Is SBR Still Impartial and Fair to Players Who Go Them For Dispute Help?

[Bill Dozer]

The issue does not concern the "continuation" of this game. This is where everyone is focusing but it simply is not the issue. The rule as it is written would dictate that NYY was the winner at the exact moment the game was called. There is no need to even discuss resumption of the contest. If anyone thinks that plays a role in this dispute then they are missing the entire point.

It does because that is the way the player is saying he understood Pinnacle's rule and that is his argument to Pinnacle for a "grey area." Going back and saying he now thinks it means something else would say he never was sure what it meant.

If the player were to say he simply didn't understand the rules it would be a case where he should have asked for the meaning prior to the result. As a mediator, I would tell the player, yes, it could have been worded differently but it is clear what the correct interpretation should be and there is no evidence suggesting that Pinnacle hung a rule up that had a double meaning so they could choose which side won later.

[Justin7]

You are retarded, if you sleep underwater.

Taken out of context, you will get you feelings hurt.

In Pinnacle's case, there was one poorly written rule. If you look at the ruleS (emphasis on plural), you would understand them. It could be written better, but they are understandable. Taken as a whole, they are not gray.

"If a game is called or suspended, the winner is determined by the score after the last full inning...Events will not carry over to the following day unless otherwise specified."

The game is graded when the game is called or suspended. The last full inning (when the game is graded) has been played; the inning Art argues should be used doesn't exist at the time of grading. The later part of the same rule makes it clear that events on a later day do not matter. If you take all parts of the rule in context, it is not gray.

When a player is screwed, I go to bat for them. This is simply a case where a player lost, and is hoping to make enough noise where Pinnacle will reward him. This won't happen.

As far as the player's contentions that 1. he is not a professional, and 2. he did not know the rules, I find these improbable. I don't know of any players betting $1000 a game at Pinnacle on U.S. baseball who are truly surprised at how this game was graded. That, taken with Art's ability to both climb up the Pinnacle CS chain of command, and quickly find SBR makes his earlier assertions unlikely.

Does the player also argue that he wouldn't have made any bets at Pinnacle, if he knew bets would be graded this way?

[jason]

You are retarded, if you sleep underwater.

Taken out of context, you will get you feelings hurt.

In Pinnacle's case, there was one poorly written rule. If you look at the ruleS (emphasis on plural), you would understand them. It could be written better, but they are understandable. Taken as a whole, they are not gray.

...

As far as the player's contentions that 1. he is not a professional, and 2. he did not know the rules, I find these improbable. I don't know of any players betting $1000 a game at Pinnacle on U.S. baseball who are truly surprised at how this game was graded. That, taken with Art's ability to both climb up the Pinnacle CS chain of command, and quickly find SBR makes his earlier assertions unlikely.

Does the player also argue that he wouldn't have made any bets at Pinnacle, if he knew bets would be graded this way?

I am appalled at how you have reacted Justin - you are taking this personally instead of being fair. Again, I've never had a problem with you in the past - but I can't believe what I'm hearing.

First, your "proof" that anything taken out of context can be misunderstood is just flat out dumb. That's not Art's argument, and it wasn't mine. It wasn't isetcap's, or Marc's, or LT's. You're missing the point. You took things out of context by doing "...." and skipping to another situation in the rules.

The rule governing suspended games is self contained. It is a sentence that should have been written exactly the way I proposed earlier - but was not. Instead, it references the final inning of the game, and doesn't say that inning must occur before suspension. That is what many people call UNCLEAR. GRAY. Period. For you to still say that any reasonable person can interpret in only one way - AFTER YOU SAID THE OPPOSITE TO ART IN THE EMAIL HE QUOTED - is to insult a dozen posters in addition to your own integrity.

Regarding your other point about Art must be a pro and he must have known the rules - just flat out stupid.
I bet $3k units on about 10 games a week. And I started on Pinny and ended there (when they went down for US customers). I am not familiar with Vegas rules, because I only bet on the net. I see that allegation as just name calling to defend yourself, and I think it's appalling.
And even some of your veteran posters and players were not familiar with how vegas grades this game. It's a relatively new situation in MLB and I remember this game (and a Cubs game in which it happened), and none of my buddies had any clue how this is graded. Reading Pinny's rule didn't clarify that at all.

Come on, Justin. We all have the facts in front of us. You gotta call a spade a spade -- and an unclear rule unclear. No spinning it so that you are right, why do you post on here like you have some vested interest in this not being gray. I just don't get it, Justin. Just don't get it.

[bigloser]

When a player is screwed, I go to bat for them. This is simply a case where a player lost, and is hoping to make enough noise where Pinnacle will reward him. This won't happen.

I can no longer accept this.
You asked for a copy of the email stating if the issue was grey Pinnacle would act.
The player sent it. It was as he said.
Why did you ask for it if you werent going to act?

I strongly suspect you did intend to do something but that you were advised it wasnt a good idea.
Of course we well never know

The rest of your post is irrelevant - it does not matter whether he is a pro semi pro or whatever.
The rule is grey Pinnacle said they would work with him thye havent. I really dont know why other issues continue to be raised.
Unless it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue

[Dark Horse]

Guys, if you don't know the rule, blame yourself. This is a standard baseball rule. Same principle as in the real world, where ignorance of the law is no excuse. It doesn't matter that Pinnacle didn't word the rule ideally. The rule is still the same. Get over it and get on with it.

Why would SBR go to bat for a player who lost a bet that thousands of other players lost as well, undoubtedly some of them at Pinnacle, because he wants to make a word game out of a rule that is standard?

[jason]

I can no longer accept this.
You asked for a copy of the email stating if the issue was grey Pinnacle would act.
The player sent it. It was as he said.
Why did you ask for it if you werent going to act?

I strongly suspect you did intend to do something but that you were advised it wasnt a good idea.
Of course we well never know

The rest of your post is irrelevant - it does not matter whether he is a pro semi pro or whatever.
The rule is grey Pinnacle said they would work with him thye havent. I really dont know why other issues continue to be raised.
Unless it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue

Agreed wholeheartedly. I must say I'm just shocked at what is going on here. Who advised SBR to stay out of this one? If SBR says no one, then really - why are you not calling Pinny and saying that the rule is not as clear as they represented to the player. My take is that Justin isn't man enough to admit that he misunderstood the player's claim here - i.e., that the question was grey or not. It looks like it might be too embarrassing for SBR to rethink what it has said and step in now. But that's just not what I expect from the top watchdog in the business.

Dark Horse - you keep harping on the wrong issue, man. Pinnacle has TOLD THE PLAYER that he doesn't need to know other books' rules. So who cares about what you're writing? We shouldn't be discussing what people should or should not and do or do not know. That is irrelevant.

The question that PINNACLE FRAMED for us is: Are their rules clear on who wins? The answer is a lot clearer than their rule...NO! If they sent him the email, as BL points out, then this should be a no-brainer for SBR.

[Justin7]

I can no longer accept this.
You asked for a copy of the email stating if the issue was grey Pinnacle would act.
The player sent it. It was as he said.
Why did you ask for it if you werent going to act?

Art originally quoted Pinnacle as saying "If the rule is amibiguous, we'll regrade it". This is simply not what was said. Go back and read the original posts.

Like any contract, you can't read one clause strictly and ignore the remainder. You have to read it in its entirety, and apply common sense. I've looked at everything, and concluded that he had no case.

[jason]

This is pathetic, Justin. Art posted the exact quote of Pinnacle's email - something like "If it is grey, we will work you. But it's not grey."

Seems like he has been forthcoming to this forum and he said he even forwarded the email to SBR. Are you denying that? Did he make this up? If so, this is a different story.

[Dark Horse]

By the way, welcome to the forum, art and jason. You ever need an avatar, let me know. Got just your thing.

[jason]

This is what I love - posters really caring about others' troubles. I mean I had a major issue back in the day, and I thought the support I got helped me big time. Bill was a great help, and he was fair as can be. I'm trying to reciprocate, and I see others doing the same.

Let's cut away all of Justin's pride issues, and lay out what is going on:

1. Pinnacle's rule regarding suspended games is unclear as to whether it should be graded based on the score at the end of the final inning of the game, the previous inning before the game was suspended, or no action.

2. Pinnacle has apparently emailed Art saying that he can rely on their rule - and if it is grey they will work with him.

Which of these 2 premises is wrong, and why.

If SBR is taking issue with #1 - we need to understand how they can say that reasonable people cannot possibly interpret this rule in at least 2 ways, especially after a dozen posters (at least some of whom have got to be reasonable) have expressed different readings.

If SBR is taking issue with #2 = say so. Then we will call upon Art to Screen Shot the email.

If SBR is not taking issue with either one, then they should be stepping in.

[MrX]

This thread is crazy. No one seems to care that Art wasn't wronged in the first place. His whole argument is that a customer service rep said "We'll work with a player if the rules are unclear." First of all, I'm not sure the words of one CS person should carry the same kind of weight as, say, the posted rules of a sportsbook. Secondly, what does it mean to "work with" the player. They didn't say that they'd pay him if the rule was unclear. They certainly shouldn't have to refund the wager.

If I were Pinny, I'd apologize that the player didn't understand the rules and put $5 in his account. There, I just worked with you and I can't be accused of going back on my CS rep's word.

[marc]

This thread is crazy. No one seems to care that Art wasn't wronged in the first place. His whole argument is that a customer service rep said "We'll work with a player if the rules are unclear." First of all, I'm not sure the words of one CS person should carry the same kind of weight as, say, the posted rules of a sportsbook. Secondly, what does it mean to "work with" the player. They didn't say that they'd pay him if the rule was unclear. They certainly shouldn't have to refund the wager.

If I were Pinny, I'd apologize that the player didn't understand the rules and put $5 in his account. There, I just worked with you and I can't be accused of going back on my CS rep's word.

I remember once last yuear placing a bet on the 5 inning lines. I bet on the home team, home team was winning after the first 4.5 innings. Then the game was called due o rain. At first I thought that I had won. But Pinny graded it as a push. According to their rules, ino order to have action on the 5 inning lines, the game must go a full five innings. So had i wagered on the full game, I would have won, because it went 4 1/2 innings with the home team winning. But since I wagered only on the first half it was a push. Logically it made no sense to me, but the rules were clear, so I accepted it. I would never have fathjomed a sitiaution where you could bet on a team, your team wins, but your wager loses.. SO if I had bet on this game, I'd also be asking pinny for clarification because intuitively it doens't make sense. And if they told me to go read the rules, I'm not sure that I'd initally agree with their interpretation.

I think we can all agree that Pinny never intended to create confusion. We can all likley agree that even if the rule were crystal clear, there is a god chance Art would still have placed the same wager.The issue here is that Pinnacle gave Art a glimpse of hope when they indicated that they would do something for him if the rule was ambiguous. And now Pinnacle is backtracking. If Pinancle never intended to do anything, they should have just said, sorry for the misunderstanding but this is how the wagers are graded and the decdion is final. But once they opened the door with thier email to Art, they should give him something. It's not right to tease someone like that.

[Art]

I want to thank all the posters who have weighed in on my issue. Just to clarify a couple of things that came up:

(1) What Marc said is exactly the case. They gave me hope by telling me that they would work with me if it was grey. I relied on that and played with them through our email exchanges. BTW - I lost a lot during that time period. And then when I finally had nothing left in my account, they dropped me and my case like a hot potato.

(2) Jason - I think your 2 step argument is right on. I don't see SBR answering that without showing how unfair they have been here.

Last, I want to point out that I know this is not the most horrible thing a book has done to a player. I readily admit that. But that doesn't change the fact that it is just flat out wrong. Dishonest. Unfair. And I think Pinnacle tried to maintain a reputation as above such types of screwing players over...and now they are undercutting that entirely.

A book that won't honor its WRITTEN WORD is just reprehensible. And you should be ashamed to have your CS Manager write an email that you don't honor. BTW - for those of you who asked, this email came from the TOP person in Pinnacle that a player can talk to...Bridgette - not some cs rep. She is the one who said the buck stops with her, she is the highest there. And this is her rule - grey they will work with me, clear they will not. Then she backed down and ignored me when push came to shove.

Anyway, I don't really know where to go from here. I don't Justin or SBR admitting that they have made a mistake. That is the most disappointing thing about this whole issue. They just don't care enough about what the player is going through. They really don't. Instead, Justin cares more about how he comes out looking. Shocking from a place with the kind of reputation this site has.

Do I ask someone else to step in? I mean I never really dealt with any other site, because I was always told SBR cares about its people. Is there another site that is trustworthy to stand up for what is right?

Anyway - I will continue to keep you guys posted, and any continued advice would be appreciated.

[isetcap]

...Same principle as in the real world, where ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If the rule in question was law and a US court was deciding the outcome, there would be absolutely no way for Pinnacle to justify the way it graded the game. I'm sorry for those who feel otherwise, but anyone who reads the pertinent paragraph correctly, in light of the specific circumstances of this particular contest, simply can not deny it.

Art, if SBR will not pursue your claim any further, you need to research the dispute resolution arrangements set forth by the licensing body to which Pinnacle subscribes. At the very least, the wording of the rule will be changed.

[Dark Horse]

They gave me hope by telling me that they would work with me if it was grey. I relied on that and played with them through our email exchanges. BTW - I lost a lot during that time period. And then when I finally had nothing left in my account, they dropped me and my case like a hot potato.

That was my impression exactly. You lost everything, and now you want a free 1K bet.

You're a spin doctor. Somehow you connect the 'hope' they gave you, and the fact that you continued to place bets.

Then you make another imaginary connection between the time that your account reached zero and Pinny's decision not to give you a free ride.

Such injustice.

With a little more spin you could even make the case that they should refund all losses you suffered during this dispute. After all, these were entirely based on your trust in Pinnacle. Since Pinnacle proved unworthy of that trust (just as SBR! - such incredibly unfair treatment!), Pinny clearly cheated you out of your money.

My two cents. The problem is not Pinny or SBR, but you. You have victimology written all over you.

[jason]

If the rule in question was law and a US court was deciding the outcome, there would be absolutely no way for Pinnacle to justify the way it graded the game. I'm sorry for those who feel otherwise, but anyone who reads the pertinent paragraph correctly, in light of the specific circumstances of this particular contest, simply can not deny it.

Art, if SBR will not pursue your claim any further, you need to research the dispute resolution arrangements set forth by the licensing body to which Pinnacle subscribes. At the very least, the wording of the rule will be changed.

Isetcap - that's exactly right. I have been reading legal contracts and rules for years, and have to agree that this is a no brainer - this is the definition of grey and ambiguous. They don't define the word final inning, and without limiting it to "finall inning before the game was suspended" we have to look to MLB, which says the final inning of this game was the 9th.

Art, you need to get a final answer from SBR as to whether they will be presenting the forum's responses to Pinnacle to prove this is grey, or else go elsewhere for help. I am disappointed in SBR at this point, but I think they need to respond to my post from earlier (about the 2 premises) before I make a final decision. SBR, what's the deal? Is Pinny just off limits here? Please tell me you're better than that.

[SBR_John]

Hopefully Justin can further explain more if needed. Keep in mind we are always in the middle of a dozen of complaints at any given time.

Other places you could try if you feel you need a 2nd opinion would be the Shrink at eog.com. His email is shrink@eog.com. You could also try Russ at Majorwager. His email is themajor@majorwager.com. You might also try roberto at tow. His email is roberto@theonlinewire.com. Hope that helps.

[cobra_king]

He could go to all of these places and more if they are out there, and it's not going to change this result. This is the way these wagers have been graded for a long long time. And before the recent rule change, this is exactly how major league baseball graded the games. Clearly pinnacle should have updated their rules when MLB revised theirs, but it doesn't make what has been grandfathered in for years and years now unapplicable.

[Willie Bee]

I have read very few legal docs/contracts over the years that couldn't be argued as gray and ambiguous by some attorney or another. Hell, we had the president of the US once asking for a legal definition of 'is'

Can the rule, should the rule, be written more concisely and with greater clarity? Sure. Was the wager graded correctly as far as how other circumstances of this kind have been graded in the past? Yes.

[bigloser]

Hopefully Justin can further explain more if needed. .

Justin

[milwaukee mike]

just feel obligated to post here since i read through the entirety from last year to now.

interesting thread.

my 2 cents are that:
1) nobody can expect a single-game wager to go ungraded for a month waiting for an outcome. so logically the sportsbook would end the bet at the end of the last completely played inning if it is long enough.
2) the thread was started with a loaded question. that in and of itself makes me agree with many here that he was trying to play himself as a victim

fwiw, i am new to the forum to play "beat the prick" but i have loved and respected sbr and had great success with all disputes for years now.
the only stiff i got was from bos and at the time sbr had dropped them to a d.
i just couldn't resist the 50% reload bonuses though (got enough out to be ahead anyway)...

[BatemanPatrickl]

I have read very few legal docs/contracts over the years that couldn't be argued as gray and ambiguous by some attorney or another. Hell, we had the president of the US once asking for a legal definition of 'is'

Can the rule, should the rule, be written more concisely and with greater clarity? Sure. Was the wager graded correctly as far as how other circumstances of this kind have been graded in the past? Yes.

Well said

[raiders72002]

) the thread was started with a loaded question. that in and of itself makes me agree with many here that he was trying to play himself as a victim

exactly

Let this thread die. Not one book or forum owner is going to back this guy.

[maritime]

It's a loss. You lost. I've lost games like this and won games like this. Move on.

[pokernut9999]

Heck try having a over in a game and the batter hits a grand slam to win the game and put the total over, but only 2 runs count. Any one remember that game? Yea I was pissed but my god I got over it by the next day. The only time it ever happened and will never probably happen again but that is just shitty luck. Get over it and move on.


Any one know which game I am talking about?

[BuddyBear]

Let's hope we don't see Wisconsin/UNLV blackout part II this weekend....

[louisvillekid]

Heck try having a over in a game and the batter hits a grand slam to win the game and put the total over, but only 2 runs count. Any one remember that game? Yea I was pissed but my god I got over it by the next day. The only time it ever happened and will never probably happen again but that is just shitty luck. Get over it and move on.


Any one know which game I am talking about?

no, what game was it?

[pokernut9999]

Playoff game Mets vs Braves early 2000 something. Mets hit walk off grand slam but hitter was mobbed before getting to 2nd base and never finished running bases. They only counted I think 2 runs. Unreal loss if you had over.

[JC]

Forgive me for keeping this thread alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_Single

The next batter was Mets third baseman Robin Ventura. Ventura crushed the 2-1 pitch over the wall in right-center for a grand slam, winning the game for the Mets and driving the Mets players and fans into a frenzied celebration. Ventura, however, never reached second base as Todd Pratt, the runner who was on first, picked him up in celebration. Subsequently, Ventura was mobbed by his teammates, never finishing his trot around the bases. Because he failed to touch all four bases, the hit was officially scored a single. Roger Cedeno, the runner on third at the time, was ruled the only runner to have crossed home plate before the on-field celebration began and the Mets were awarded a 4-3 victory. Thus, Ventura was only credited with a single and one RBI.

[pokernut9999]

Thank's for the post. That was a tough loss on the over.

[Bill Dozer]

Playoff game Mets vs Braves early 2000 something. Mets hit walk off grand slam but hitter was mobbed before getting to 2nd base and never finished running bases. They only counted I think 2 runs. Unreal loss if you had over.

That may be the worst bad beat I have ever heard of.

[pokernut9999]

Yea and I am always on those type games.