Let's see if Sportsbook.com follows suite...
-
Comment -
Olympic, WSEX, and 5 dimes all allow these bets
I just went over to Olympic, WSEX and 5 dimes and they all allow parlays of the over and fav, and under and dog, except in the case of very high spread in college football.
In fact betting the same game over and fav is an extremely popular bet that my friends make all the time, and they are NOT sharp bettors and consistantly lose each and every season.
It is absolutely outrageous that someone would make a parlay bet that has a chance of losing, and the sportsbook doesn't pay it if the player wins.
These bets have a 10% house vig, and in fact it is more likely the player is going to lose than is going to win.
If someone is sharp enough to uncover something that the correlation overcomes the vig then too bad, the sportsbook has to pay it because if the parlay loses they are not going to refund the money.
SBR please please please downgrade this outfit and all of their satellites to an F.Comment -
Yeah Drunkin' I hope they do follow through because if they don't I will call and even though I have no leverage I will tell them that I want to withdraw everything since I have wasted time defending them in the forum...
Comment -
as i stated on lva forum, this is simply out and out theft..
sportsbook (or hollywood where they stole 3.8k from me at) is simply looking for the cheapest way to steal a large sum of money from players. sportsbook stated they took money from 31 players (note it's likely the true # is actually higher, as sportsbook is not fond of telling the truth), sbr stated from 6 players who have complained so far the total is already over 180k.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 31 players in all must have OVER half a million stolen!! (and this is assuming the players who hasn't reported has a smaller average balance than players who have)
if you're a corrupt organization trying to rob money from your players, would you rather invent an excuse and steal 600k from 30 players w/ the highest average balance, or 1200 players w/ smaller balances?
this correlated parlays bs is simply a f-ckin' excuse to rob the high rollers blind, nothing more nothing less! i have placed numerous wagers w/ hollywood so exclusitivity that they're claiming is obvious false, as others have verified as well.. i'm a net loser in my acct, deposited 10-15k this year alone and have only made one withdraw so far this year of 2.5k. in net of losses that they're claiming they derived their calculations from ..my a$$!
they're simply trying to find the easiest out to take as much possible from the smallest number of players as possible so they suffer the least amount reputation damage..
as for others claiming what they did isn't theft.. give me a f-cking break! imagine a player who deposited via credit card and make a wager w/ his whole balance, if he wins he will request a withdraw. if he loses, he'll simply charge back on his ccard. what would you call such a player? a blatant thief and fraudulant player right??
why is that example important. b/c sportsbook is that above example's thief and fraudulant player!Comment -
Why wouldn't they take some of the other book's approach and purposely put trap lines up to catch steamers..? That approach is widely excepted especially here...
Well..... I would say we have had people get payouts from Sportsbook and do charge backs and an oh well approach was taken by those players.. I don't remember people calling them crooks on this board either... So what would you call those type of people... hmmm some here have said if you can get away with it then why not... Read through the WDraw thread... I don't see SBR running to help the books get the charge backs back...
Sometimes some of the sh*t on here just doesn't make any damn sense.. What did we discuss this week ....that 2%-5% of bettors win long term and we know Sportsbook.com and it's sister books have a huge customer base... Maybe the largest... Now people think they are doing this because they are going broke..? Well what the f*ck..? how much cocain' and hookers can one buy ...damn.... JJ any guesses..?
Comment -
Don't expect any help from the Rx.
Confiscated Money Situation
I am started a new thread since the other one seemed to get off track.
I have talked to parties from both sides of this situation, and unfortunately we are not going to be able to come to a conclusion that is going to make both sides happy.
The facts are that players were playing correlated parlays at the group of sportsbooks. It had been going for an extended period of time. There is really no dispute here as I have received multiple emails from the players in which they say they have been betting correlated parlays.
The sportsbooks have a no correlated parlay rule on their sites, and they did enforce the rule by cutting parlay limits to $1 on customers that were caught playing these parlays.
When the sportsbooks realized that there were multiple players playing these parlays on a regular basis, they decided to take action and confiscate the winnings from these parlays, retroactive September 1. The argument can be made that they need to refund back losing parlays, but the sportsbooks feel that if they were to go back further on these customers accounts that the amount of money won on the correlated parlays would greatly exceed the amount withheld.
While my feeling is that the sportsbooks should have just closed the accounts and sent back the balances, I can understand why they made their decision. You could have made the argument that the correlated rule was too vague, but the customers all know that they were betting correlated parlays, and I know of at least 4 that continued to play at the books after the money was confiscated. I also had 2 of the customers tell me that they would have rather given up the money and keep this quiet rather than get it out in the public and wise up other books.
My opinion is that both parties share some fault here. Books have a habit of getting lazy and basically just expecting all customers to follow their rules. Players that choose to take advantage of loopholes at books are playing the risk-reward game.
Thanks
RickComment -
JC that is one hell of a post top to bottom!!! Very consistant all the way around!!Don't expect any help from the Rx.
Confiscated Money Situation
I am started a new thread since the other one seemed to get off track.
I have talked to parties from both sides of this situation, and unfortunately we are not going to be able to come to a conclusion that is going to make both sides happy.
The facts are that players were playing correlated parlays at the group of sportsbooks. It had been going for an extended period of time. There is really no dispute here as I have received multiple emails from the players in which they say they have been betting correlated parlays.
The sportsbooks have a no correlated parlay rule on their sites, and they did enforce the rule by cutting parlay limits to $1 on customers that were caught playing these parlays.
When the sportsbooks realized that there were multiple players playing these parlays on a regular basis, they decided to take action and confiscate the winnings from these parlays, retroactive September 1. The argument can be made that they need to refund back losing parlays, but the sportsbooks feel that if they were to go back further on these customers accounts that the amount of money won on the correlated parlays would greatly exceed the amount withheld.
While my feeling is that the sportsbooks should have just closed the accounts and sent back the balances, I can understand why they made their decision. You could have made the argument that the correlated rule was too vague, but the customers all know that they were betting correlated parlays, and I know of at least 4 that continued to play at the books after the money was confiscated. I also had 2 of the customers tell me that they would have rather given up the money and keep this quiet rather than get it out in the public and wise up other books.
My opinion is that both parties share some fault here. Books have a habit of getting lazy and basically just expecting all customers to follow their rules. Players that choose to take advantage of loopholes at books are playing the risk-reward game.
Thanks
Rick
JC for a game winner from 57....... ya'll know the rest... SBR_John is on the trading blocks...
Comment -
Well, unfortunately, it looks like your days defending them and betting there are over - based on what has been written at TheRx.
Actually, if this incident once and for all brings about the death of TheRx, then it just might be a good day for the industry after all. It should come as no surprise at all that the powers that be over there support this decision and will not be pulling any banners. TheRx managment are basically colonic parasites whose hosts are the Sportsbook.com management who made this ridiculous decision to begin with.Comment -
Dude, snap out of it. JC's post was not his own words, it was a copy & paste from the General Manager of TheRx's post over there. You don't know JC very well if you thought those could possibly reflect his views on this situation. Now, we expect you to stick to your word above and pull out your funds and stop defending these lowlifes.Comment -
Have they made their final decision that they will not honor any parlays at all. or is it still in question..?
Comment -
It would appear to be final, the way the colonic parasite at TheRx is talking. Unless Obi-Wan Justin can save all the players, I don't think anybody else out there is going to continue the fight on their behalf.Comment -
Anyone else find it comical, that you can still place these bets now on large NFL spreads... Can't check college yet.
This group is simply amazing... Getting ready for round two of theft!Comment -
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING..???? Why don't you speak to their CS or Supervisor and ask about making that bet before you do and b*tch about it later..??? Are you afraid they will notice the bet and not let you have it..? Are you hoping to just get away with it IF you win..??? WTF!
Hey Drunkin' what's with this September 1st thing in the Manager of the RX's post..? Forgive me it was clear that it was an RX Managers opinion.. Also what's with the below post ( a copy from a post at the RX)...
This is all their rules said as late as 9/15/07:
Parlay or Multiple Betting
No parlay wagers can be accepted where individual wagers are 'connected' , 'dependant' or 'correlated'. For example, one wager in your parlay is for Sampras to beat Agassi in the 4th round of Wimbledon and the second or additional part of the parlay is for Sampras to win the overall Wimbledon title. The match forms part of the overall tournament and is therefore 'correlated'. In the same way, you cannot parlay the total of the first half of a football game with the total of the game line itself, as the two are 'dependent'.
Anyone know if this is true.. This poster claims this was their rules as of 9/15/07 and I talked to two others who state that is correct... To be perfectly honest I never read through all their rules so it could have been and I would not even have known it...
Comment -
Originally posted by pags11Originally posted by BuddyBearOriginally posted by curiousComment -
I am not worried about anything. I had $61 stuck in one of their clones...
I figured this group of books is so pathetic that after stealing from 30+ people (Probably many more), they would not change their software to block these.
I simply placed $5 to see...
They clearly can since they block other parlays.
Pathetic thieves.
SeanComment -
Thanks for the props John. The facts in this case speak for themselves It's very encouraging that BetUSA reversed the decison, likely under pressure to do so. Any forum that doesn't remove this family's banners, and put pressure on this group to do the right thing, should be ashamed. That pressure will get this reversed at all the books in the family. This family relies very heavily on the forum advertising for new players and retention.
I believe over the years you and I have differed on your treatment of this group, back to their Starnet days. I thought in many cases you were being unfair. In this case, you are spot on and taking the forefront in fighting for the players and are to be commended.Comment -
HOLD IT HOLD IT HOLD IT!!! Any one know anything about this...? This is a big deal you know.. To me if this is legit the shot takers need to not be lazy like me or get your as* hooked on phonics!!!
This is all their rules said as late as 9/15/07:
Parlay or Multiple Betting
No parlay wagers can be accepted where individual wagers are 'connected' , 'dependant' or 'correlated'. For example, one wager in your parlay is for Sampras to beat Agassi in the 4th round of Wimbledon and the second or additional part of the parlay is for Sampras to win the overall Wimbledon title. The match forms part of the overall tournament and is therefore 'correlated'. In the same way, you cannot parlay the total of the first half of a football game with the total of the game line itself, as the two are 'dependent'.
Comment -
Only problem Shams is they block those bets... Every last one of those is blocked.
Even now, you can parlay a total and side on their site.Comment -
Shams: Sampras to win in the 4th is necessary but not sufficient for him to win the tournament. It is not necessary for the over in the 1st half to come in for the over in the game to come in, but one predicts the other. Similarly, these correlated parlays are predictive, but not in the same way as in the case of over 1st h - over for the game all points are useful for you whereas if you have the favorite and over it really doesn't help you if the dog explodes for 6 touchdowns. Let me define this simply:
Texas -30 Rice, ou of 44.
If you were to bet on Texas with the over as well as Rice with the under you are saying that Texas will have more variance in respect to their score then Rice will. If Texas scores 37 points you will lose both bets unless Rice scores exactly 7. Similarly if Rice scores exactly 7 you cannot lose both bets and at worst will tie both. The average variance of a team with an expected value of 37 points is simply much higher than the variance of a team with an expected value of 37. If both teams score between 115 to 120 percent of their expected value, you win! That is the form of correlation with these bets.Comment -
DUDE COME ON!!! You may have known about the rules (assuming it was in there on 9-15) and did it but even now you know and decide that since they take it why the hell not... A shot taker.. You can also bet a bad line at other places and it will take it sometimes but you know not to as YOU KNOW NOT TO DO THIS... If it's not a big amount then this is the perfect case to call them and ask them about it if you REALLY want to test it....or are you just hoping it wins and they pay..? This is unreal... I have heard of double standard but this is really bad...
Why don't you do me a favor and call up the CS or management and double check that it's ok to place that bet..? You won't will you.? If you won't now you certainly wouldn't then and this is becoming more clear that there are 31 shot takers who got theirs... I am trying to look at this from all angles but the bettors angle is getting weaker...
Comment -
You really need to read things more carefully, my friend. No one of the customers in question placed a parlay of the kind they mention here. As is stated by posters above me, their software PROHIBITS those wagers. (And, as you know, it also prohibits your baseball runline to total pars and any parlays of soccer totals to soccer lines.) However, as I said much earlier today, it allows the football parlays for a reason. They don't care if you parlay a 1 pt favorite to the over 50. They are indicating (if that's what you want to call the theft) that they seem to care if you parlay a 20 pt favorite to over 50. Do they care if it's a parlay of a 14 pt favorite to over 50? Maybe. I don't know, You don't know and the only way anybody finds out is to try it, win it and then have it voided. But I do know this, a parlay of a 1 pt favorite to over 50 IS CORRELATED, and a parlay of a 20 pt favorite to over 50 is also CORRELATED. The only difference is the degree of the correlation.HOLD IT HOLD IT HOLD IT!!! Any one know anything about this...? This is a big deal you know.. To me if this is legit the shot takers need to not be lazy like me or get your as* hooked on phonics!!!
This is all their rules said as late as 9/15/07:
Parlay or Multiple Betting
No parlay wagers can be accepted where individual wagers are 'connected' , 'dependant' or 'correlated'. For example, one wager in your parlay is for Sampras to beat Agassi in the 4th round of Wimbledon and the second or additional part of the parlay is for Sampras to win the overall Wimbledon title. The match forms part of the overall tournament and is therefore 'correlated'. In the same way, you cannot parlay the total of the first half of a football game with the total of the game line itself, as the two are 'dependent'.
So if they are voiding "correlated parlays" then ALL must be voided. Otherwise they must program their software to allow certain games and disallow others. Since you're all about "consistency", you can understand that to take any other approach would be inconsistent.....(and we won't even touch on the consistency of voiding bets of some players and not others or voiding winners and not losers!).Comment -
What exactly transpired that made you reneg on this?Comment -
Drunken: Are you aware of a Supreme Court case involving pornography and its definitions? It can be tough to describe but you know it when you see it. -1 and over 60 is indeed correlated. It is not pornography, and these players weren't playing that kind of parlay. +21 and under 44 is pornography of the Larry Flynt variety. That the ACLU (SBR) is willing to stand up for it is right and good. You should be fighting for these shot takers. But let's not pretend to be confused by what they did. Simply put if you are receiving more than 13.5 points for the game or more than 6.5 points for a half and you are parlaying you know what you are doing.Comment -
Voiding some bets and keeping others as loses is certainly inconsistant NO DOUBT and they may have taken a shot back at the shot takers.... I'll give you that but you did mention an example with correlated parlays and in their terms (if it is in their terms) they use the word correlated.. That's all that needs to be seen in my opinion.. Posters on here are quick to give an example of a correlated parlay for football game first half or whatever but when this comes up they act like they are stupid and don't know what it means anymore relying on the terms to tell them what it is... You, I, and most others know exactly what a correlated parlay is... The shot takers CERTAINLY KNOW... How about this Drunkin' why not call the parlay in..? What a crazy idea... You want to try something people to see if it works... stop hiding behind a skirt and hope you are not seen taking shots... CALL THE F*CKER IN!!!
Thank you for your time to reply Drunkin'... Are you familiar on the bold statements at all..? Is this accurate..? Drunkin' you want me to keep my word..? Call your parlay in and stop taking shots and acting like you don't know what is going on... What happened.? I want to know first about the above T&A.. If the above is true all the shot takers should go take a hike and be glad they won as much as they did....
Comment -
So if Hawaii is playing in that game and the game total is 77 and the 1st half total is 40 then you're saying that a game parlay of +13.5 & U 77 is a correlated parlay and no-one allows it? I counter by saying that Spiro, a real bookie, has always and will always allow it. Each game, based on its combination of line and total is correlated in the eyes of some BMs and not others. Hell, just open your eyes and look at the Pats-Dolphins game this Sunday. I can guarantee you that WSEX will lock out parlays on that game, CRIS may or may not accept them and Olympic will certainly allow them. If "everybody knows correlation when they see it", then at least one out of these 3 books is blind.
I'll say it again, the only solution, as it has been since the beginning of time (or at least online bookmaking), is for each book to program their software to accept the games they do want and reject the others. Nothing else works.Comment -
Drunken: A books program their software. I remember when I noticed that I could parlay a recently posted live line with the main line for the same game as it was 5 minutes away from start time. I didn't take a shot, I called up the Greek and told them about it. They are an A book, I acted accordingly.
Sportsbook.com is a D- book. Oh, and technically I said over 13.5, so the example should be an ou of 77 and a spread of 14. Also, you are correct that Hawaii is indeed a specific case that can be dealt with differently. A spread of 14 with an ou of 31 is different than a spread of 14 with an ou of 85. We know this. The former is Swank (does that still exist?), the latter is Maxim.Comment -
Shams, does it phase you at all that there are only 2 other people besides yourself on any of these message boards that have, in any way shape or form, thought that Sportsbook has a leg to stand on?
One is this Colonic Parasite Rick (henceforth known as CPR) at TheRx who gets his pockets lined by them. The other is quite possibly the biggest retard I have ever read on any forum, this 1_Realcapper dude (also at TheRx). It's one thing to be a non-conformist rebel. Hell, in most of life I'm usually in that camp myself. But I would sure be questioning myself if my only allies in a battle were these two. I don't feel that you're an unethical guy and not a total 'tard either. Just open your eyes man & join the right side of this war!Comment -
Drunkin' if you really don't think you are doing anything wrong AGAIN why not call it in then..? And like a federal investagator once told me... "If you are truely not guilty then you have nothing to worry about ....right..?" SW10 "You are absolutely right sir...I hope you find your man and good luck".. I was guilty as F*CK and he knew it... So are you Drunkin' and you know it...but if you can get over on them why not right..?
Drunkin' I wouldn't even notice if there was NO ONE much less a few and who they are is not an issue here... I am trying to look at everything in plain view.... If that bold statement is true then case closed... From the 15th on the shot takers should get one in their as*...
Comment -
You both lost me there.Comment -
But don't you agree that somebody has to define at what point Swank becomes Maxim? The problem is, each book defines it differently. Should the burden really be on me to call each book I have an account with before shopping for my best line on Dolphins & Under and placing my bet? Or should I simply be able to rely that if the book didn't want me to play it, that they would lock it out via software (as WSEX most certainly will and Oly most certainly won't).Comment -
At an A book you can place the bet and expect to get the bet, or to at worst see it canceled as soon as they notice (with an e-mail). Sportsbook.com is run differently. Why are you even trying to compare them?Comment -
And yes, I would run the 13.5 and 6.5 rule.Comment
