Originally posted by RickySteve
I stated my arguments before.
-
As much as I value your knowledge of the industry and insightful posts I'm not with you on this one.
I stated my arguments before.Comment -
Is their own responsability to fix their technical data.
What is the diferrence betwen this site and all the other scams that cancel wagers or block peoples accounts when wining?
People should be aware of this site. I don't have an account with Stan James, I wanted to register but I was constantly redirected to the first page.
Does this site really deserves a B- rated sportbook?
I think these sportsbooks must pay for their mistakes. What if Cantoro or any other person in the same situation would have lost that bet? Would Stan James refund their money?Comment -
This is the key.Originally posted by cristianbet
The answer is obvious - NO.
And that is the reason Cantoro should be paid full EUR 19k and no cent less.Comment -
If the price was the same prior to the win it shows it was a palpable error even though there apparently isn’t a defined market. If I understand correctly, it's similar to a 14 seed college basketball team beating a good team in its first round of the NCAAs while the #1 seed also loses in that bracket. The bettor then bets the price on the potential Cinderella team.
Stan James had no business sitting on it and waiting. They aren't a CRIS or Pinnacle type book and should be all over that kind of exposure. They will probably say they didn't realize it was placed late which is a poor excuse. With just looking at this thread I would say the fair result should be Stan James paying the absolute highest fair market odds for these teams after rd 1.
Now the challenge is finding that price....
Cantoro,
Reading your email it sounds like you are saying the odds went from +5000 to +3400 before the 2nd match?
I apologize for the late reply.Last edited by Bill Dozer; 11-27-06, 04:37 PM.Comment -
The odds was droping kindly as I wrote, first downgrade was from 51 till 35.0 there were also couple downgrades later but I did not follow this market to the end
as I wrote IMO this is really hard to find correct market now
any chance to resolve this problem?Comment -
Do you know what the odds were after the first tourney win?Comment -
Re: my earlier estimate that SJ's 7/2 and 5/2 were fine....
I did not realise yesterday that these were 6-team, rather than 4-team groups, so there were 4, rather than 2, matches to go in the groups. Since the prices were 51 and 23, a downgrade to 4.5 and 3.5 actually looks somewhat skinny to me given the higher number of remaining games. While OP's 35 may be a bit long, it could well be a reasonable number on the team that was 51. Of course the team that was 23 should be shorter than that after winning it's first match, but it's not as if the group is in the bag after the first match win, as I implied yesterday, and I apologize to the OP, though I still think that he is guilty of past posting, and I still think that he should respond to SJ's allegation that they've caught him at this in the past. His refusal to answer the question makes him look bad.Comment -
odds were 51.o and 23.0 like in my bet, yes they had the same prices before 1st round but they did not change them -
so IMO it's not just palpable error
Stanjames closed this market before second round. If it was error price they would cancel this bet at that time - they did not
I was betting after 1st round but BEFORE next four rounds
bet was open for five days!!!
they changed odds from 51.0 and 23.0 till 4.5 and 3.5 (in the won bet!) when the result was known - it is to late
I agree with SBR_John:
Does anyone think this size wager went completely un noticed? I assure you that the book knew. Yes, its double shot taking, player and book. However, the player took his shot BEFORE the game while the book took theirs after the result was in. That means the player was the only one at any risk
If I had lost I would have lost my whole stake - I won and bookie is going to pay only very little part of my potential returnLast edited by Cantoro; 11-27-06, 05:20 PM.Comment -
[QUOTE=Ortho they've caught him at this in the past. [/QUOTE]
I wrote it in first post but you did not read thisComment -
This is what you wrote, which I assure you that I have read.Originally posted by Cantoro
You don't say whether you have past-posted in the past, and you have now avoided answering the question something like 10 times.SJ:Having reviewed your account, and found that this is by no means the first time you have attempted to take advantage of pricing errors or errors in publishing, I have taken the decision to permanently close your Stan James account. I have sent your balance of €532.95 back to your **** Card
comment : oh really, I'm so bad boy - so why didn't they close my account earlier ???!!! 532 euro instead of 19000!!! , these bastards stole my money!!!
Comment -
I originally handled this dispute. I wrote the player back on November 27, 2006.
---
Dear (player),
I studied your dispute very carefully. Your case is one that is very difficult for both the player and the sportsbook.
In this case, the line you bet was either a past-post, or a bad line. Ideally, they would have cancelled the wager immediately. Unfortunately, they did not catch it until they were grading bets much later.
In this case, they paid you the “fair price” after the first games had been resolved. If this price was fair at that time, they handled this claim in a fair manner. While they made a mistake leaving these odds up after the first game, it also looks like you took a shot at them. I cannot say that the handling of this dispute was unfair.
Justin
---
In this case, the it really looks like the player took a shot at the book. The book *tried* to handle it after the error was discovered. They didn't cancel the bet (which would also be shot-taking), but paid the "adjusted" odds.
At this point, the only real dispute the player has is what were fair adjusted odds? If you believe Stan James' adjusted odds were not fair, come forward with other market prices at that time.
JustinComment -
This is how proper bookies deal with past posting:
Notice
The kick-off time of the following Swedish Allsvenskan matches was advanced an hour earlier than its scheduled time 22:00 on 26 October 2003:
Enkopings SK FK-AIK Solna
Helsingborgs IF-Orgryte IS
IFK Goteborg-Landskrona BoIS
GIF Sundsvall-Halmstads BK
IF Elfsborg-Hammarby
Orebro SK FK-Malmo FF
For technical reasons, our acceptance of all bets relating to the above matches was only ceased as from 21:21 on 26 October 2003.
According to our Football Betting Rules, all bets placed after kick-off, i.e. 21:00 for the above matches, are deemed void. However, we have decided to grant a privilege and to treat this as an exception. We should stress this is not intended to and will not bind us as a precedent in the exercise of our rights and absolute discretion should the same or similar incident happen in the future.
We hereby confirm that we shall treat:-
1. All Win Bets (multiple included) placed during the period from 21:00 – 21:21 (“Period”) as valid and payout will be made in accordance with the odds at the time the bet was placed;
2. Save and except for Lose Bets placed during the Period on multiple, which shall be considered successful but with odds counted as “1”, all Lose Bets placed during the Period will be refunded.
The revised payout will be automatically transferred to our internet customers’ accounts on 18 November 2003. Registration for Cash-Betting Tickets payout or refund will be processed from 20:00 on 18 November 2003 to 20:00 on 2 December 2003 at all our operation outlets. Any registration beyond the stipulated time will not be entertained.Comment -
FYPOriginally posted by acwComment -
The guy was trying to steal money from Stan James and when they catch him, he comes on here and libels them.
They certainly didn't steal 19000 euro from him. To the contrary he was trying to steal 19000 from Stan James.
Why should the book be generous in any way with the guy? If I catch a guy leaving my store with merchandise I don't let him have the stuff at a discounted price. I wouldn't even blame Stan James for taking all his money. Stealing from thieves is not necessarily wrong.
Stan James handled this fairly in my opinion. At best he should be paid BELOW fair market odds at the time as there was a chance this shot would have gone unnoticed. It is fair for the book to make a shot a 0 ev action. If they pay him the normal expectation when he is caught the action has a +ev.
I have no sympathy for dishonest books, but we need to protect the honest ones. For some of us the books are our customers, and we should treat them well. Our livelihood depends on it.Comment -
Thats a horrible comparison. You are talking like his underdog parlay was 100% sure thing at the time of placing. There was still 4 matches to go for both of the teams.Originally posted by operamanComment -
So if I rob a store and steal a bunch of lottery tickets, it's ok because it's not a sure thing that any of them will win?Originally posted by ttmoppComment -
No its not ok because you didn't pay for the tickets. Not like the OP was riskin 0 to win 17k.Originally posted by OrthoLast edited by ttmopp; 11-28-06, 08:23 AM.Comment -
The point I'm trying to make, which you will either understand or not, is that past-posting a betting slip that gives you 1000-1 on a (let's say) 49-1 chance on a $15 bet (so you have stolen $5.30 in equity) is just as clearly stealing money as if you steal an item from a shop that is priced at $5.30. You can believe this or not. If you don't, you're wrong.Last edited by Ortho; 11-28-06, 08:43 AM.Comment -
This analogy is incorrect. It is like buying something from a shop that is priced at $10 when it should be $15.30. It could be a bargain or it could be mispriced, I wouldnt know.Originally posted by Ortho
Past-posting is a clear concept when it comes to individual games or horse races. It is not clear when it comes to futures. Some books dont take down futures prices at all. The variation in prices can also be huge.
This is not a case of stealing. You can believe this or not. If you dont you are wrong.Comment -
I'll disagree, *especially* when you have 2 large dogs win their first game. If the old odds were +131000, and the new odds were +6400 (or some situation where there should be a huge drop in price), it is clearly a bad line. While the book should have taken it down, the player should not take a shot.Originally posted by bigloserComment -
I agree. The results of the 1st games is only new information. How crucial, its up to the Stan James' trader. Its not players responsibility to know if its a bad line.Originally posted by bigloser
Stan James must have adjusted the odds at some point, after the 2nd games was it? So they obviously noticed what kind of prices they had been hanging. Not cancelling the bets during the 5 days is a clear approval for the bets to stand.Comment -
Originally posted by Ortho
You don't say whether you have past-posted in the past, and you have now avoided answering the question something like 10 times.
My answer is yes:
And you know what they did at that time:
They just cancel this bet very quickly and give stake back on my account. The wager was throwing away from the offer and couple minutes later they add new wager with other odds
And there was no problem for me and for sj also
This time they did not do this, they didn't cancel my bet and they didn't throw away this wager from their offer Odds were droping kindly with couple downgrades (quite normal situation when many punters are betting on the same team)
If I would crack Stan James webside and change odd you could call me a robber but actually I just bet on Stan James odd!!!The guy was trying to steal money from Stan James
Why "unfortunately" ? They noticed this bet!!!I'm sure and they didn't want to cancel.Unfortunately, they did not catch it until they were grading bets much later.
When bookie thinks that player wagered on palpable error can resolve this problem in 3 ways.
1. cancel bet (when the result is uknown of course) - and stan james do this usually
2. change odd (when the result is uknown of course)
3. do nothing and pay potential return if the bet bet would be won
SJ chose option nr 3 (it's not my buisness why) in my mind so they should pay - I was risking whole stake so they should pay whole return.
And about "market price" I'm going to repeat my mind:
ok, fine but what do we mean "market odds"
This is clear for favourites - for example "Brazil to win pool outright " was 1.25 and it was fair odd and everyone knows it
and odd 12.5 would be just mistake - I certainly understand this
but when we are betting on underdogs, on exotic teams nobody knows
Maybe P is 5% maybe only 0.1%
example:
first game in this tournament: Peru - Egypt
huge difference beetwen bookies, odds on Peru from 1.01 till 1.60
so if someone was betting on 1.60 on Peru could we call him thief? and what was the market price in that case???!!!
Due to this reason some punters (and me also ) are betting on such exotic teams in unpopular sportsComment -
You can't seriously believe this. If the 128 seed at wimbledon is 10000-1 because he's playing Federer in the first round, and he beats Federer, whatever his correct odds are, they cannot now be 10000-1. Period. Even though he's still the worst player in the tournament, and he is still outrageously unlikely to win, his odds have gotten shorter. This is simply indisputable. If you see that the bookie hasn't changed his prices and you bet the guy at 10000-1, you are taking a shot, and you have attempted to steal an amount of money equity equal to the change in the market price before and after the match.Originally posted by bigloser
The only way it could possibly not be stealing is if it were an innocent mistake, and the OP has admitted that it wasn't.Comment -
Miami are 300-1 with Cris to win Superbowl
They are 100-1 with Pinnacle.
This is not an error the odds are correct with Cris.
I think Cris' odds are incredibly generous , they think they are sensible odds. Am i stealing by taking these odds , how do I know if I am a thief or not ?
How is a player to know if a book has left up old odds or not. If no disclaimer is placed with prices on site ( eg these odds are good up to time of first game ) then pay the bet.
I was a big fan of Stan James before this (and I still expect them to do the right thing) but at the moment they are looking like a bunch of welchers.Comment -
There is a product for in my local store for sale at $4.99 reduced from $9.99. Inside the box is a mail in voucher for a $5.00 refund. The store is paying me a cent to take them away.
Im not sure whether they are aware of this or not. Whenever I go shopping I buy however many are left on the shelf.
Am I stealing ?Comment -
If you just dropped down from Mars and have no idea what the correct prices on Miami were last week, then you don't know, of course, and there is a legitimate grey area. That will always be an issue. But that's not what happened here.Originally posted by bigloser
Do you seriously believe that after taking repeated past-post shots at this book that OP just wandered over to the Women's Volleyball Championship market, with no idea of what the prices were the day before or what the rest of the market had it at, coincidentally saw some value on the two biggest underdogs on the board, both of which who had coincidentally won their first match at long odds, and innocently placed his wager in the hope that he would be protected by a bookmaker as honest as he was?
It's simple: There are times when a player might legitimately not know whether a line is good or not. He can either ask the book (which some people don't like to do), or he can bet the line and hope that his bet will be honored. But if his wager gets cancelled because he has bet an error or a bad line or past-posted, and he does it again (and again!) he no longer gets the benefit of that doubt and he deserves whatever happens to him. OP seems to be making the weird argument that because SJ gave him the benefit of the doubt on the first couple, that they have some moral obligation to be his bitch for life every time he manages to get a past-post bet down.Last edited by Ortho; 11-28-06, 12:27 PM.Comment -
I’ll refrain from taking sides on the dispute as a whole, as there are many intertwined issues and neither party comes out all that sympathetic, but I did want to make one point.
I don’t oppose “bad line” rules in general; I think it’s utterly reasonable that books need not honor wagers placed on lines that were clearly posted in error.
However, to me a line that is not properly updated is not a “bad line.” A “bad line” is a typo, such as posting +700 when the evidence is unmistakable that –700 was intended, or +1800 when the evidence is unmistakable that +180 was intended.
I think if a book posts a line that is not clearly in error in that way, and then they simply don’t respond as quickly or as well to new evidence as they would like, that’s not a typo. Same as if Tom Brady is injured in the last preseason game and you manage to get a futures bet down on the Patriots Under total victories before the book changes or takes down that line. That just means you bested them in acquiring and using available information. The line you bet was not posted erroneously. It’s exactly the line they intended to make available for you to bet.
At least as I interpret it, the “bad line” rule doesn’t cover the “act of omission” of failing to update a line in the way that in retrospect you now realize would have been wise.Comment -
a) Mailing in the voucher isn't free.Originally posted by bigloser
b) Read some weekly sale fliers and you will see plenty of opportunities identical to the "hypothetical" situation you describe in your pathetic analogy.Comment -
This is like two drunks fighting in the street ...
... they are both in the wrong.
The OP has taken shots before. He has now admitted that and clearly his argument is tantamount to "I got away with this one so they should pay me in full".
As for StanJames, I cant believe their software didnt flag a $19000 liability sitting on an obscure event. To want to re-negotiate FIVE days later is very poor behaviour.
I say StanJames gives $19,000 to charity or at least explains how the hell they let this happen?
Case closed.Comment -
Why all the mention of stealing? The OP hasn't stolen anything - he just took a shot at a book on a dodgy line which they then canceled and offered to paid at the market rate. Stan James haven't stolen anything - although guilty of not updating their lines quick enough, their refusal to pay on these lines doesn't constitute theft.Originally posted by pags11Originally posted by BuddyBearOriginally posted by curiousComment -
what happened in the end here?Comment -
Would be interested to know too! This case seemed to split ppl strongly between two campsComment -
My conclusion was that the player past-posted the book. The book adjusted the payout to "fair odds".
I asked the player to provide proof of what the fair market price was if he disagreed with the book's valuation. He didn't provide this.
Stan James should have taken the future down before the first game started. They didn't. After that, they handled everything reasonably.Comment -
Not sure how it is possible to "past post" on futures, atleast until the result of the event is known.
This decision makes it difficult to bet futures in comfort with so many A rated books posting lines on outcomes that are already impossible.
Could SBR look into a set of guidelines for books and players for futres betsComment -
Bigloser -
The outcome of a single game was known in two brackets. Knowing those results greatly changed the odds (to what was actually paid out).
The definition of a "past-post" for a future is placing a wager once one of the predicate games has started. In this case, the two games not only started, but were complete.Comment
