NBA division futures - How will bets grade them if there is a prorated season?

[bubba]

I wouldn't expect responses to individual players until they're prepared to make an official announcement to everyone. Nearly all books have approached it this way, for obvious reasons.

Not all books had rules listed specifically dealing with shortened seasons. And then took down the rule when said seasons were actually shortened.

Books without rules, seeing what the leagues announce sounds fair. Books that had rules listed dealing with shortened seasons should be following those rules. That appears to be the issue here.

[RedApples]

I wouldn't expect responses to individual players until they're prepared to make an official announcement to everyone. Nearly all books have approached it this way, for obvious reasons.

Ya of course not, me either. But wouldn't be surprised to hear that some have had theirs graded or that they received a response when asked. Just checking in for those out there that might have gotten resolution.

[DontTailMe]

Not all books had rules listed specifically dealing with shortened seasons. And then took down the rule when said seasons were actually shortened.

Books without rules, seeing what the leagues announce sounds fair. Books that had rules listed dealing with shortened seasons should be following those rules. That appears to be the issue here.

I understand. But until BOL grades wagers differently than what their rules state, all anyone is doing right now is crying wolf. I'm suggesting we save our angst for if/when there is something to be angry about.

[bubba]

I understand. But until BOL grades wagers differently than what their rules state, all anyone is doing right now is crying wolf. I'm suggesting we save our angst for if/when there is something to be angry about.

Sounds like you have never been screwed over by an offshore sports-book with that attitude. I am jealous!

I will disagree that all is fine and dandy. Taking down a rule only when it becomes pertinent, is a MAJOR redflag to me. Not grading the nhl divisional wagers when they have announced no more regular season games is a red flag to me. I guess for NBA there are still "regular season" games to be played but literally no excuse not to have NHL divisional futures properly graded by now.

Some books are waiting for leagues to announce division winners, but by betonlines own rules (that were taken down in april) that should not matter at all.

[bubba]

I understand. But until BOL grades wagers differently than what their rules state, all anyone is doing right now is crying wolf. I'm suggesting we save our angst for if/when there is something to be angry about.

Even if they grade correctly, not grading the wagers for weeks after the NHL announced the regular season is over is not acceptable.

[DontTailMe]

Even if they grade correctly, not grading the wagers for weeks after the NHL announced the regular season is over is not acceptable.

This is fair.

As for the NBA. Who knows. Maybe they don't think the rule makes sense (it kind of doesn't - a division winner is a division winner, regardless of games) and took it down because they don't think it should apply to any wagers from this moment forward but intend to honor wagers placed under those conditions. Maybe they're waiting to grade because they're going to do players a solid and award winning tickets while refunding losers in accordance with their rule which stood at the time of placement.

Yes, of course I have been screwed by offshore books. But never intentionally by BOL. When they screw up, they make it right.

[bubba]

This is fair.

As for the NBA. Who knows. Maybe they don't think the rule makes sense (it kind of doesn't - a division winner is a division winner, regardless of games) and took it down because they don't think it should apply to any wagers from this moment forward but intend to honor wagers placed under those conditions. Maybe they're waiting to grade because they're going to do players a solid and award winning tickets while refunding losers in accordance with their rule which stood at the time of placement.
.

This is an extreme benefit of the doubt you are giving them. The more appropriate thing to do would be to announce the change when changing the rule for future wagers rather than sneakily just deleting the rule and providing no alternative. Maybe you are right but it feels off to me. Every book out there without a rule was probably kicking themselves for not having one. And the book with a rule has quietly taken it down with no explanation for months.

[thomorino]

Even if they grade correctly, not grading the wagers for weeks after the NHL announced the regular season is over is not acceptable.

Agree, I can see waiting a week to see if the league declares divisional winners, but waiting a month to grade these wagers when it’s obvious no announcement is coming is ridiculous.

[bubba]

Agree, I can see waiting a week to see if the league declares divisional winners, but waiting a month to grade these wagers when it’s obvious no announcement is coming is ridiculous.

Betonline's case shouldn't matter if an announcement is made by the league. The rules clearly state a certain number of regular season games are needed for action. So they cant even be waiting for that. There really is no legitimate explanation at this time.

[RedApples]

This is fair.

As for the NBA. Who knows. Maybe they don't think the rule makes sense (it kind of doesn't - a division winner is a division winner, regardless of games) and took it down because they don't think it should apply to any wagers from this moment forward but intend to honor wagers placed under those conditions. Maybe they're waiting to grade because they're going to do players a solid and award winning tickets while refunding losers in accordance with their rule which stood at the time of placement.

Yes, of course I have been screwed by offshore books. But never intentionally by BOL. When they screw up, they make it right.

Respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but you would be better off saying "personally I don't think it does" rather then saying it in the definitive. I don't agree with you that a division winner is a winner regardless of games. After 1 game would it be fine? After 2? Clearly not after 1, or 2. 4? 5? Where do you draw the line? To me it makes perfect sense that the language was 82 games.

Not sure if they will do a solid, but considering BOL poker can't split a 2nd and 3rd place prize in a 6 man SNG when 2nd and 3rd get knocked out on the same hand with the same amount of chips, I find it hard to believe they are anything but incompetent. I have a thread on that, and its scary how they couldn't read or comprehend their rules which are obviously congruent with the fact that the prize should be split. I've bet with them almost entirely over the past couple years and love BOL. But handling situations where only a modicum of common sense is necessary has been quite tough for them. I realize the issue I stated here was with poker, but I've had situations both in poker and in sports that are mind blowing.

Personally, I think you are giving them way too much credit for 'thinking' about anything.

[RedApples]

Betonline's case shouldn't matter if an announcement is made by the league. The rules clearly state a certain number of regular season games are needed for action. So they cant even be waiting for that. There really is no legitimate explanation at this time.

Disagree with you. While I think you're correct and they could've went with the NBA announcement, who knows if the NBA changes their rules once again and decides to play 82 games. Grading seems premature, but I could see it either way. Changing the language in the TOS though is scary and seems extremely shady on the surface. We must keep up with it and make sure they do the right thing.

[bubba]

Disagree with you. While I think you're correct and they could've went with the NBA announcement, who knows if the NBA changes their rules once again and decides to play 82 games. Grading seems premature, but I could see it either way. Changing the language in the TOS though is scary and seems extremely shady on the surface. We must keep up with it and make sure they do the right thing.

I agreed you can wait for nba regular season to complete (annoying but I can see it). . No reason not to grade hockey though. They have announced regular season is complete.

[DISTROYA]

Im thinking very probably NBA cancelled this year....with the ridiculous number spike daily in Florida, By the time they play (what still 1 fukking month?) Its going to be worsexworst. Silver already said if these numbers continue to climb, cancellation possible. Well, how the fcuk can't it continue to?

[RedApples]

Im thinking very probably NBA cancelled this year....with the ridiculous number spike daily in Florida, By the time they play (what still 1 fukking month?) Its going to be worsexworst. Silver already said if these numbers continue to climb, cancellation possible. Well, how the fcuk can't it continue to?

Theres already quite a few threads on that. This thread is not about that.

[RedApples]

I agreed you can wait for nba regular season to complete (annoying but I can see it). . No reason not to grade hockey though. They have announced regular season is complete.

Sorry I misread. Got you.

[Optional]

Respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but you would be better off saying "personally I don't think it does" rather then saying it in the definitive. I don't agree with you that a division winner is a winner regardless of games. After 1 game would it be fine? After 2? Clearly not after 1, or 2. 4? 5? Where do you draw the line? To me it makes perfect sense that the language was 82 games.

Not sure if they will do a solid, but considering BOL poker can't split a 2nd and 3rd place prize in a 6 man SNG when 2nd and 3rd get knocked out on the same hand with the same amount of chips, I find it hard to believe they are anything but incompetent. I have a thread on that, and its scary how they couldn't read or comprehend their rules which are obviously congruent with the fact that the prize should be split. I've bet with them almost entirely over the past couple years and love BOL. But handling situations where only a modicum of common sense is necessary has been quite tough for them. I realize the issue I stated here was with poker, but I've had situations both in poker and in sports that are mind blowing.

Personally, I think you are giving them way too much credit for 'thinking' about anything.

I missed your thread on this, but are you certain it should be a split prize? Shouldn't the player who has their chips into the pot last be scored as finishing below the person they called if everything else is even?

[cincinnatikid513]

at least dlo wikkky gets his bucks to miss playoffs bet refunded

[asiagambler]

at least dlo wikkky gets his bucks to miss playoffs bet refunded

[DontTailMe]

This is an extreme benefit of the doubt you are giving them. The more appropriate thing to do would be to announce the change when changing the rule for future wagers rather than sneakily just deleting the rule and providing no alternative. Maybe you are right but it feels off to me. Every book out there without a rule was probably kicking themselves for not having one. And the book with a rule has quietly taken it down with no explanation for months.

First, i don't feel I'm giving anyone the benefit of any doubt here. BOL has yet to grade a single NBA future wager incorrectly. It's pretty simple.

As for your assertion that they should announce the rule change going forward, please tell me the last time a sportsbook made an announcement for a rule change. It would be nice, but that's simply not how it works in the industry. They change the rules and let you discover the change on your own. We have done so here.

[DontTailMe]

Respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but you would be better off saying "personally I don't think it does" rather then saying it in the definitive. I don't agree with you that a division winner is a winner regardless of games. After 1 game would it be fine? After 2? Clearly not after 1, or 2. 4? 5? Where do you draw the line? To me it makes perfect sense that the language was 82 games.

Not sure if they will do a solid, but considering BOL poker can't split a 2nd and 3rd place prize in a 6 man SNG when 2nd and 3rd get knocked out on the same hand with the same amount of chips, I find it hard to believe they are anything but incompetent. I have a thread on that, and its scary how they couldn't read or comprehend their rules which are obviously congruent with the fact that the prize should be split. I've bet with them almost entirely over the past couple years and love BOL. But handling situations where only a modicum of common sense is necessary has been quite tough for them. I realize the issue I stated here was with poker, but I've had situations both in poker and in sports that are mind blowing.

Personally, I think you are giving them way too much credit for 'thinking' about anything.

What I'm talking about is if the division winners are officially recognized. That's where I draw the line. The number of games doesn't matter because that would be taken into consideration by the league when deciding if there were division winners. Under this policy, there is absolutely no need for a sportsbook to have a minimum games condition for division winners. Just let the league decide.

That's why I said "a division winner is a division winner, regardless of games".

[RedApples]

What I'm talking about is if the division winners are officially recognized. That's where I draw the line. The number of games doesn't matter because that would be taken into consideration by the league when deciding if there were division winners. Under this policy, there is absolutely no need for a sportsbook to have a minimum games condition for division winners. Just let the league decide.

That's why I said "a division winner is a division winner, regardless of games".

Still, I'm pretty sure the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The language is going to have to say X amount of games, or its gotta say something to the effect of whatever the NBA officially recognizes? The latter seems wayyy more confusing, for the reason I posted above and more. Not only that, but how about bettors who made bets or would make bets on an underdog the day before a co-vid? They lose on the variable of a potential shutdown? For something that is thought to be completely invariable by nature? So there would need to be language in the TOS to make clear that's part of the equation. In the end I can't see it being a better choice to not have a set amount of games or clinching (like O/U win total) as the equivalent for a win.

BTW we are dealing with a situation that would be similar to what you are proposing, in Zion v Morant ROY props. Ostensibly Zion would've had a much greater chance to catch Morant in the ROY had the season not been put to a halt, re-starting with only 8 more games. Imagine if Zions team was just completely out of the tournament. It would be a complete kick in the nuts, and it is already a kick in the nuts to Zion backers the way it has played out. Could it be avoided? No chance. In a perfect world would you avoid situations like that if you could, so long as there was strong logic to do so? Probably. I think thats what we have in the NBA division winner scenario. I say booking wins on abridged outcomes for events that have an intended length is not the right call. Trying to think of places that we do see it in the futures market and I'm drawing a blank outside of props like ROY where a player could get injured etc and theres no set duration ie. a player could get injured and play no games, while the Nets will always play a full season unless outside forces change the structure of the game.

In grading outcomes for sports wagers you always want to cover all bases and have things as clear as possible with the correct outcome. If your proposition is something you'd prefer, more power to you. I'd be uneasy honestly. Already feeling that way with NFL futures... if books are going to grade winners on a shortened season I really would like to know upfront, and outside of this co-vid scenario I really would hope shortened season winners that weren't a clinch would be refunded. It's not complete to me, and its outside of my intention when I go to make a bet.

[bubba]

First, i don't feel I'm giving anyone the benefit of any doubt here. BOL has yet to grade a single NBA future wager incorrectly. It's pretty simple.

As for your assertion that they should announce the rule change going forward, please tell me the last time a sportsbook made an announcement for a rule change. It would be nice, but that's simply not how it works in the industry. They change the rules and let you discover the change on your own. We have done so here.

Not uncommon for websites in the real world to do this. I have def seen it with 5dimes or pinnacle over the years. I vividly remember one of them doing it with hockey overtime. It's so easy to do and builds a lot of trust with customers. More likely to see it with other things than sports rules. "We are updating our withdrawl policy, take a look at the terms" I have def seen somewhere in the last year.

And I think a website deleting their rule durring the season is shady. And it takes a benefit of doubt to believe they are doing this with a noble reason. Guess we are just arguing over semantics at this point.

[RedApples]

I missed your thread on this, but are you certain it should be a split prize? Shouldn't the player who has their chips into the pot last be scored as finishing below the person they called if everything else is even?

Ya I'm 1000000% positive. Generally speaking I will leave a very small % for being completely blinded and simply got it wrong. That happens. This situation in poker however is not possible to get wrong. If you are playing a tournament structure game of poker, and you and another player BOTH lose to another player to bust in the same hand, yet start the hand with the same amount of chips, you finish for the same place.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/poker/3531917-betonline-poker-biggest-joke-ever-i-want-get-paid-out-principle.html

The rule is pretty simple. It is in their TOS. They just cannot read or comprehend it...

"If more than one player is eliminated in the same hand, the player with the most chips before the hand started finishes higher. In the case where both players also have the same amount of chips before the hand, both players will tie for the position."


You would think that 'sportsbook' with that big of a poker offering would have a game client without a flaw that massive. You would also think that someone who oversees the game would've fixed that type of flaw (not sure if it has been fixed by now). You would certainly think that when a player voices that their client has this big of a flaw that they'd notice it, as its literally poker 101 for any game provider, be appreciative and fix it. As someone who has played quite a bit of poker in their life I know how huge of an embarrassment it would be for someone who is running a game to not know this rule. It is as I like to say.. a clown show. Theres really not any other explanation. The software has an enormous glitch and they don't think its one. I can promise you no other site I've ever played on, even ones that were made overnight by kids (literally) had this error.

[RedApples]

First, i don't feel I'm giving anyone the benefit of any doubt here. BOL has yet to grade a single NBA future wager incorrectly. It's pretty simple.

As for your assertion that they should announce the rule change going forward, please tell me the last time a sportsbook made an announcement for a rule change. It would be nice, but that's simply not how it works in the industry. They change the rules and let you discover the change on your own. We have done so here.

bubba is correct on this one I think. I have also seen it at 5dimes, though I cannot quote exactly when. I can say that my last login to the site the other day had an alert that I needed to review before proceeding, and it was that MLB futures will be graded according to the new special rules. I don't know if that 'a rule change going forward', and don't want to argue semantics, but that seems to be in line with whats being discussed. I have seen 5dimes do this quite a bit and do vaguely remember it being for clear 'rule changes going forward'. Definitely not the 'discover it on your own', which I have in the past condemned 5dimes for when they've done it... if you remember the thread I shit on them for cancelling my NBA 3pt contest wagers out of the blue. At times they have been super upfront, so there's that.

[Optional]

Ya I'm 1000000% positive. Generally speaking I will leave a very small % for being completely blinded and simply got it wrong. That happens. This situation in poker however is not possible to get wrong. If you are playing a tournament structure game of poker, and you and another player BOTH lose to another player to bust in the same hand, yet start the hand with the same amount of chips, you finish for the same place.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/poker/3531917-betonline-poker-biggest-joke-ever-i-want-get-paid-out-principle.html

The rule is pretty simple. It is in their TOS. They just cannot read or comprehend it...

"If more than one player is eliminated in the same hand, the player with the most chips before the hand started finishes higher. In the case where both players also have the same amount of chips before the hand, both players will tie for the position."


You would think that 'sportsbook' with that big of a poker offering would have a game client without a flaw that massive. You would also think that someone who oversees the game would've fixed that type of flaw (not sure if it has been fixed by now). You would certainly think that when a player voices that their client has this big of a flaw that they'd notice it, as its literally poker 101 for any game provider, be appreciative and fix it. As someone who has played quite a bit of poker in their life I know how huge of an embarrassment it would be for someone who is running a game to not know this rule. It is as I like to say.. a clown show. Theres really not any other explanation. The software has an enormous glitch and they don't think its one. I can promise you no other site I've ever played on, even ones that were made overnight by kids (literally) had this error.

Sounds like you are correct from that. I'll answer you in the poker forum thread

[bubba]

bubba is correct on this one I think. I have also seen it at 5dimes, though I cannot quote exactly when. I can say that my last login to the site the other day had an alert that I needed to review before proceeding, and it was that MLB futures will be graded according to the new special rules. I don't know if that 'a rule change going forward', and don't want to argue semantics, but that seems to be in line with whats being discussed. I have seen 5dimes do this quite a bit and do vaguely remember it being for clear 'rule changes going forward'. Definitely not the 'discover it on your own', which I have in the past condemned 5dimes for when they've done it... if you remember the thread I shit on them for cancelling my NBA 3pt contest wagers out of the blue. At times they have been super upfront, so there's that.

Haha you are absolutely right. I got a message on mlb rules just yesterday. So 5dimes appropriately notified of rules just yesterday for me. The more transparency the better as far as I am concerned.

[DontTailMe]

Still, I'm pretty sure the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The language is going to have to say X amount of games, or its gotta say something to the effect of whatever the NBA officially recognizes? The latter seems wayyy more confusing, for the reason I posted above and more. Not only that, but how about bettors who made bets or would make bets on an underdog the day before a co-vid? They lose on the variable of a potential shutdown? For something that is thought to be completely invariable by nature? So there would need to be language in the TOS to make clear that's part of the equation. In the end I can't see it being a better choice to not have a set amount of games or clinching (like O/U win total) as the equivalent for a win.

BTW we are dealing with a situation that would be similar to what you are proposing, in Zion v Morant ROY props. Ostensibly Zion would've had a much greater chance to catch Morant in the ROY had the season not been put to a halt, re-starting with only 8 more games. Imagine if Zions team was just completely out of the tournament. It would be a complete kick in the nuts, and it is already a kick in the nuts to Zion backers the way it has played out. Could it be avoided? No chance. In a perfect world would you avoid situations like that if you could, so long as there was strong logic to do so? Probably. I think thats what we have in the NBA division winner scenario. I say booking wins on abridged outcomes for events that have an intended length is not the right call. Trying to think of places that we do see it in the futures market and I'm drawing a blank outside of props like ROY where a player could get injured etc and theres no set duration ie. a player could get injured and play no games, while the Nets will always play a full season unless outside forces change the structure of the game.

In grading outcomes for sports wagers you always want to cover all bases and have things as clear as possible with the correct outcome. If your proposition is something you'd prefer, more power to you. I'd be uneasy honestly. Already feeling that way with NFL futures... if books are going to grade winners on a shortened season I really would like to know upfront, and outside of this co-vid scenario I really would hope shortened season winners that weren't a clinch would be refunded. It's not complete to me, and its outside of my intention when I go to make a bet.

I don't understand why it's more confusing. It's actually quite simple. If the league recognizes division winners, then there are division winners. 1994 MLB? No division winners. 2020 MLB? Division winners.

[DontTailMe]

Not uncommon for websites in the real world to do this. I have def seen it with 5dimes or pinnacle over the years. I vividly remember one of them doing it with hockey overtime. It's so easy to do and builds a lot of trust with customers. More likely to see it with other things than sports rules. "We are updating our withdrawl policy, take a look at the terms" I have def seen somewhere in the last year.

And I think a website deleting their rule durring the season is shady. And it takes a benefit of doubt to believe they are doing this with a noble reason. Guess we are just arguing over semantics at this point.

Okay, so we have some examples, but I assure you that's not the norm. Otherwise, I would be flooded with messages from these books, and I'm not. They're changing the rules all the time if you keep tabs on them.

Deleting the rule could be shady, depending on their intentions. You're assuming the worst. I'm merely suggesting that we have no evidence of their intentions yet. If they don't grade in accordance with the rules as they were when wagers were placed, I'll be right there with you screaming from the mountaintops.

[RedApples]

I don't understand why it's more confusing. It's actually quite simple. If the league recognizes division winners, then there are division winners. 1994 MLB? No division winners. 2020 MLB? Division winners.

You missed the point. The point that you brought up. The point you brought up was one made a lot more sense than the other. I outlined at minimum a few scenarios where things get messy. Thats what I meant by confusing. You have weird spots where the book might be inclined to grade or cancel based on how fair things are- ie the situation where one might bet right before covid. That confuses things. Of course its not 'confusing' to grade a bet based on a rule that is clear. That wouldn't make either bet more confusing. Theres more to note directly about what is an official release of a division winner and I personally don't know what rules the major leagues have in place as a minimum amount of games needed to be played to 'officially' award winners and how they do them... but this is all off topic now. I made my point in my previous post. Again more power to you if you think its more sensible for books to have the rule that 'winners' is how bets will be graded regardless of games played. I'd love to hear you go into depth and articulate how that has benefits over the amount of games, like I did in the reverse scenario. I get that it gives bets 'action' rather than a potential for cancel. But cancel doesn't cost anyone? Cancels happen all the time in very similar situations.

[RedApples]

Haha you are absolutely right. I got a message on mlb rules just yesterday. So 5dimes appropriately notified of rules just yesterday for me. The more transparency the better as far as I am concerned.

It actually happens all the time in my personal history dating back to the Wsex days and prior. I think I started with Intertops in like 1999 or so. Some books clearly don't, but its not out of the norm. BOL did it a few days as well but I'm drawing a blank on what it was for. You can't expect to be told every little thing, and shouldn't as it would probably piss you off. But you should be notified when theres a sizable shift, and thankfully I think large in part we are.

[Pousateri]

NBA.com has updated their standings but have not yet declared division winners. It is likely that after the eight 'seeding' games the team with the highest win % will be crowned division champion by the NBA.

Now, if the NBA never officially declares division champions, then that is when it will get tricky. If this occurs, I think it is likely books will void the bet or the NBA would declare the team with the highest win % as division champion.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Do you see this playing out any other way?

[thomorino]

Intertops finally made a decision and just refunded my nhl futures. Fair but the decision took way too long and I will be reluctant to use this book now.

[RedApples]

Intertops finally made a decision and just refunded my nhl futures. Fair but the decision took way too long and I will be reluctant to use this book now.

I've sent a few emails to BOL. No response.

[RedApples]

Just spoke to BOL on the phone. Seemed very clear that they will be cancelling all wagers. Just waiting for NBA to officially get back to action. Take it with a grain of salt.

[bubba]

Just spoke to BOL on the phone. Seemed very clear that they will be cancelling all wagers. Just waiting for NBA to officially get back to action. Take it with a grain of salt.

And what is their reason for not cancelling nhl wagers?