meaning was clear or not, the wording certainly makes it appear that pahts could have/should have won the casino prize.

[playersonly69]

I just realized that I really dont give a shit about this situation!


Lou just give the guy like 5000 casino rollover points and be done with it. He will only win around 2000 points from that amount and he will still be a nonpro and wont be able to use the points anyway. ORRRRRR he will actually pony up $200 and become a pro which is the reason why you do these type of promotions.


Just next time Lou, can you give a bonus to the guys who actually lost points in the promotion instead of the winners who really dont need a bonus anyway?