[shari91]

You're right. He probably spent so much time on the chat because he didn't catch the bad line earlier. Surely you understand that the question is if the line was bad or not. Not when it was caught.

Anyway, if in doubt, it should be fairly easy to check the line histories for 1st place, top 5, top 10, and top 20. That will show beyond any doubt if the line for top 20 finish was bad or not. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Then you can decide if you're supporting a shot taker here or not. Why do you think the innocent victim kept sidestepping the same question over and over?

I agree - the issue lies with the original number but the part that's leaving a bad taste in my mouth is that because that line was adjusted twice, to nowhere near what Tony said the line should've been, signals that this is an internal failure on their end. When that line was first adjusted, was the 5dimes employee just picking a number out of the air or would they have been required to perform their own checks and balances by comparing the line to those hung by Vegas on the same prop? Employees make mistakes so let's assume he/she missed it the first time and didn't bother researching what other places were offering the same prop for. What about the second time the line was adjusted? Again did the employee make a mistake? And if so, should those three mistakes - the initial line and the two adjustments - be absorbed by the customer or by the book itself?

Either it was a bad line all three times and Tony needs to get his company in order or it was never a bad line to begin with and he didn't want to pay out a decent amount on a long-shot bet when it looked like hitting on the final day. Neither of which scenario is a great confidence booster for those who are looking to place bets with them. And regardless of which it was, I don't quite see how the OP should've been penalised his winnings as a result.