[muffmoolah]

I have been using the nitrogen format since roughly early 2014 and that is really the only book I have used unless I place a hedge or so on. I have a long history great experience until tonight. I placed a few wagers on the Pres debate tonight. One of the Wagers that I place was https://nitrogensports.eu/betslip/16...iZz09/r/21642/ This wager is Hillary Clinton to wear red. I placed other bets on this debate including words that would be said as "cliches" also I bet on different pant suits colors. As you see my wager was placed at 8:36 pm. My bet was placed and book roughly 45 minutes or later which was well into the debate claiming the all wagers posted after 8:35 would be cancelled https://nitrogensports.eu/blog/state...te-late-lines/. This statement was released after the debate had began.

After I had originally placed my red pant suit bet I looked at other prop bets and saw that the color red was removed from the color choices which at first I thought was odd, but nitro was still had action on other colors this was shortly after. A few minutes had gone by and I loaded more money to make additional prop bets colors so I loaded more coin. I fired a few bets on phrases I was confident in Obama and something else I forget...it missed.

But now I am sitting here wondering if I will ever get paid. If you told me 2 years ago this happened on nitro I would says 100% I would get paid, if you told me 9 hours ago I would say 100%. Nitro has till not made a statement to me formally from the support tickets I have sent them. The only response I have received from there Admin Clay to "travel safely" in regards to my trips to Costa Rica.


I have never past posted anything on nitro actually I have been proactive in the community telling the admins on skype when a bad line or anything comes up because they have always treated me well. I do believe I am in the right on this issue personally I do not see how this bet could be cancelled due to there statement regarding the tv information. What does this do in stopping the people that had information about her paints suit earlier in the day or before. Also how did they know she was not going to change her outfit before she went on the debate stage. Nitrogen had discussed this prior and said for it to be action they had to be on stage.

I am sorry if this is jumbled or does some is not written properly I had a few drinks after this which is not common of me. This is not something that exactly happens to me everyday.

[Optional]

Honestly their explanation sounds reasonable to me

Prior to the First US Presidential Debate Nitrogen Sports released a selection of betting lines, 2 of which pertained to the clothing colors for each candidate. After an investigation, Nitrogen Sports has determined that the lines were deemed ‘late lines’ after TV News footage revealed each candidate’s clothing colors prior to the debate event.
Hilary Clinton was filmed arriving prior to the debate wearing a ‘Red Jacket’:

Donald Trump was filmed arriving prior to the debate wearing a ‘Blue Tie’:

ALL BETS MADE REGARDING HILARY CLINTON’S CLOTHING COLOR AFTER 8:35 PM EST ON SEPT. 26 ARE CANCELLED
ALL BETS REGARDING DONALD TRUMP’S CLOTHING COLOR AFTER 8:05 PM EST ON SEPT. 26 ARE CANCELLED

[michael777]

Nitrogen is right on this one

[muffmoolah]

How do you get to this position of they were right? The bet was booked before the debate occurred the bet was only action if she was on the debate stage in red I must be missing something?

[futbolmundial]

I agree with OP here seems like a freeroll, wondering if they cancelled losing slips too. Still tho when betting props things like this can happen. It wouldn't be the first time a prop bet gets canceled. I don't think they intentionally did this to con the players.

[muffmoolah]

If she had changed her jacket to green in a dressing room 30 minutes out does that mean my red would of been graded a loss? Is that possible that could happen considering the wager was not action yet?

[muffmoolah]

If it was during the debate and she was seen on stage then the bad would of been a past post and not good but that never happened. Nitrogen made a statement sometime after the debate started.

[muffmoolah]

What is reasonable about what they said at all? It is absurd that nitro made many assumptions in this spot. 1. They assumed I bet this after they said it was on TV. 2. They assumed she would not make a wardrobe change. They also made many other assumptions and those are assumptions which are bad enough as it is. Here are some facts for you though. I placed my wager at 8:36 the wager remained up to the best of my knowledge for 5-10 minutes WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RED IT WAS REMOVED THE ALLOWED ACTION ON EVERY OTHER COLOR. The debate was set to start at 8:00 on my slip I never past posted. Roughly 30 minutes into the debate nitro made a statement that I put in my OP. So the statement was not made till roughly a after my bet was made and booked as action.

[pinnerpsk]

Did they cancel the losing bets as well?

Also, I remember, seeing the bet offered earlier in the day. Then watching the pre-debate coverage they showed Hillary walking in wearing red, as well as Trump wearing a blue tie. Did you see this and then make the bet?

[SBR Forum]

Did they cancel the losing bets as well?

Also, I remember, seeing the bet offered earlier in the day. Then watching the pre-debate coverage they showed Hillary walking in wearing red, as well as Trump wearing a blue tie. Did you see this and then make the bet?

That is what their statement suggested, but we are confirming with them that all bets placed after the candidates outfits were shown (pre-debate) were void, and not just the winning ones. If anyone has a losing bet that was placed after the candidates were shown at 8:35PM ET, please submit a complaint.

[muffmoolah]

NO I did not see this and bet I have been on nitro for over 3 years and never had a issue like this. If I am being 100% honest I have turned several people into nitro for clearly past posting after a event happens threw the years and also made them aware of bad lines.I made them aware of user trying that was bragging he past posted last night on the event colors. Nitrogen has answered 1 support ticket I have had out of maybe 8 since last nights statement. and that took them about half a day. Usually it takes me about 10 minutes for a ticket response.

[SBR Forum]

NO I did not see this and bet I have been on nitro for over 3 years and never had a issue like this. If I am being 100% honest I have turned several people into nitro for clearly past posting after a event happens threw the years and also made them aware of bad lines.I made them aware of user trying that was bragging he past posted last night on the event colors. Nitrogen has answered 1 support ticket I have had out of maybe 8 since last nights statement. and that took them about half a day. Usually it takes me about 10 minutes for a ticket response.

The outcome of the prop bet was public knowledge after 8:35PM ET, so logically all bets made after that point are void, regardless of players saying they saw the TV coverage or not. They aren't questioning your integrity.

[muffmoolah]

Will you answer this question for me what does her wearing red in a parking garage have to do with anything? Are you making assumption she will or will not change in a ward robe? As far as public knowledge goes what is public knowledge and how or why does it impact a bet? Would this be public knowledge if 500 people saw here threw the day wearing it a red jacket and if so does that matter as opposed to a lagged tv stream. This was not a past posted football line where the results were in and you could correlate them to a bad line. The event that happened in parking garage in my opinion is not relevant at all. I don't see how you could draw a line between the parking garbage and here on stage almost a hour later. I find crazy I have to explain to people that they are assuming this.

[PharaohUB]

It's pretty silly of them not to close this prop automatically like 2 hours before debate. They should suck it up and take the loss, and lesson learned for them not for the bettors. Otherwise it looks like they could be free-rolling players.

[muffmoolah]

If Clinton would of came out to the debate stage in a green jacket would nitro grade my bet a loser can I make that assumption? Is that far for me to do in this situation.

[muffmoolah]

Honestly this really has nothing to with anything more then nitrogen taking action on a prop that should of been down hours ago and they could of avoided this situation. I honestly have advocated them years ago here. I remember JJ gld saying you work for them blah blah blah because he wasn't to up on bitcoin and I was promoting them. If they don't not pay this in the end its surreal to me. I just don't see how valid reason not to pay this other than I knowingly past posted and I did not. I mean how would this be treated in Vegas to anyone that knows better I am assuming it would without a debt be paid out because it has to?

[SBR Forum]

Will you answer this question for me what does her wearing red in a parking garage have to do with anything? Are you making assumption she will or will not change in a ward robe? As far as public knowledge goes what is public knowledge and how or why does it impact a bet? Would this be public knowledge if 500 people saw here threw the day wearing it a red jacket and if so does that matter as opposed to a lagged tv stream. This was not a past posted football line where the results were in and you could correlate them to a bad line. The event that happened in parking garage in my opinion is not relevant at all. I don't see how you could draw a line between the parking garbage and here on stage almost a hour later. I find crazy I have to explain to people that they are assuming this.

It's a tough break, but not a winning argument. They can't cherry pick in this situation. All bets after the outfit was shown minutes prior to the debate were void according to the statement. We've asked for double confirmation that no losing bets were left to stand, and will update this thread after hearing back.

[muffmoolah]

Thank you for your consideration. I really hope there were not anymore bets taken and marked as losers although that does not impact me at all it is not relevant to my case but hopedully it can help others which is what I am here to do. I would hate to see this happen to anyone else. But I am not cherry picking you are not addressing the facts I put forward. You are assuming there would or would not be a wardrobe change. the bottom line is I made the bet within fair parameters. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. THE EVENT WAS NOT OCCURRING DURING THE PARKING GARAGE SCENE THAT DOES NOT MATTER THAT WAS NOT THE EVENT A PARKING GARAGE IS NOT A DEBATE.

[muffmoolah]

And if you were interested in a valid argument there may be one to be had on a lot of other issues but I don't want to talk about those and deflect I directly address why it matters why was wearing red in the parking garbage of a event center a roughly a hour before it aired AND BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGAN. If you want to tell me I am assuming they would grade it a loser if she changed to red from green then I guess I am assuming. But you are assuming more she would or would not change again BEFORE THE EVENT. WE CANNOT ASSUME WE MUST BE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS.

[evo34]

It's pretty silly of them not to close this prop automatically like 2 hours before debate. They should suck it up and take the loss, and lesson learned for them not for the bettors. Otherwise it looks like they could be free-rolling players.

Exactly: this is dumbest bet structure I have ever seen. Not that I bet foolish props like this anyway, but I do know now for certain that Nitrogen does not know how to offer them properly.

[muffmoolah]

I usually don't bet foolish props but betting on a pants suit and other garage are just to enjoyable to pass up. I don't believe nitro was out to take advantage of there users with the offering of these props. But I have a different view of the situation afterword but that is just my opinion. For a period of time nitro had offered all the colors Clinton was wearing besides red and removed the rest. I am not sure how long this happened but it did happen for for at least a few minutes they never just clicked to take the line down they made a decision to leave it up a while. None of the bets were cancelled before the event occurred. They may of been cancelled after but not before. If you told me last night before nitrogen made a statement that my bet my be voided I would say how that is impossible? I had my wager placed at 7:36 the event was booked to start at 8 it started shortly after. I believe a good deal of time after they had showed Clinton arriving in the garage that I believe the event was held in.

After I look at this more there was never a past post that occurred at any point in time. Nitrogen did not leave the line up when after 8 when she was on stage in the red dress. There is no ethical or reasonable grounds at all to void this wager.

[muffmoolah]

All bets are influenced by public knowledge that is gambling lines move they don't move. Also past posting is past posting and is unethical for a reason which this is not even in that conversation this apples and oranges I never past posted I had a legitimate wagered voided. This public knowledge influenced people making wagers on a event before it had occurred but no event occurred in the parking garage. that is factual people seeing her on television before the event just makes people assume she would wear that on the debate stage. The knowledge of the TV stream of her wearing a red jacket in a parking garage is not determining in whether she will wear a red jacket during her debate. You are assuming these things against facts. She had every opportunity to change before the ACTUAL EVENT OCCURRED. We must not assume she was going to or not to. We shouldn't even HAVE TO LOO AT THESE FACTS. We should just have to look at the fact a parking garage is not a debate. This is small thought that doesn't matter what about everyone that had saw her in that jacket throughout the day and used the information? Is that public knowledge? Of course but they would just be assuming on a non change also. they would just be assuming which you are.

If this is the argument you or nitrogensports is going to represent why have I already not been paid it. Personally I hold nitrogensports fully responsible for what they have done in my non payment and I have every reason to. You are the first person I have spoken to that has made arguments for non payment, I haven't even gotten any responses regarding which this information was used this that is why I am here.

[muffmoolah]

The slips were voided well into when the debate started possibly towards the end of it. Before the event was booked to start no active slip were taken down. A statement was made well after the fact also. So based on nitrogen voiding this well after the action had already taken place is not fraudulent how? They never cancelled any wagers before the debate. They were pending unpaid for some time . If if you read above. I have no idea why nitro waited so long once again I can just make assumptions. Maybe they were going to see of she came out on stage in a different color but red. Possibly they were calculating the lose of the payout of this wager. But what very little we have left to guess about doesn't look good at all. Why did they leave up all colors but red after 7:36 then not say anything till Hillary came out and she actually was wearing red. I am not if they paid those or not that doesn't matter WHY DID THEY JUST TAKE RED OFF Nitro made HUGE mistakes in the mishandling of this prop. And all of those is just conversation...has nothing to due with the facts on why this is a legitimate wager.

[RonPaul2008]

I'm under the impression that the vast majority, if not all, of the lines at Nitrogen are scraped from Pinnacle. I highly doubt any lines there are created in-house. I wonder where they were pulling these props from..anyone know?

[Optional]

You may not like it, but I really think it is fine for them to void any bets made after she was seen on TV arriving. As long as they voided all bets stuck after that time.

From your description of them just removing red from the market, it sounds like initially they did not plan to do that, which would definitely not be a fair way to handle it. But SBR are trying to confirm what happened either way.

[SBR Forum]

That is what their statement suggested, but we are confirming with them that all bets placed after the candidates outfits were shown (pre-debate) were void, and not just the winning ones. If anyone has a losing bet that was placed after the candidates were shown at 8:35PM ET, please submit a complaint.

The outcome of the prop bet was public knowledge after 8:35PM ET, so logically all bets made after that point are void, regardless of players saying they saw the TV coverage or not. They aren't questioning your integrity.

We spoke with Nitrogen. All bets - regardless of color chosen - were voided which were placed after 8:35 for Clinton, and 8:05 for Trump. Bets placed prior to these times [prior to the candidate being shown pre-debate] stood. Once again although Nitrogen said this was not the case, in the event that anyone has a losing wager from either market placed after the aforementioned times, please tell us.

[muffmoolah]

I would understand if they canceled the bets before the event was scheduled to take place at 8pm they have every right to do that fairly. And they could of just done that and made a quick statement but instead they tried to angle on colors instead of protecting themselves and being proactive to the situation. But with every affect being done way after the beginning result of the debate of the wager how can you retroactively look at the nitro's position and say they had a right to cancel after the fact? What gives them 1 ethical right to do that to people?

[rolltide39]

nice try they show it and u bet wish it was that easy

[muffmoolah]

Roll I don't believe you have read any of this thread at all with that response

[TheSharppie]

you can blow smoke screens all over the place but you are just pissing off the book that you've used for years for no good reason. its a bad beat. take it and move on.

[muffmoolah]

Smoke screens? I have just stated facts in these case. The last thing I would would is assumptions or opinions to be used in the determining what is wrong and wrong in this matter.

[TheSharppie]

Smoke screens? I have just stated facts in these case. The last thing I would would is assumptions or opinions to be used in the determining what is wrong and wrong in this matter.

the public knew the color at 8:35 PM. You wagered at 8:36. The chances of that being coincidence are very low. ethically, you can't contend that you are entitled to a prop bet win when the info was known to the public. Nitrogen won't stay in business if they operate that way. You aren't seeing this issue properly and you are making a way bigger deal out of it than necessary. There is literally 0 chance they change their opinion on this and you are just wasting time. move on and try to get off of tilt.

[muffmoolah]

I mean I guess you didn't read what I already had to say on this. And also if you why are you assuming she would were what she had on in the parking garage to the debate. It was not the debate and that is also a assumption that I knew which i did not. If seeing something properly is assuming a bunch ideas with limited information then ya I am not doing that. But what I will do is continue to make people aware of this because oddly the majority of the people that express a concern with this are people that bet in the larger percentile on nitro. And that is good enough for me. I will continue to make people aware of what happened to me via any outlet I can.

"All bets are influenced by public knowledge that is gambling lines move they don't move. Also past posting is past posting and is unethical for a reason which this is not even in that conversation this apples and oranges I never past posted I had a legitimate wagered voided. This public knowledge influenced people making wagers on a event before it had occurred but no event occurred in the parking garage. that is factual people seeing her on television before the event just makes people assume she would wear that on the debate stage. The knowledge of the TV stream of her wearing a red jacket in a parking garage is not determining in whether she will wear a red jacket during her debate. You are assuming these things against facts. She had every opportunity to change before the ACTUAL EVENT OCCURRED. We must not assume she was going to or not to. We shouldn't even HAVE TO LOO AT THESE FACTS. We should just have to look at the fact a parking garage is not a debate. This is small thought that doesn't matter what about everyone that had saw her in that jacket throughout the day and used the information? Is that public knowledge? Of course but they would just be assuming on a non change also. they would just be assuming which you are.

If this is the argument you or nitrogensports is going to represent why have I already not been paid it. Personally I hold nitrogensports fully responsible for what they have done in my non payment and I have every reason to. You are the first person I have spoken to that has made arguments for non payment, I haven't even gotten any responses regarding which this information was used this that is why I am here."

[TheSharppie]

I mean I guess you didn't read what I already had to say on this. And also if you why are you assuming she would were what she had on in the parking garage to the debate. It was not the debate and that is also a assumption that I knew which i did not. If seeing something properly is assuming a bunch ideas with limited information then ya I am not doing that. But what I will do is continue to make people aware of this because oddly the majority of the people that express a concern with this are people that bet in the larger percentile on nitro. And that is good enough for me. I will continue to make people aware of what happened to me via any outlet I can.

"All bets are influenced by public knowledge that is gambling lines move they don't move. Also past posting is past posting and is unethical for a reason which this is not even in that conversation this apples and oranges I never past posted I had a legitimate wagered voided. This public knowledge influenced people making wagers on a event before it had occurred but no event occurred in the parking garage. that is factual people seeing her on television before the event just makes people assume she would wear that on the debate stage. The knowledge of the TV stream of her wearing a red jacket in a parking garage is not determining in whether she will wear a red jacket during her debate. You are assuming these things against facts. She had every opportunity to change before the ACTUAL EVENT OCCURRED. We must not assume she was going to or not to. We shouldn't even HAVE TO LOO AT THESE FACTS. We should just have to look at the fact a parking garage is not a debate. This is small thought that doesn't matter what about everyone that had saw her in that jacket throughout the day and used the information? Is that public knowledge? Of course but they would just be assuming on a non change also. they would just be assuming which you are.

If this is the argument you or nitrogensports is going to represent why have I already not been paid it. Personally I hold nitrogensports fully responsible for what they have done in my non payment and I have every reason to. You are the first person I have spoken to that has made arguments for non payment, I haven't even gotten any responses regarding which this information was used this that is why I am here."

why didn't you place the bet earlier than 8:36 pm if you were going to do it? put yourself in their shoes - once the info is known to the public, they can't honor any action on that bet. you wouldn't either.

Don't allege that I didn't read your posts. This is where you lost me 100%: "After I had originally placed my red pant suit bet I looked at other prop bets and saw that the color red was removed from the color choices which at first I thought was odd, but nitro was still had action on other colors this was shortly after. A few minutes had gone by and I loaded more money to make additional prop bets colors so I loaded more coin. I fired a few bets on phrases I was confident in Obama and something else I forget...it missed."

so you get on nitrogen sports and at 8:36, and place all of your remaining funds on hillary's suit to be red, at +2000 odds. you then admit to depositing more so you can play more prop bets. in fact you admit you looked at suit color prop bets only to find red was gone - meaning you went there to bet more on red because you had seen her suit color already. you got your hand caught in the cookie jar. just be glad they voided the action instead of keeping your $. you are not looking like a good person in this mess.

[trytrytry]

would SBR downgrade the rating of a different book if they did not refund a losing bet on this silly/fun prop (made after the CNN video of a candidate leaving a car and entering outside at Hofstra) Would they go all the way and rule for the player and downgrade the book in that case? What if the book book said well these are fun silly super high VIG (hold) props, we manage some possible risk with lower limits, we have a gigantic overall +EV on the player offering these , but they are fun to offer and so we just graded the winners and the losers as stated on the prop description if we offered them to the player. there might have been some vine video clips, twitter chatter, and CNN showing something pre debate from the parking lot, we know that's possible but we offered it, manage overall risk with super high VIG and lower limits and chose the off time. We are not going to refund this wager due to a CNN video clip and twitter chatter.

Isn't that also reasonable for a book to consider? Is anyone suggesting a book should be downgraded by SBR for that position?