[Dark Horse]

Agree with Santo.

[Ganchrow]

It probably should be voided, but I tend to give books leeway if (and I'm not certain that's the case here) somebody's taking a shot at them.

I think what we can say is that if the events transpired largely as described by the OP, then the bet should probably have been voided.

I have little doubt that Bill will eventually get to the bottom of this.

[acw]

Here we go again:

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.

What amazes me is not that the books always do it wrong, as it seems to be the only way guys like the Greek can make money, but how many posters have sh*t in their eys!

[Santo]

Ganchrow: Bill can't get to the bottom of it, unless he can find some site that lists the scoring history vs the time of the score, and I'm 99% no such information exists.

ACW: Not sure on your point? In that example the player couldn't lose?

[slash]

Ganchrow: Bill can't get to the bottom of it, unless he can find some site that lists the scoring history vs the time of the score, and I'm 99% no such information exists.

Why does it matter? If the player placed his bet after 1 hour of play, the bet should be voided. End of story.

[Ganchrow]

Ganchrow: Bill can't get to the bottom of it, unless he can find some site that lists the scoring history vs the time of the score, and I'm 99% no such information exists.

To clarify: I feel confident that Bill will be able to reconcile what the OP claims to have transpired with The Greek's rationale for having allowed the bet to stand.

[Dark Horse]

Slash, I believe there is a difference, but it's subtle and I wouldn't expect everyone to agree.

If a player mistakenly placed a bet on a game that was already in progress, the book should always void the wager.

But if a player knowingly did so, that does shift at least part of the responsibility for the mistake to the player. The player has just chosen, of his own free will, to become part of the mistake.

In general, not necessarily related to this case, you could reasonably assume that a gambler taking a shot at a book would not have contacted the book if the bet had won. The shot taker would leave it up to the book to identify the error, which it may or may not.

So, in my eyes, there is definitely a difference between a honest and a dishonest mistake. If a player consciously takes a shot at a book, and the bet loses, that's too bad for the player. I have no sympathy for that.

Is it possible to identify players who take such shots? Yes, because the pattern is pretty standard. However, it is hard to prove with 100% certainty (even if all the signs point at it). Therefore, Santo's solution of voiding the bet with a final warning seems the best.

[Santo]

Why does it matter? If the player placed his bet after 1 hour of play, the bet should be voided. End of story.

I was answering Ganchrow. I told you what I'd do, void it and either issue a warning or close the account, depending on if it's been a trend.

[raiders72002]

Another shot taker crying. Does anyone here think he would have made the bet if his player was down 3-5 instead of up 5-3?

I really got a kick out of when he says right after placing the bet he checked the score.

He's full of shit and guys like marc and Santo spotted it right away.

SBR- Stop defending these clowns and advise them not to take shots at books when the KNOW that the match has started.

[raiders72002]

And this assclown basically admits that this is a big wager for him in the following statement.

i made a rather large wager on a tennis match tonight ($500).

Assclown- Next time make a smaller than usual bet when you try and screw a book and you may fly under the radar.

[Dark Horse]

If he did take a shot, which is very possible, but can't be automatically assumed, he went about it in a very smart and calculated way. He didn't call in a request for an immediate cancellation, which would be the first thought of someone trying to save his $500 before it was too late, but instead created an e-mail record (again, without a request to cancel). As a result of this 'evidence' there's a good chance the book will refund the wager. So it was either a win, if the game was won and the bet went unnoticed, or a likely cancellation.

[pibedoro]

probably it should have been voided but I give the Greek the benefit of doubt knowing that is one of the fewest bookies around that do CANCEL bets following their customers' requests. The absolute majority of bookies consider bets as final once a bet is submitted. I have had always great customer satisfaction from olympic.

dakota, you should have asked them to cancel your bet. They would have done that!

[raiders72002]

Even Pinny once cancelled a bet of mine that I requested before the start of a game. Of course I called.

[moses millsap]

Even Pinny once cancelled a bet of mine that I requested before the start of a game. Of course I called.

Same for me, at WSEX. Several times, called and got wagers cancelled (w/ a valid reason of course)

[slash]

Where does he say that he wants to cancel the bet? As far as I can see, he only asks if the bet stands. I have done the same before if I was unsure. I once bet a 20 cent scalp mlb run line for the max at pinnacle and asked them afterwards if it would stand. It took them 5 minutes to confirm my bet.

[noyb]

If he did take a shot, which is very possible, but can't be automatically assumed, he went about it in a very smart and calculated way.

edit: quote

i disagree with that quote. if i were a shot-taker i would have never contacted the greek at all. there's no way the bet would have been credited anymore if it had actually won after that e-mail. the guy basicly willingly created a loss or void-situation for himself, of which the greek has taken full advantage.

anyway, it should not matter if the guy is a shot taker, a scalper or a giant whale, he made the bet after the event had started, so it should be void. the bookie was in the wrong here leaving it up after the off, they have no right whatsoever getting any money out of their own mistake, it's behaviour unworthy of an a-sportsbook.
that being said, i'm sure it'll be corrected once dozer has talked to the guys upstairs.

[Dark Horse]

First of all, that was based on IF... he took a shot. So by quoting like that you're taking it out of context.

The further assumption, along the lines of that hypothesis, was that he changed his mind when his advantage was gone, so the e-mail would then have become an insurance policy.

[noyb]

ok you're right about the quoting, didn't mean to do that, i've edited the quote.

but really, a lot of posters here seem to be willing to give the greek the benefit of the doubt, let's also give the original poster the benefit of the doubt. i remember once betting the losing side of a match that had already finished (had a hell of a time getting it cancelled), if things were the other way around and i had been afterposting a winning selection few would have believed my original good intentions on this forum by the looks of things. genuine mistakes do happen.
the oddsmaker working for greek was off with his starting time, there's no reason why the poster wouldn't have been off too.

anyway, i'm contradicting myself going into this at all . in my rulebook (and if i read correctly also in the greek's rulebook) bets should be off anyway.

[Dark Horse]

Based on the Greek's reputation, I would be surprised if he didn't get his money back.

The thread seems to have evolved more towards the mechanics of taking a shot at a book. It's interesting to see where players stand on that.

There is a much greater understanding of the bookmaking industry on this forum than on other forums, so you may see a very different response, more in favor of the player, at other forums when something like this comes up.

Perhaps the response itself is a measuring stick, because when a player was obviously wronged by a book there is no lack of support here at all.

[sportsfanatic]

All this talk about the bettor taking a shot at a book should be taken with a grain of salt. Some books definitely take a shot at the bettor. I mean it would be so easy for a book to set up trap error lines or lines left on after a match has started. Fish for anyone stupid enough to bet on those, and wait for the end of the match. VOID winning bets. Let losing bets stand. Easy money.

The point is that it's much easier for a book to profit from error lines than the bettor. They get to decide whether to void or not void a bet which means they have the power.

I am NOT saying the Greek is doing this. They have a very deservedly good reputation. But what's to stop shadier books from doing this?

[raiders72002]

you may see a very different response, more in favor of the player, at other forums when something like this comes up.

very true. SBR is a player friendly site because they do stick up for the player even when the player is in the wrong many times.

I know that I keep harping on the same subject but there are many more experienced gamblers at other sites compared to SBR and in no way would they ever take a shot like this.

[pjesnik24]

what does it matter what his intention was, the bet would be canceled for sure if he won the bet. I got my bet canceled by pinnacle once even though I lost the bet later. I think that in every bookie's rules, probable in thegreek's too, it says that if the bets are not valid if they are posted after the game has started. Or, should we just wait for these kind of mistakes and bet thousands of dollars on finished games? They should cancel the bet and even apologize the bettor for making him go through all this hassle.

[kiwi]

They should cancel the bet ...

I completely agree to that. A bet placed after the start of a game should always be voided. The bookmaker is responsible to care about the start time of the events he offers.

[raiders72002]

It's a good thing he didn't try this crap with a local.

[kiwi]

It's not crap to place a bet if a bookmaker offers it. You cannot expect of every bettor to know the exact start time of every event. It is obvious that in general he trusts the given start time on the site of the bookmaker. If the bookmaker is wrong concerning start time, that's mainly the problem of the bookmaker.

[raiders72002]

How much more obvious can it be that this guy tried to cheat? Mistakes are made on both sides of the counter.

Pinny had listed start times wrong in the early rounds of the NCAA tourney as an example. It's the guy that knowingly plays a bad line or after the game starts that's a cheat.

If it were on honest mistake I'd be all over the book but this guy would flunk a lie detector test on every question asked.

[kiwi]

How much more obvious can it be that this guy tried to cheat?

If the book voids anyway it has no risk to be cheated and lose anything...

[sportsfanatic]

If the book voids anyway it has no risk to be cheated and lose anything...

EXACTLY. The book RISKS NOTHING and will always have the power which is why the bet should AUTOMATICALLY BE VOID. Tell me who is really the cheater if a book can just wait till the event is over and void winning bets but let losing bets stand. Who's the cheater then huh?

The bet should automatically be void for both book and bettor. END OF STORY.

[slash]

Raiders, I need your opinion on the following scenarios.

In all cases, a bettor bets a tennis match after 1 hour of play. He gets a line of +200 on his selection.

Scenario A: At the time he places his bet, he could make a live bet at eg. Betfair and get a line of +100 on the same selection.

Scenario B: At the time he places his bet, he could make a live bet at Betfair and get a line of +200.

Scenario C: In this case he could have gotten a +400 line at Betfair instead.

What should happen in these cases? Does it make a difference if he ends up winning or losing the bet?

[acw]

Please slash,

Leave the whole name BetFair out of this! It makes me puke when people look at them as the so called real market. If ever better get in touch with one of the Asian books, as they will generally turnover BetFair x 100!

Santo,

Yes, in my (real case) example the player could not lose past-posting. And that is exactly the way it should be! The bookie makes a fault, so players can only benefit from it.

[slash]

Please slash,

Leave the whole name BetFair out of this! It makes me puke when people look at them as the so called real market. If ever better get in touch with one of the Asian books, as they will generally turnover BetFair x 100!

Geez, put in any book you want. It was just an example. I don't even use Betfair myself and I only used Betfair because they seem to offer live odds on tennis.

[raiders72002]

Slash- All is fair at an exchange. I've heard of some wild things that have happened in horse racing at exchanges although it is just rumor.

[raiders72002]

Pinny has cancelled live bets in the past on bad lines.

[pjesnik24]

what happened in the end?

[tacomax]

what happened in the end?

Well, raiders backed down on answering slash's question. That's a surprise. Other than that, maybe the OP can update us.