Relative Newbie Question: Bad/Slow lines and bet cancelling?

[Ortho]

Hi,

I'm a relative newbie to sports betting, and this has been bothering me enough that I wanted to ask about it. I have seen shops calling "no action" on certain bets where there is a bad line, and every time I play a line that is out of line with the rest of the market I worry about it.

100-1 on a 10-1 shot, I understand that a book is going to void the bet. I'm just not sure about other situations and I was hoping that someone could straighten me out on what I should expect as industry standard from B- and above books.

Some situations:

a) A tennis player is listed at 25-1 to win Wimbledon everywhere. He gets bet into 10-1 everywhere in the market except for one shop, which still has 25-1 up. You bet it.

b) A tennis player is listed at 12-1 to win wimbledon, and everyone else has him at 8-1 the day before the tournament starts.

c) A shop goes 10-1 "what are the odds of 2 people having the same birthday in a room with 20 people in it." The true odds are around evens.

d) As happened today, the top 2 riders in Tour de France betting are eliminated from the race. The true price on the 3rd favorite is probably 3-1. You bet him at the 10-1 that is his market price before the DQs at a shop that hasn't remade its market.

Are any of these bets going to be cancelled? If so, should the player complain here?

Does it matter whether the event has started or not? Once the event starts, can you assume you have action? Is it considered acceptable to wait until the event is over and then declare "no action?", leading to the suspicion that the book would've honoured the wager had it gone their way?

And, finally, how do you find out if you have action on a bet where the line is off or maybe even bad without inviting the book to take a shot at you by cancelling your bet?

This is a grey area for me and I worry about it every time I play an "out-of-line" (lol) line. I'm always worried that a book is going to say "you should've known we weren't going to give you action on that because that's a really good line and our lines are all bad!"

Thanks.

[Ortho]

Is this an appropriate place to ask this question? My own opinion is that only clerical error should allow a book to cancel a bet, and if the entire starting 5 and most of the bench of the Lakers are bedridden with food poisoning and you get on their opponents at +15 before the line drops to pk, then that's ok. I think that all 4 of the cases I put above are cases where the bet should be honored by the book, but I don't usually make these bets because I'm worried that I might get cancelled. I posted this in this forum rather than elsewhere because I thought I might get clearer answers about what is and is not acceptable behaviour on the part of the player and the book, when the book has grounds to cancel your wager, and when the player has grounds for complaint.

[tacomax]

There is no universal answer for each of your queries - it largely depends on the book you're using. A premium book may well stick by every bet whatever the odds taken, a lesser book might take the bet but adjust the odds if there's an obvious error if it's not spotted before the match starts or just cancel the bet totally if it's before the match starts. And then you get the likes of BetOnSports who will steal your money whatever odds you take.

[tacomax]

Is this an appropriate place to ask this question?

It's a good a place as any - and welcome to the forum, Ortho.

[JoshW]

Generally injury or DQ betting into slow lines is acceptable. At least it used to be. If that is the only thing you bet into shops, some will likely kick you out eventually, maybe right away, but they should pay of the bet. So in all your cases I feel a book should pay.

[Ortho]

It's a good a place as any - and welcome to the forum, Ortho.

Thanks.

I can see why that question wouldn't entirely make sense, since the books are going to all be different. To put it slightly differently, is there a point on any of those bets where you would feel that you, as a player, were angle-shooting by betting into that line and would wouldn't want to do it? I guess that's what I'm getting at-trying to push my edges where I find them but to know what the appropriate limits on my behaviour should be.

[Mudcat]

It's a big, tough question.

Even trying to narrow it down by specifying books that are B- or better doesn't help much. I have had The Greek let a bet stand at +140 that should have been -140. On the other hand, there was a case of Canbet canceling a bet at +100 because they said it should have been -108.

One thing that higher rated books are less likely to do is cancel winning bets after an event is over. It can surely happen though. You asked if it is considered "acceptable." It certainly isn't to me and most players but that doesn't mean it can't happen. There is nothing black-and-white about your question.

When I see a line that I know is an error, I usually just phone the book. I figure I might as well. If I'm sure any bet I place is going to be cancelled there is no point playing the line. I might as well see if I can get something out of it (i.e. some books will shoot you a little bonus for that.)

But I have also had it happen where I have phoned about a bad line and a rep has said (for the recording), "Nope, that line is not an error. You can play it." That's good too.

It's really hard to comment on the specific scenarios you outlined. In scenarios (a) (c) and (d), I would probably phone the book and try to get something on tape. Scenario (b) seems fairly safe to bet at most highly rated books but even then, it couldn't hurt to phone.

If you don't want to phone for some reason, you could Live Chat (although that is obviously not terribly efficient.)

A lot of my actions will just depend on feel and experience with specific books. Unfortunately it's hard to capture everything that means here.

Those are my initial thoughts.

[hanco21]

Pinny cancelled wagers when they had the Tigers listed at (-120) today.

[Lucas]

has anyone had cancelled bet at greek? They look very stable... more than any other bookie. I agree with mudcat - rating does not help in this case. Canbet is chronical voider.

[Dark Horse]

Maybe there should be some sort of standard (what better place than SBR to set it?) If a book cancels a bet because of an 8 cent mistake that is just ridiculous. After the game it is stealing, because they would have kept the money if the wager had lost. On the other hand, if it were a 50 cent mistake you couldn't really blame the book. So what is the acceptable limit? Perhaps, once that is established, it is easier to include this shady area in a book's rating.

I once contacted Pinny about a very hasty bet that I had placed on the wrong team. Instead of cancelling it, they told me to bet on the other side as well. Fine with me. But ... what is good for the goose...

[SquareShooter]

This is as simple as that -- no SINGLE book (even A+ like PInnacle) will allow you to bet on lines that are in surebet position. At least not longterm. They look very carefully for that and they have great automated tools which help them. Thats it.

[Dark Horse]

Remembering this thread I just contacted Skybook about a total in the WNBA that seemed high to me. Live chat. I had the page open to place the wager. I was told the total was good (according to supervisor) and immediately entered the wager, but by now it had come down a full point. When I asked about this they gave me the 'line do change' routine. Talk about cheap...

[RickySteve]

But I have also had it happen where I have phoned about a bad line and a rep has said (for the recording), "Nope, that line is not an error. You can play it." That's good too.

Just because a CS rep says something doesn't make it true. Most of them have absolutely no clue what they're doing. I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of times that I have been assured of something by the first person to answer the phone, only to have that guarantee reversed later by management.

[RickySteve]

This is as simple as that -- no SINGLE book (even A+ like PInnacle) will allow you to bet on lines that are in surebet position. At least not longterm. They look very carefully for that and they have great automated tools which help them. Thats it.

Was this supposed to make sense?

[Mudcat]

Just because a CS rep says something doesn't make it true. Most of them have absolutely no clue what they're doing. I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of times that I have been assured of something by the first person to answer the phone, only to have that guarantee reversed later by management.

Yep you make a good point RickySteve. That is also a "feel" thing where you have to judge if the rep is speaking with any kind of authority. And I usually use very specific language like, "Okay now you're absolutely positive? If you're not, or you need to double-check with a manager, please say so right now because I will come back and complain and refer to this recorded conversation and I will expect it to be honored blah, blah, blah . . . "

But even then there could be problems.

[SquareShooter]

Was this supposed to make sense?

Yes. Whats wrong with it?