[relaaxx]

should at least be paid for a 4 team parlay. 90 day rule is fine to cancel last leg if it's paid out as a parlay win.

if it's not too late op should listen to optional. lay low. let SBR help. give them some time.

[ABEHONEST]

should at least be paid for a 4 team parlay. 90 day rule is fine to cancel last leg if it's paid out as a parlay win.

if it's not too late op should listen to optional. lay low. let SBR help. give them some time.

Well, I am only suggesting as usual, that this rule, it seems, is outrageous? I hear other Book's have that rule also. But I never heard of it and do believe any Book using it [guessing again] may have some financial probs?
Nothing Heritage would be like a few years ago...you can bet on that. It also could be that the maintenance there must be overwhelming? Maybe finding competent helper's may also be the key?

I did get hit by another modern- day Book shocker, about 4 months ago. I had some free money left in the casino and I allowed a friend to use it. Well, the friend either forgot or he simply didn't realize--me either--you use it up within so many days [maybe 60 or 90] or that giant gobbling machine will appear and go..."Gulp."

* Sound familiar?
Could this have happened in the 2000, decade, era?

[gauchojake]

Abe you should start betting Asian handicaps

[The Kraken]

I hope they stiff you, Abe, based solely on your overuse of commas

[Cabaldwin3]

I get that you are upset, but this is a rule that has been in place. They gave you well beyond 90 days to compete the last leg. In my opinion, they should have put a 4 leg payout in your account or left it alone. I'm not sure why you are so angry and causing a scene in public when it's something they didn't make up to screw you out of a low 4 figure payout. You should let sbr sort this out..if they can't come out with a fair resolution, THEN this is warranted. You wouldn't like if you had rules about something then someone breaks them then slanders you in public. If they take refuse to talk to you about it though, that's not right.

[ABEHONEST]

I hope they stiff you, Abe, based solely on your overuse of commas

Thank you. I appreciate worthwhile help from any member. I'll make a
of my English from now on, thank's to your excellent reporting.

[ABEHONEST]

Again Baldone, I do not see where I slandered them in public. Now we know a certain moderator certainly did that to me...don't we? Slander is where you accuse someone or a business, without proper evidence, such as making profound statement against a party. Stating the slander in a guilty manner with no chance of being innocent.
Now, you said I did so please find where I did that?
I questioned that rule. And the deletion was a week or so after the 90 day ruling. They also said thru email [a few days ago, maybe even 10 now], they tried to contact me about 17 days ago. I found no contact history anywhere and does that mean they didn't try? No, but they sure didn't get any answer back from me.

[ABEHONEST]

Thank you. I appreciate worthwhile help from any member. I'll make a
of my English from now on, thank's to your excellent reporting.

And I bet u black guy who no like Trump?

[Grits n' Gravy]

Silly old man keeps crying like a child because he can't follow simple rules. Then when a mod points out that your senile old ass did Something similar a few years ago, you attack him. That will really help get him to try and help you.

Maybe the book should make an exception for you? After all you are an extra special yellow snowflake. Better yet you can try tweeting Trump your situation. He'll retweet you and call you a loser.

You'll be dead before they pay you a dime.

[ABEHONEST]

Silly old man keeps crying like a child because he can't follow simple rules. Then when a mod points out that your senile old ass did Something similar a few years ago, you attack him. That will really help get him to try and help you.

Maybe the book should make an exception for you? After all you are an extra special yellow snowflake. Better yet you can try tweeting Trump your situation. He'll retweet you and call you a loser.

You'll be dead before they pay you a dime.

Gosh, such orneriness out of another black fellow. Remember the movie, Full Metal Jacket? I thought that line where the white boy stated..."Thank God for sickle cell disease," was hilarious. U be a candidate soon.
And before old grits losses his cool again and damages his mental/physical heath: I am a huge fan of these two fellows..MLK & MJ, so you can sleep better now.
Luv you.

[relaaxx]

posters attacking the op are ridiculous. wonder how they would feel if their $75 4 leg winner was cancelled. rules are rules but some rules should not exist. the bet is already a winner, if the bet is cancelled due to a rule that the next leg must be entered in 90 days , it should be paid because there are no losing bets in the parlay. 1 call from the op should either get the parlay payed or put the wager back for the next leg. nobody throws a winning parlay away. they must know he does not know the rules. could have easily put a message in his account so the next time he logs in he would know about the bet and the rule. love heritage but this is not fair. also think once heritage insider sees this he will help the op out. maybe he's been off a few days. I have had a few small problems at heritage and was always treated fairly. in the end I think the op will be too.

[evo34]

So the two member's above like that fill-in rule with pressure behind it? Okay, your choice but not will be mine ever again. It's tough enough trying to hit a parlay, we don't need more ridiculous obstacles or shackles to deal with. Good luck on your future pressurized parlays.

And don't forget, I had no warning from them they can prove or one that I saw.

The same exact rule was there last August:

http://web.archive.org/web/201608151...wagering-rules

It's not even in the fine print; it's in the first three items.

We don't need to hear any more about books enforcing their clearly stated rules.

[ABEHONEST]

posters attacking the op are ridiculous. wonder how they would feel if their $75 4 leg winner was cancelled. rules are rules but some rules should not exist. the bet is already a winner, if the bet is cancelled due to a rule that the next leg must be entered in 90 days , it should be paid because there are no losing bets in the parlay. 1 call from the op should either get the parlay payed or put the wager back for the next leg. nobody throws a winning parlay away. they must know he does not know the rules. could have easily put a message in his account so the next time he logs in he would know about the bet and the rule. love heritage but this is not fair. also think once heritage insider sees this he will help the op out. maybe he's been off a few days. I have had a few small problems at heritage and was always treated fairly. in the end I think the op will be too.

Tkxs, I respect your logical thinking. OP? Old person?
Actually I am OV. Older Vet.
* My biggest concern right now; did I miss that damn comma again?

[relaaxx]

we are both op -- old person

but

we are not both op -- original poster

[ABEHONEST]

we are both op -- old person

but

we are not both op -- original poster

Oh, I see.

[Optional]

posters attacking the op are ridiculous. wonder how they would feel if their $75 4 leg winner was cancelled. rules are rules but some rules should not exist. the bet is already a winner, if the bet is cancelled due to a rule that the next leg must be entered in 90 days , it should be paid because there are no losing bets in the parlay. 1 call from the op should either get the parlay payed or put the wager back for the next leg. nobody throws a winning parlay away. they must know he does not know the rules. could have easily put a message in his account so the next time he logs in he would know about the bet and the rule. love heritage but this is not fair. also think once heritage insider sees this he will help the op out. maybe he's been off a few days. I have had a few small problems at heritage and was always treated fairly. in the end I think the op will be too.

I agree that as the rule says the bet will be cancelled after a period of time, then the stake should be refunded like any other cancelled bet.

It's not clear that a player should be able to drop committed legs off an open parlay and be paid out like the remaining legs are pushes though. As the bet was not complete.

But the rule also says it is enforced with discretion and from what Abe said, about having 3 winning legs completed out of 4, it sounds like a situation that sort of discretion could be reasonably requested.

Well I feel like I could request it for a poster like yourself. But as mentioned earlier, if the book isn't immediately open to the idea it's much more difficult to argue for goodwill when the player being advocated for is showing none themselves loudly in public.

[ABEHONEST]

[QUOTE=evo34;27004571]The same exact rule was there last August:

Yes, I am sure that rule was submitted to draw more betting clientele?
Welcome to the modern era of internet gambling.

[stevenash]

90 days but why? What's the point

My guess is book keeping records, that they don't want a bunch of dusty old open bets lingering around.

I don't see anything wrong with a 90 day limit rule, and I bet if you spoke to the book manager before you open an open ended parlay or teaser and explain to them you intend on closing this during NFL season which is say 4 months from now, that they will work with you.

[ABEHONEST]

I agree that as the rule says the bet will be cancelled after a period of time, then the stake should be refunded like any other cancelled bet.

It's not clear that a player should be able to drop committed legs off an open parlay and be paid out like the remaining legs are pushes though. As the bet was not complete.

But the rule also says it is enforced with discretion and from what Abe said, about having 3 winning legs completed out of 4, it sounds like a situation that sort of discretion could be reasonably requested.

Well I feel like I could request it for a poster like yourself. But as mentioned earlier, if the book isn't immediately open to the idea it's much more difficult to argue for goodwill when the player being advocated for is showing none themselves loudly in public.

Can't believe you still think I want or need your help? It's 4 in with one to go.

[ABEHONEST]

My guess is book keeping records, that they don't want a bunch of dusty old open bets lingering around.

I don't see anything wrong with a 90 day limit rule, and I bet if you spoke to the book manager before you open an open ended parlay or teaser and explain to them you intend on closing this during NFL season which is say 4 months from now, that they will work with you.

Football is 90 days away.

[relaaxx]

personally I would always trust optional's opinion.. he is just pointing out both sides.

[ABEHONEST]

personally I would always trust optional's opinion.. he is just pointing out both sides.

He has attacked me personally several times in the past. No good excuse. He should have sent his dramatic different opinion to the PM, not where all his buds can chime in with sarcasm. And you know, he loves the backing of his biased buds.
And any Book he has favored in the past against me, too.
A more classy and smarter moderator would be ashamed, but not this character.
PM me, not accuse me on PLT.

[stevenash]

Football is 90 days away.

No shit snowflake, the part where wrote "and explain to them you intend on closing this during NFL season which is say 4 months from now, "
I used the word "say" as a hypothical, as in "for isntance"

Work on those reading comprehension skills there cupcake.

[HedgeHog]

My guess is book keeping records, that they don't want a bunch of dusty old open bets lingering around.

I don't see anything wrong with a 90 day limit rule, and I bet if you spoke to the book manager before you open an open ended parlay or teaser and explain to them you intend on closing this during NFL season which is say 4 months from now, that they will work with you.

That was my thought too. But then I noticed that Heritage has political props for 2020, which means those bets would linger for 3 years. Not sure why they have the 90 day rule, but they have every right to make it. In all fairness though, they should pay off all open parlays at current value if they choose to eliminate them.

[Grits n' Gravy]

Gosh, such orneriness out of another black fellow. Remember the movie, Full Metal Jacket? I thought that line where the white boy stated..."Thank God for sickle cell disease," was hilarious. U be a candidate soon.
And before old grits losses his cool again and damages his mental/physical heath: I am a huge fan of these two fellows..MLK & MJ, so you can sleep better now.
Luv you.

Abe- when you die, which will be soon due to your old age, the world will be a better place and you will not be missed by anyone. Good riddance to broke white trash.

[stevenash]

Abe- when you die, which will be soon due to your old age, not to mention high risk of brain aneurysm the world will be a better place and you will not be missed by anyone. Good riddance to broke white trash.

Fixed your post.

[CWD]

abe optional never attacked you anywhere let alone "attacked you personally"

and now its looking like you were trying to leave this parlay open a year LOL

just move on start a new parlay quit clogging the pipeline

[ABEHONEST]

abe optional never attacked you anywhere let alone "attacked you personally"

and now its looking like you were trying to leave this parlay open a year LOL

just move on start a new parlay quit clogging the pipeline

Yes, I am sure you're well read on our past history. Take your own advice and move..., well you know.

[gauchojake]

Abe take a break and go feed some ducks or pigeons

[CWD]

Yes, I am sure you're well read on our past history. Take your own advice and move..., well you know.

actually i am very aware as are most of the posters here

you got caught bonus hunting at HR wager, blamed posters for sending you there, gave it to optional and many others when you couldnt roll over your deposit

i can go on

LOL

[ABEHONEST]

actually i am very aware as are most of the posters here

you got caught bonus hunting at HR wager, blamed posters for sending you there, gave it to optional and many others when you couldnt roll over your deposit

i can go on

LOL

I see what you mean. Yes, no blame should have transpired, even when that member made a tread--I do believe--asking, what Book was the favorite? Or something like that? There was one he simply fell in love with but...well, I think we know where this might go, so, I will calmly ride my horsey away for the time being.
However, I wager, Dum-dum, here, did not see the last two posts concerning that particular Book?

[CWD]

abe stop with the gibberish

its looks like you lost yet again laddie boy

[ABEHONEST]

abe stop with the gibberish

its looks like you lost yet again laddie boy

See, you can't even read simple English. Too much strain on a smaller brain. That's a rhyme by the way.
Give me help...didn't Caesar ask for that? Look what they did to that poor chap?

[Fire in da hole]

Again Baldone, I do not see where I slandered them in public. Now we know a certain moderator certainly did that to me...don't we? Slander is where you accuse someone or a business, without proper evidence, such as making profound statement against a party. Stating the slander in a guilty manner with no chance of being innocent.
Now, you said I did so please find where I did that?
I questioned that rule. And the deletion was a week or so after the 90 day ruling. They also said thru email [a few days ago, maybe even 10 now], they tried to contact me about 17 days ago. I found no contact history anywhere and does that mean they didn't try? No, but they sure didn't get any answer back from me.

Since we are now going legal and quoting definitions, we should get it right. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement, while slander is defamation that is spoken.

[ABEHONEST]

Since we are now going legal and quoting definitions, we should get it right. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement, while slander is defamation that is spoken.

I probably would agree. So when OPT [a moderator] called me a liar on this thread, how is that not a defaming statement?
And again, what I do believe is, I have opened up the idea that any Book using this rule, is, in my opinion, having one lousy rule. Which again, I see this rule in an implying manner, only, not accusing as proof of any single Book, purposely, taking advantage of any ONE individual. Just simply, I see it as a bad rule.
IMPLIED:
adjective
1.
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: