Sportsbook.com thievery

[pico]

well, i bet this is what happened. that dude has no idea sportsbook.com is a shit book. he played there and got paid once or twice and think it is a descent book. then one day, this shit happened. he goes on google and googled, "sportsbook.com and scam"...there you go, sbrforum pops up on the top of the google search page.

so i don't blame him for getting stiffed 5k at a shit book. i bet there are shit load of people out there still think sportsbook.com is an awesome book. with the us ban, offshore betting is like the wild wild west...i got ****ed at sportsbook.com...that is how i found this forum.

come to think of it, sbr staff should thank sportsbook.com since "sportsbook.com withdraw delay" thread probably attracted a lot of posters to come to this site

[TheGuesser]

If the software accepted the bets, it's a bet, Period. They did not void the bets prior to the event, they weren't "bad lines", or other nonsense book use to stiff players. This is as blatant a thievery as we've seen, as bad as the Black Rhino incdent for those that remember that fiasco. Black Rino quickly went under after that. This group showed good faith and good intentions during the slow pay/ lost processor issue, but this latest action, if not reversed, should and will put them out of business.

[Jamie_UK]

I have never seen a book that does not have a related contingency rule.

[HedgeHog]

I have never seen a book that does not have a related contingency rule.

Yes, but that usually involves betting the 1st Half Side or Total with its Full Game counterpart and that's a real no-no (i.e. Sea -3.5 1st Half with Sea -6.5 Game should not be allowed). Here we're talking about same game parlays that all Books accept up until the point they get too correlated. The rules are ambiguous at best for this situation, so most books' software will disallow the games it feels are too connected. For example, Virginia Tech is a 14.5 fav with a 45.5 Total; some of my Books are allowing same game pars on this one while others disallow it. It is up to the Book's discretion. Sportsbook.com should either upgrade their software to eliminate the pars it doesn't want, or simply take down the Total on games they feel are too correlated--as they did for past several years. It's always been the book's responsibilty, not the player's, to determine which same game pars are acceptable.

[jonmic]

I am glad I stopped using sportsbook a long time ago, this is such ****ing bullshit they are trying to pull

[capone]

When i called to find out exactly what rule i had violated, i was told by the rep that there was no judgement necessary as to what constitutes improper because ANY parlay of a side to a total
for a half would violate the rule. At this point i realized that the conversation was pointless and they were just robbing me.

[Doug]

I wonder if any players that lost received refunds ? I don't mean net refunds. Some must have played some of the related bets since Sept. and still lost money.

You could have played 10 of these and lost them all ( not insanely impossible). However such a player would likely STFU about it.

So , basically I want to see somebody say there balance increased with the cancellations, otherwise the book is taking a shot, IMO !

They also ( at a minimum) need to define the point of too much correlation... something like " no game with a spread of 14 or more points shall be allowed in a parlay with the total of said same game"

[Bill Dozer]

I wonder if any players that lost received refunds ? I don't mean net refunds. Some must have played some of the related bets since Sept. and still lost money.

You could have played 10 of these and lost them all ( not insanely impossible). However such a player would likely STFU about it.

So , basically I want to see somebody say there balance increased with the cancellations, otherwise the book is taking a shot, IMO !

They also ( at a minimum) need to define the point of too much correlation... something like " no game with a spread of 14 or more points shall be allowed in a parlay with the total of said same game"

Exactly. Not to mention the set of time they arbitrarily choose to use. This is shaping up to be no different than letting everyone bet and then voiding all the sharp/winning action and leaving the profitable players as is.

[Doug]

Going 2-8 out of ten correlated two teamers is a more realistic way to lose at it ( and a loss), but some would also round-robin them into 4 and 6 teamers as well ( decent strategy with more variance).

I suspect these may have been selectively not cancelled, with only select winning players being targeted, but that is speculation on my part.

[Bill Dozer]

Going 2-8 out of ten correlated two teamers is a more realistic way to lose at it ( and a loss), but some would also round-robin them into 4 and 6 teamers as well ( decent strategy with more variance).

I suspect these may have been selectively not cancelled, with only select winning players being targeted, but that is speculation on my part.

Right. SBR has quite a few Sportsbook.com players as readers and I'm sure if some players were seeing credits, we would have heard about it. This is a new low for them and I wouldn't be surprised if they could add SOMETHING in their favor but this is wrong for a variety of reasons.

[DrunkenLullaby]

Bill, any word over the weekend on when "upper management" expects to report back to you their decision(s)?

[Bill Dozer]

I'd be suprised if they reverse decisions globally on this one. In the past we have used the worst cases as example and worked back from there on an individual level. They already made the decision to go in the bank with the ski masks on. I hope to be breaking this down with management later this week and may try to schedule a meeting at their office. I also have contacted individual brand owners to see if they will let this decision stand.

[RickySteve]

I also have contacted individual brand owners to see if they will let this decision stand.

Can you expand on this? What is the organizational structure of this company?

[curious]

You could have played 10 of these and lost them all ( not insanely impossible).

Actually, this is pretty easy to do, I have done it lots of times LOL

[THE HITMAN]

Aw, man.....I feel for you guys.

[scott james]

i have not sent any money to this out fit in over 8 months.they owed me 5k after this years march madness.i did get my money after 1 month.i was still pissed. last month they put 150.00 in my account and asked me if i would startng playing again. i e-mailed them and said "hell no " never again will i play at sportsbook.com....... what happend to the good old days. on sunday night i would log in and withdraw funds and the fed-x driver would be at my door thursday morning just like clock work ! they almost burnt me once for 5k !! i will never give them a chance to burn me now even if it's only for 50.00 !!! guys don't get me wrong i would still love to bet !! but to me the odds of geting paid is slim to nun !! just my take, p.s. i hope everthing works out and everyone gets paid.

[increasedodds]

Bill-

To answer your questions:

Sportsbook, hollywood, and all the others have allowed correlated parlays for at least 5 years (Maybe longer)

I fully believe before, people used 10+ different accounts and kept balances low with neteller...I know at least 20 people who would cash out every $2500 before... Neteller went away and people started running up balances to 50k+... Obviously they noticed. I didn't even take a stab at it this year as I was nearly certain something like this would happen.

Additionally, this is plain and simple theft.

The examples in their rules are not allowed by their software. They never had the intent of banning sides/ totals in the past.

I know of plenty of people who had their limits reduced or parlays moved to $1. These people just moved on to other accounts, etc.... Sportsbook has allowed these bets forever knowing people make them... If you ban those making correlated ones and allow those making uncorrelated ones... People who were limited were always paid before. (Sometimes a lot of moneY)

This year, SB had a lot more college totals and like got crushed.

Further sportsbook has not returned funds to people who lost correlated bets.

They need an F-

-Sean

[louis]

THe fact is most sportsbooks allow these correlated bets because the correlation does not overcome the vig. The A books know when the correlation overcomes the vig, and don't allow the bet. If the D books is not smart enough to do this, that is too bad. They can't steal the money from the player because the book's management makes mistakes. Any book that steals player money deserves an F, period.

[OCKO]

same-game parlays ok according to Playbook magazine

Sportsbook.com publishes a magazine called Playbook. They mail complimentary copies of this magazine to its customers. Two years ago, their magazine had an article about strategies for betting on football. One of the strategies that THEY RECOMMENDED was betting same-game parlays. Specifically, they claimed that betting an underdog and under on the same game was a good betting strategy for the player. This is a magazine that is published exclusively for Sportsbook.com. I believe the issue was summer 2005, but I am not certain. I do not have a copy of this issue, but I remember it very clearly. Maybe someone here can dig up this article and post it.

[louis]

Ocko, your post is very interesting and valuable

Ocko, the fact they actually recommended the bet is very very interesting, and needs to be brought to the attention of SBR, Bill and/or whoever is handling the issue. As I understand it, they want to meet with sportsbook.com in person, and I think that showing them this article may be useful. Please email it to assistance at SBR.com.

[sungus77]

i too remember this mag, but unfortunately, didnt save it. i remember scantily clad women and terrible english though.

can anyone with voided bets post some more of the parlays? i am having trouble seeing where the line is on acceptable and unacceptable plays. i saw some of the ones posted in other threads, but would like some more frame of reference. thanks.

[Justin7]

Sportsbook.com publishes a magazine called Playbook. They mail complimentary copies of this magazine to its customers. Two years ago, their magazine had an article about strategies for betting on football. One of the strategies that THEY RECOMMENDED was betting same-game parlays. Specifically, they claimed that betting an underdog and under on the same game was a good betting strategy for the player. This is a magazine that is published exclusively for Sportsbook.com. I believe the issue was summer 2005, but I am not certain. I do not have a copy of this issue, but I remember it very clearly. Maybe someone here can dig up this article and post it.

Wow. Can you make a quality color copy of that magazine? We'll pay for the copy costs.

[OCKO]

Sportsbook.com Launches PlayBook Magazine

"

[Doug]

Ocko:

Is this it ?

http://www.iplaybook.com/Issue/5/Get-To-Grips-With-Parlay-Bets.aspx

if so, it says nothing about same game parlays.

[OCKO]

The online version of Playbook is different from the printed version. We need to find someone who has kept all of the old issues of Playbook.

[Doug]

I get them, but quickly toss it, sometimes I even read a bit of it, first.