Heard a rumor Meadowlands sports book didn't pay a Broncos live Ticket

[fried cheese]

You can if we are taking 100 times the proper price. There is no point in betting that because bettor should know he will not get paid, only bad can come of it, i.e., getting labeled as shot-taker.

ive seen books offer odds on impossible events like teams winning the championship that are eliminated from even making the playoffs. you would at least agree that a book that offers something like this should have to payout their obvious line errors also right?

[The Kraken]

There is precedent with LV not paying on incorrect slot payouts, so the protection precedent is there.

The two issues I have is books have ways of making basically eliminating shaep action, or at least minimizing it, so along these lines what is left is what they want which are squares. Same people that wouldnt know a bad line from not.

Which goes to the second issue, with them getting the square action they want, who ultimatwly decides what a bad line is? Especially of you just have joe blows in there betting, the bettors dont know nor should they, they’re rec gamblers.

id aide with the player right now

[KVB]

I'm not really arguing with any posts above, I pretty much agree with them. I don't think the slot machine rule applies here, I actually had the conversation early with someone in Vegas, but it could be stretched. When people are involved, not computers and machines, a different standard should be held.

I wouldn't use that as precedent but we do know those obvious errors in Vegas are also voided.

I'm not exactly bent out of shape but I do want to make the points about the opportunity for a free roll, because an online book can void all bets, the counter only voids those that look to get paid.

Like I said it's a game within a game and it's ripe for the picking if the live bookmakers want to push an envelope.

While hitting sharp shot takers, lol, those squares get the worst of it.

Chalk it up to another little edge the book gets over some players.

[jjgold]

We have a lot of shot takers here that’s why they agree with the player if I was the sportsbook manager I would ban this kid permanently

[Optional]

It's good that this comes up early.

And I hope it does get tested in court.

[KVB]

We have a lot of shot takers here that’s why they agree with the player if I was the sportsbook manager I would ban this kid permanently

Oh yeah, they reserve that right. I agree. But the book could go one step further to prevent the transaction. I know that's not easy, it is hard.

But if it is made, announce the error, let the losing bettors know that it was bad too.

There has to be a compromise when you are walking up to a counter in a building.

[bonzaii]

They owe him the money. You put the line up, you pay. It's that simple.

[krk1030]

They owe him the money. You put the line up, you pay. It's that simple.

Lol no

[bonzaii]

Lol no

[Optional]

It's good that this comes up early.

And I hope it does get tested in court.

They owe him the money. You put the line up, you pay. It's that simple.

It's really not that simple. And until it's defined and tested we are left with only the book's interpretation of their license conditions.

Which is why a court setting a precedent is a good thing for everyone.

[7deuceoff$uit]

What does the new regulation say? And what does it define as "an obvious error" ? We can all say we know it is one, but I would think there would have to be specific language for this, because a book could then void all live bets where they took a bad hit, saying it was off by .5-1.5 pts. That would be stupid of them, but they could do it

[Optional]

What does the new regulation say? And what does it define as "an obvious error" ? We can all say we know it is one, but I would think there would have to be specific language for this, because a book could then void all live bets where they took a bad hit, saying it was off by .5-1.5 pts. That would be stupid of them, but they could do it

Here ya go: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/B...00/4111_R1.PDF

See if you can tell the rest of us exactly what should happen based on that?

A court is the right venue.

[LT Profits]

What does the new regulation say? And what does it define as "an obvious error" ? We can all say we know it is one, but I would think there would have to be specific language for this, because a book could then void all live bets where they took a bad hit, saying it was off by .5-1.5 pts. That would be stupid of them, but they could do it

Goes back to what I said earlier, if difference is this small, books should pay because it is not "obvious" bad line.

[LT Profits]

What does the new regulation say? And what does it define as "an obvious error" ? We can all say we know it is one, but I would think there would have to be specific language for this, because a book could then void all live bets where they took a bad hit, saying it was off by .5-1.5 pts. That would be stupid of them, but they could do it

And in the specific case of this thread, is there really any doubt that error is obvious? Don't need it specified in writing to know that 100x correct price is obvious.

[SBR_Guest_Pro]

All you guys would be doing the same thing he is (trying to collect). Y'all would be coming on here also asking everyone to call everyday and boycott until you got paid

[LT Profits]

They owe him the money. You put the line up, you pay. It's that simple.

Um...NO, not when bad line policy is in writing in book's rules. No different than offshore policy.

[shocka1212]

All you guys would be doing the same thing he is (trying to collect). Y'all would be coming on here also asking everyone to call everyday and boycott until you got paid

big time Giants fan.. wouldve taken the $500 and suite for the three games...but then I again I have a brain and I wouldve known from the start that I wouldn't get jack shit if I kept pandering like this clown.

[LT Profits]

All you guys would be doing the same thing he is (trying to collect). Y'all would be coming on here also asking everyone to call everyday and boycott until you got paid

Not true either, most of us never would have placed bet and I personally would have alerted book if possible had I seen it, although that may not have been given the short timeframe line was up. Better to build relationship with sportsbooks (especially book managers) than to take shots at them that could get you blacklisted.

[KVB]

The precedent is set in Vegas, pay him then boot him.

But that was before the live line days, which are obviously going to be different.

Tell the book they have to honor the bet, and watch how many "glitches" we see in the future.

The online policy of obvious errors is bullshit on the ground floor of a book, it's not the same venue. If you don't believe me, how many errors do you think will occur if the book is held responsible for errors they actually sell.

Every bet and payout ever a certain amount will get reviewed.

This "we are not responsible for errors" bullshit doesn't fly in the brick and mortar store.

Or, now, maybe it does.

[KVB]

Not true either, most of us never would have placed bet and I personally would have alerted book if possible had I seen it, although that may not have been given the short timeframe line was up. Better to build relationship with sportsbooks (especially book managers) than to take shots at them that could get you blacklisted.

I agree here, 100% and my post history proves it.

Like I said, online you can void all bets, winners and losers, but that won't happen in a sportsbook unless the book puts up a sign that says losing tickets will be refunded.

They can't do that after the fact, they have to do that as it occurs.

You're right LT, this example in this thread is terrible because of the time frame and the facts about it, all the more reason for the books to take more measures to not allow the transaction.

[bonzaii]

Um...NO, not when bad line policy is in writing in book's rules. No different than offshore policy.

Wheres the bad line policy? How do they define whats a bad line?

[KVB]

Um...NO, not when bad line policy is in writing in book's rules. No different than offshore policy.

This is the problem.

We are not offshore. The policy MUST be different. Half of the bettors get screwed, shot takers or not.

A computer didn't sell the guy the line, a human did.

[jjgold]

KVB never go against a moderator it can cost you dearly


LT has final say here

Best of Luck

[krk1030]

This is the problem.

We are not offshore. The policy MUST be different. Half of the bettors get screwed, shot takers or not.

A computer didn't sell the guy the line, a human did.

It was a computer though...

[7deuceoff$uit]

And in the specific case of this thread, is there really any doubt that error is obvious? Don't need it specified in writing to know that 100x correct price is obvious.

I know it's obvious, but I'm saying that the book needs to have clear language. You might have posted it earlier in this thread, but someone listed Draftkings policy, and although this is Fanduel, I'm sure there's is similar. The problem comes to live betting, where it is not as simple as looking at yesterday's general market for a line where you can see 99% of books showing team A at +750 and an outlier at +75000. Unless there is a way to view all books live lines throughout the game, I don't see how a book can void their policy based off that rule's language. Again, I know it is "obvious", but by their rule they would have to show other markets live lines at that time. Right?

[KVB]

It was a computer though...

No, it was a human, who reviewed the ticket.

Or was it a kiosk? A kiosk is like online.

My point is that any ticket generating off numbers like that can be held up for review, at a counter.

[KVB]

KVB never go against a moderator it can cost you dearly


LT has final say here

Best of Luck

I don't think I'm going against LT here.

How many posts have we agreed? Or I've said I agreed with him?



He's pointing out policy that is being used, I am saying it may end up different in a book than it is online.

If not, it bothers me a bit. It's ripe for exploitation without safeguards, and backed by "policy" instead of law.

[SBR Forum]

I know it's obvious, but I'm saying that the book needs to have clear language. You might have posted it earlier in this thread, but someone listed Draftkings policy, and although this is Fanduel, I'm sure there's is similar. The problem comes to live betting, where it is not as simple as looking at yesterday's general market for a line where you can see 99% of books showing team A at +750 and an outlier at +75000. Unless there is a way to view all books live lines throughout the game, I don't see how a book can void their policy based off that rule's language. Again, I know it is "obvious", but by their rule they would have to show other markets live lines at that time. Right?

FanDuel's rules pertaining to sportsbook wagering (related to bad lines) read as follows:
14. Errors & Suspected Errors

14.1. FanDuel Sportsbook makes every effort to ensure that no errors are made in prices offered or bets accepted. However, human and/or systems’ error may occasionally result in errors.
14.1.1. FanDuel Sportsbook reserves the right to correct any obvious errors and to void any bets placed where such errors have occurred.

14.2. In the case of any blatant errors in prices transmitted (including for example where the price being displayed is materially different from those available in the general market and/or the price is clearly incorrect, depending on all of the circumstances), bets will be settled at the correct price at the time of acceptance (or the Starting Price in the case of horse-racing, whichever is the greater). If a bet is accepted by us on an event where offering a price on the event itself (rather than the price) was in error, the bet will be void and your stake will be returned.

[Optional]

I know it's obvious, but I'm saying that the book needs to have clear language. You might have posted it earlier in this thread, but someone listed Draftkings policy, and although this is Fanduel, I'm sure there's is similar. The problem comes to live betting, where it is not as simple as looking at yesterday's general market for a line where you can see 99% of books showing team A at +750 and an outlier at +75000. Unless there is a way to view all books live lines throughout the game, I don't see how a book can void their policy based off that rule's language. Again, I know it is "obvious", but by their rule they would have to show other markets live lines at that time. Right?

Live betting and cancellation of bets is still not sorted out very well anywhere in the world.

Only the book has enough information to make the decision in a fast timeframe. It's a catch22.

[KVB]

I know it's obvious, but I'm saying that the book needs to have clear language. You might have posted it earlier in this thread, but someone listed Draftkings policy, and although this is Fanduel, I'm sure there's is similar. The problem comes to live betting, where it is not as simple as looking at yesterday's general market for a line where you can see 99% of books showing team A at +750 and an outlier at +75000. Unless there is a way to view all books live lines throughout the game, I don't see how a book can void their policy based off that rule's language. Again, I know it is "obvious", but by their rule they would have to show other markets live lines at that time. Right?

Exactly, the agreed upon market is often discovered after the fact.

Like I said, what's to stop them from adding a zero to the dog sometimes, creating a rush, then calling it a mistake to the winners.

Online it's pointless, all bets get voided, but in a sportsbook, the losers are screwed. They aren't taking their ticket back up the counter for their money back unless the book offers it out loud before the game ends, somehow.

The books get a freeroll and even more incentive than the outright difficulty to not review some live tickets before hand.

[Joey Vigs]

There is precedent with LV not paying on incorrect slot payouts, so the protection precedent is there.

The two issues I have is books have ways of making basically eliminating shaep action, or at least minimizing it, so along these lines what is left is what they want which are squares. Same people that wouldnt know a bad line from not.

Which goes to the second issue, with them getting the square action they want, who ultimatwly decides what a bad line is? Especially of you just have joe blows in there betting, the bettors dont know nor should they, they’re rec gamblers.

id aide with the player right now

Aren’t you a pill head I thought I remebered reading that when I just lurked SBR

And no, they don’t owe this gambler the money. Clear bad line. I’m not saying he was taking a shot, but it’s clearly a bad line. I doubt if anyone that bets at that place even knows what taking a shot is. Aren’t the lines really bad juice wise?

[KVB]

...the bet will be void and your stake will be returned.

How do they plan on doing that?

Is there a sportsbook counter or not? Is it a kiosk with an account or can a guy just walk up and bet?

This is the issue I have. The rules can't be the same. It just doesn't work. The rules are online and computer specific.

[unusialsusp5]

they gave this guy a helluva deal and he turned it down?.. what he did warrants a trip to the back room in Vegas

what he did warrants an after dark trip 8 miles out into the las vegas desert. in this case a long visit with jimmy hoffa under the 10 yard line at giants stadium.

[Shifty]

FWIW, At the end of the Cowboys-Giants game Sunday night Fanduel briefly put up 360-1 on the Giants after Dallas recovered the on sides kick with seconds to go. Pretty stupid of them trying to skim a few more dollars at the end of a game. The mistake could have been avoided if they didn't put up those crazy odds in the first place.

[fried cheese]

Exactly, the agreed upon market is often discovered after the fact.

Like I said, what's to stop them from adding a zero to the dog sometimes, creating a rush, then calling it a mistake to the winners.

Online it's pointless, all bets get voided, but in a sportsbook, the losers are screwed. They aren't taking their ticket back up the counter for their money back unless the book offers it out loud before the game ends, somehow.

The books get a freeroll and even more incentive than the outright difficulty to not review some live tickets before hand.

that's not necessarily true. i saw a complaint here about the trump/putin meeting prop where they voided most of the props saying the event didnt take place (where they obviously lost since the line skyrocketed from the opener) but they didnt void the handshaking prop for the same meeting. who knows what bets actually get voided unless ppl complain. maybe they dont void certain lines when they profit off them that they would void if they lost.