[thomorino]

I bet professionally so I look at all these different prop market, but I'm surprised no one else evidently has spotted this, but Windcreek sportsbook, which is nationwide sportsbook in a number of states, including Pennsylvania, has a prop bet up that is an error. The bet has a $992 dollar limit.

The bet is cross sport bet between Anthony Davis's total point total for the Lakers for a game he played yesterday against Golden State, compared to the Rams team total in the super bowl. The line is Rams team total +1.5 -115.

The bet clearly states the Davis point total comes from the game played yesterday and the Lakers don't play today.

Anthony Davis only score 16 points against the Warriors on 2/12, so this bet cashes if the Rams score 15 points or more, and the payout is 85 cents on the dollar, the limit as I stated is $992 for the bet.

This book likely didn't realize or they likely intended to take the bet off the board after the Lakers game started, since the Lakers game is yesterday as I stated.

Obviously Stafford could break his leg or the Rams offense could be complete garbage and score under 15 points, but that is highly unlikely.

[thomorino]

This prop bet won easily.

[BuckyOne]

What are the chances you will get limited to a 100 bucks or else kicked out?

[thomorino]

What are the chances you will get limited to a 100 bucks or else kicked out?

Zero - the books chose to leave this prop bet up and it wasn't a clear error at all.

There are nearly 10 books to bet at in Pennsylvania too, but this wasn't an obvious error - the legal standard under common law in most states.

[Booya711]

You don’t even know what the red zone is dumb shit

[thomorino]

You don’t even know what the red zone is dumb shit

You are too dumb know what the term red zone even means.

[Optional]

Zero - the books chose to leave this prop bet up and it wasn't a clear error at all.

There are nearly 10 books to bet at in Pennsylvania too, but this wasn't an obvious error - the legal standard under common law in most states.

Wow, there is a legal standard for what an obvious bookmaking error is in Pa. Mind blown. Got a statute #?

And it's got something to do whether it is obvious to you personally too eh!

Amazing how the law there seems to reflect what casual bettors think it means intuitively. Instead of the established and legally tested definition everywhere else in the world.


Palpable, or obvious errors as you call them, are solely about if the offering is either out of line with what an expert linesman would be expected to do, or there was a genuine error on their part like a typo or unintentional offering.

It was nothing to do with whether it seems "obvious" to you or not. Zilch, nada, not a thing.


And this bet is a clear angle shot. If they spot your past post, they could quite legally void it in any jurisdiction. You have no argument. The whole point of your thread is that one leg had already posted and therefore should not be offered.



Now go away and do not continue posting misinformation in this sub forum. Not the right forum for your nonsense and arguing.

[thomorino]

Wow, there is a legal standard for what an obvious bookmaking error is in Pa. Mind blown. Got a statute #?

And it's got something to do whether it is obvious to you personally too eh!

Amazing how the law there seems to reflect what casual bettors think it means intuitively. Instead of the established and legally tested definition everywhere else in the world.


Palpable, or obvious errors as you call them, are solely about if the offering is either out of line with what an expert linesman would be expected to do, or there was a genuine error on their part like a typo or unintentional offering.

It was nothing to do with whether it seems "obvious" to you or not. Zilch, nada, not a thing.


And this bet is a clear angle shot. If they spot your past post, they could quite legally void it in any jurisdiction. You have no argument. The whole point of your thread is that one leg had already posted and therefore should not be offered.



Now go away and do not continue posting misinformation in this sub forum. Not the right forum for your nonsense and arguing.

You didn't even read my post.

Let me explain what I'm saying because you didn't take the time actually read and understand it.

What I said because I don't know that exact statute and gaming commission laws that deal with issues like this is that the usual standard is clear and obvious error.

So Anthony Davis Scored 16 points so the Rams needed to score 15 points for this prop to win - the bet certainly carried some risk that it would lose, there obviously was no guarantee the Rams would score 15 points, they only had 7 points at the beginning of the 4th quarter in the San Francisco game which was last week.

That's point 1 - I did not see this prop has a clear and obvious error - it was for instance a bet that required the Rams to score 1 point to win. It is certainly possible the Rams would score less than 15 points in a game.

So to say that this was a clear angle shot is not accurate - a clear angle shot would be when a line is so obviously wrong that the bet is almost guaranteed to win.

I also don't feel bad for this book, their online casino I have played it is likely rigged, I haven't lost any significant money playing in that casino, but anyone who plays in these online casinos sees they are likely rigged - and I do not feel bad for these books - which in any case in this situation was not a guaranteed or blatantly bad line.

[thomorino]

Wow, there is a legal standard for what an obvious bookmaking error is in Pa. Mind blown. Got a statute #?

And it's got something to do whether it is obvious to you personally too eh!

Amazing how the law there seems to reflect what casual bettors think it means intuitively. Instead of the established and legally tested definition everywhere else in the world.


Palpable, or obvious errors as you call them, are solely about if the offering is either out of line with what an expert linesman would be expected to do, or there was a genuine error on their part like a typo or unintentional offering.

It was nothing to do with whether it seems "obvious" to you or not. Zilch, nada, not a thing.


And this bet is a clear angle shot. If they spot your past post, they could quite legally void it in any jurisdiction. You have no argument. The whole point of your thread is that one leg had already posted and therefore should not be offered.



Now go away and do not continue posting misinformation in this sub forum. Not the right forum for your nonsense and arguing.

And almost every legal standard is the reasonable person standard - there is no reason a reasonable person would view this prop bet as a blatant and flagrant error.

Again, the Rams had 7 points in the 4th quarter last week.

[thomorino]

My bigger point is that these books are billion dollar companies, they are responsible for putting the right lines up. Its one thing to have a software glitch for a couple second in live betting where the line is off by a hundred point.

They literally left this prop bet up at the -115 price I listed for 24 hours after the Laker game ended.

This pro bet - as I've said - was not an obvious error, the Rams had to score 15 points, not 2 points for the bet to win. And again, the Rams barely scored 15 points last week. The bet certainly still involved risk.

[thomorino]

There is a big difference between leaving a questionable line up for 24 hours and having a software glitch in something like live betting where a line is off by a hundred points - this was not a flagrant or in my opinion clear and obvious error to the reasonable person.

[thomorino]

I don't believe this line was what a reasonable person would find was a clear and obvious error and I don't feel sorry for billion dollar companies who rig their online casinos are charge absurd vig for most bets - I think optional is the only person who does.

This prop bet was up for over 24 hours - it was not a software glitch. If a billion dollar company can't put up the right lines then hire some better people. It wasn't a blatant or flagrant error, and given this like most books clearly comes close to rigging their online casino I don't feel bad for them.

[Barrakuda]

You found a bad line at a US book? Tell us your techniques.

[thomorino]

You found a bad line at a US book? Tell us your techniques.

I just saw the prop bet and though it had more value than usual. Nothing special.

[thomorino]

Optional really feels bad for these billion dollar books who have all the resources in the world and basically rig their online casino but don't put up perfect lines.

Maybe they can hire him as a PR Consultant.

[thomorino]

And again, I didn't view the line as a blatant and flagrant error, I viewed it as a questionable prop.

[Optional]

I don't believe this line was what a reasonable person would find was a clear and obvious error and I don't feel sorry for billion dollar companies who rig their online casinos are charge absurd vig for most bets - I think optional is the only person who does.

This prop bet was up for over 24 hours - it was not a software glitch. If a billion dollar company can't put up the right lines then hire some better people. It wasn't a blatant or flagrant error, and given this like most books clearly comes close to rigging their online casino I don't feel bad for them.

Rams TT Over 15.5 -115 is not obvious to you?

OK.

But, again, what is obvious to you is not taken into consideration when it comes to an official mediation or court decision.



Good find and nice of you to share though. Hope you won with it.

[thomorino]

Rams TT Over 15.5 -115 is not obvious to you?

OK.

But, again, what is obvious to you is not taken into consideration when it comes to an official mediation or court decision.



Good find and nice of you to share though. Hope you won with it.

Its actually over 14.5 -115 but again I lost not a huge amount of money, but $500 in their basically rigged online casino, the line was up for over 24 hours, and again, to me, this was a flagrant or obvious error.

They had 24 hours to correct the line, they didn't.

If I complain about their almost basically rigged casino they tell me to go fuk myself, I don't think I should feel bad for them.

[thomorino]

Rams TT Over 15.5 -115 is not obvious to you?

OK.

But, again, what is obvious to you is not taken into consideration when it comes to an official mediation or court decision.



Good find and nice of you to share though. Hope you won with it.

I said the standard is likely the reasonable person standard, its obviously an objective not subjective standard.

[thomorino]

Rams TT Over 15.5 -115 is not obvious to you?

OK.

But, again, what is obvious to you is not taken into consideration when it comes to an official mediation or court decision.



Good find and nice of you to share though. Hope you won with it.

In addition to the fact that I don't think at -115 this was a flagrant or obvious error I am a firm believe in treating others the way they treat you.

Which is why I am never disrespectful to anyone or any company that treats me respectfully.

I dropped nearly $500 in this company's online casino about a month ago, online blackjack, the game was clearly close to rigged, I basically lost 14 straight hands.

If I or anyone else complains about the flagrantly manipulated online casino software we are told to go fuk ourselves and we have no recourse, so even though I don't believe I did anything wrong anyways, I feel fine about what I did.

My bet won too.

[Optional]

There is always an argument against books who simply fall asleep at the wheel and leave odds up.

But if you got into a legal argument over this one, you would lose. It would be treated as a past post for sure.


Plus honestly, without even looking at the book terms, they will have their asses covered from every angle you can think of.

[thomorino]

There is always an argument against books who simply fall asleep at the wheel and leave odds up.

But if you got into a legal argument over this one, you would lose. It would be treated as a past post for sure.


Plus honestly, without even looking at the book terms, they will have their asses covered from every angle you can think of.

I disagree.

There is a rule in Vegas for example that they are required to honor any bets they take even at bad lines. That is the Vegas gaming commission's rule.

I think this bet is clearly different than a live line being off by a hundred points, here, again, this was not a flagrant and obvious error like a line being off by 50 or 100 points.

It also, again, wasn't a glitch, they had this line up for over 24 hours after the Lakers game ended and this is a huge company with enormous resources.

If a player gets drunk and starts betting 500 dollars a hand in blackjack (I've never done this and never would) and hitting on 20, the player doesn't get to say no reasonable player would be hitting on 20 so I want my money back.

This wasn't a software glitch off by a hundred points, it was a line up for over 24 hours that without question still involved risk.

[thomorino]

There is always an argument against books who simply fall asleep at the wheel and leave odds up.

But if you got into a legal argument over this one, you would lose. It would be treated as a past post for sure.


Plus honestly, without even looking at the book terms, they will have their asses covered from every angle you can think of.

And again, that's incorrect in places like Vegas, where they are clearly required to honor every bet they take, no matter what the line was when the bet was taken.

Just depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions obviously might be different.

[juicername]

I bet professionally so I look at all these different prop market, but I'm surprised no one else evidently has spotted this, but Windcreek sportsbook, which is nationwide sportsbook in a number of states, including Pennsylvania, has a prop bet up that is an error. The bet has a $992 dollar limit.

The bet is cross sport bet between Anthony Davis's total point total for the Lakers for a game he played yesterday against Golden State, compared to the Rams team total in the super bowl. The line is Rams team total +1.5 -115.

The bet clearly states the Davis point total comes from the game played yesterday and the Lakers don't play today.

Anthony Davis only score 16 points against the Warriors on 2/12, so this bet cashes if the Rams score 15 points or more, and the payout is 85 cents on the dollar, the limit as I stated is $992 for the bet.

This book likely didn't realize or they likely intended to take the bet off the board after the Lakers game started, since the Lakers game is yesterday as I stated.

Obviously Stafford could break his leg or the Rams offense could be complete garbage and score under 15 points, but that is highly unlikely.

Wouldn't a professional by definition have to make money in their profession? You are a documented loser over 3+ years.

[Optional]

And again, that's incorrect in places like Vegas, where they are clearly required to honor every bet they take, no matter what the line was when the bet was taken.

Just depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions obviously might be different.

You will just keep arguing forever if I keep answering eh?

Not Pa and obviously a quite different animal to most places. And a great model I wish we all had.

But even the Vegas gaming commission allows voids of past posts.

[thomorino]

Wouldn't a professional by definition have to make money in their profession? You are a documented loser over 3+ years.

Wrong, I'm a profitable gambler

[thomorino]

You will just keep arguing forever if I keep answering eh?

Not Pa and obviously a quite different animal to most places. And a great model I wish we all had.

But even the Vegas gaming commission allows voids of past posts.

You chose to come in here and argue. Vegas of course like everyone else allows voiding online bets where there are software glitches with their online apps but the Vegas gaming commission requires books to honor bets accepts in person even if there is a line error.

[Buckandadime]

I bet professionally

I stopped reading...

[thomorino]

I stopped reading...

You can't read, that requires an IQ over 1

[stake1]

You will just keep arguing forever if I keep answering eh?

[Kermit]

I bet professionally

[jjgold]

Morino a funny guy

Disbarred from PA

[stake1]

Morino a funny guy

Disbarred from PA

I have heard stories about lawyers losing their licenses. And most of the time? over trying to trade representation for sex.
I can only guess the number of guys thom esq tried that with before they disbarred him

[jjgold]

I think he lost it gambling

[chargers4222]

I bet professionally

I love you babe. Happy V-Day.