To Bill Dozer/SBR STAFF

[dcheng]

I sent an email but I don't think it went through properly so:

I made the following wager at bettingexpress.com
9) BET ID=186958349
Straight Wager 11/20/06 13:41 ET
Result: No Action
Mike Miller (Grizzlies) Will he Miss a Free Throw
Yes (Must Start) No Action
No (No Attempt - No Wins) 11/20/06 (20:05 ET)
No (No Attempt - No Wins) -130

MIller went 0-0 fropm the line in the game. I thought it was a win but it was graded no action. From reading the wager ticket it seems implicit that if there is no attempt, bets on the no would win. Please see if express will credit me a win. At the very least they should reword the prop so people are clear that if they bet no, no ft attempts is a push instead of a win.

[dcheng]

my

[knicknut]

Yeah, that's odd. If they put (No Attempt - "No" wins) you'd definitely be right. As is one could argue they meant "no one wins", but that's BS, IMO.

Have you spoken with them first? It might have been an error that they're willing to fix. If they deny it I definitely think it's an issue.

Also, I'm not sure if someone could get anything with it but I'd remove your account ID from this thread. Give it directly to Bill if/when he needs it.

[dcheng]

yea i called and they used your reasoning that if no attempts NO ONE wins. I think its a ploy to increase their advantage even more over the better.

[tomcast]

That's bad wording.

[koko]

That is terrible. It sounds like the sportingbet sites are up to their old tricks again.

[bubba]

its defenitely a winner. otherwise it should say that a free thro must be taken for action. it just says must start for action. i ad the same thing happen to me last year with hollywood and whether dwayne wade would hit a 3 pointer. he didnt attempt and they tryed to say push. sbr helped me fix it

[Dark Horse]

If it was my bet I would just take the push. The player didn't try a FT so obviously he didn't miss one. The problem is the other side of the bet, which couldn't be graded as a loser: yes to 'did he miss a FT?' is off the table. Generally speaking, a book won't offer a bet it can only lose. If one side of a bet pushes, so does the other.

[SBR_John]

dcheng,
Have you written Bill on this? Its Assistance@Sportsbookreview.com. I'd like to hear what the book tells us.

Secondly, how did you ever get hooked up with a book like bettingexpress.com?

[dcheng]

As far as the Mike Miller wager is concerned I wish I would have won the bet but a push is ok. I just wish the wording would be different because it says No Attempt=No wins.

I started wagering sports about 3 years ago and a friend suggested bettingexpress. They are great on payouts, but slow to grade. I play their props almost exclusively because no one else outside their family offers their props. However, the past few weeks I have encountered a few problems. I just had another wager misgraded and they said the matter would be fixed in 24 hours. It has been 48 hours and I have recieved no response. I will email assistance@sportsbookreview.com.

Thanks for the interest in my case. I will inform you about the outcome.

[dcheng]

l

[Bill Dozer]

dcheng,
They have reversed grades on botched props for posters here in the past. Try clicking on my name and sending your ID via private message. I don't have an email.

[pags11]

dcheng is legit...

I am curious to hear how this turns out...

[dcheng]

Message sent.

I would like to recommend that no one use bettingexpress. They have juicy lines but the aggrevation is not worth it. It took them 3 days to grade my most recent wager on a prop. I beleive other sportingbet sites might be better. Before the legislation they were fine, but in the past month or so I have had numerous problems. One more and I am gone.

Again thanks for the interest and thanks SBR for the effort. I will keep the board informed on the result.

Dcheng

P.S. Ticks me off that I know sportingbet has recieved complaints about the ft prop wording but still lists it in the same confusing way.

[Justin7]

That has to be the worst wording I have ever seen on a prop. I see what they were thinking, but it is still terrible.

Instead, it should read
No (No attempts - no action)

[pags11]

yes Justin, they should clearly spell that out so there's no confusion...

[Bill Dozer]

dcheng,

I received a reply saying the funds were put in your account. Can you verify that includes the Olsen prop and the FT prop?

Edit: Credit for the FT prop confirmed by Sportsbook.com Mgt.

[dcheng]

Yes, both errors have been corrected. Thanks for the work that you do. I know it is unlikely I would have been paid if not for you.

[Bill Dozer]

You're welcome. Thanks for sharing with the board.

[Justin7]

yes Justin, they should clearly spell that out so there's no confusion...

Agreed. Props are not a wide-spread market, and rules differ widely from book to book.

When a book posts an ambiguous prop and the player's interpration looks "most reasonable" (as in this case), we will rule in favor of the player. Books need to pay careful attention to the wording in their props, *and* the wording in the rules regarding props. Ambiguous props create headaches for everyone. Fortunately, the book made it right in this case.