Mods? Do I have a case here?

SBR Lou · 12-12-07, 02:35 AM

Well I'm not going to lie to you, I think this a petty claim you're making here..

"I emailed them right away and told them the game was started when I placed my wager, and would like it to be cancelled (AP was even winning at the time)."

Did something develop here to throw you off AP, player hurt or something? Unless you psyched yourself out, I can't see why you would request the bet to be canceled even as your side was winning..

Had you fell asleep and upon waking the bet was a winner, would you really try to fight tooth-and-nail for them to revoke your winnings off this bet ?

Doug · 12-12-07, 02:35 AM

I'm not a mod, but I think your case is iffy, with this small book. There is a point, but I wouldn't bet that Beted reverses this.

This will be a tough one to win.

2Pac · 12-12-07, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by crazyl

Well I'm not going to lie to you, I think this a petty claim you're making here..

Did something develop here to throw you off AP, player hurt or something? Unless you psyched yourself out, I can't see why you would request the bet to be canceled even as your side was winning..

Had you fell asleep and upon waking the bet was a winner, would you really try to fight tooth-and-nail for them to revoke your winnings off this bet ?

No way would I try to get them to revoke my winnings, but if they did, they would make the same case as me.

It works both ways here.

My point is this: I made a bet after the start of the game. Their rules clearly state this is void. PERIOD

SBR Lou · 12-12-07, 02:51 AM

I'm under the impression you knew exactly what you were doing, deciding it was in your best interest to have the bet voided, not out of good faith as would be inferred from your "my side was even winning!" claim, nor a desire to not break a written rule, but to serve your own needs... that's why it's hard to take this seriously.

You didn't need to make this public, I would have just contacted SBR directly for assistance.. but good luck either way, and I'd suggest filling out this form.

2Pac · 12-12-07, 03:05 AM

I filled out the form a few days ago, but didn't receive a response yet. I know Bill Dozer is busy.

I just want some input from other mods.

bigboydan · 12-12-07, 03:16 AM

I remember this game vividly because I had the over 127.5.

I feel this book made a mistake by leaving this line up as long as they did when it was clearly started at either 8:05 or 8:20pm and NOT 8:30pm (I know that to be 100% fact to I might add) The last line movement on this particular game according to the SBR Odds archives was at 8:03 at 5Dimes before they took the game off the board at 8:05.

Most people will probably think you took a shot at them by doing this in the first place, however I would have to respectfully disagree due to the fact that this game was nip and tuck throughout the entire first half.

Since you didn't post the time stamp of your original Email you sent to them. I really don't know the exact time your first contact was, because you claimed to have called them once you found out.(kinda of a moot point really anyways IMO)

As you pointed out above. According to the BetEd rules it states this.

All bets must be made and accepted before the start of the game/event. Any bet placed or received after the start of the game or event will be voided.

Now with all that being said... I feel the right thing to do would be they should refund your wager amount and void it. Then if they do that I also feel it's in their rights to show you the door if they wish.

BTW, A suggestion to BetEd would be to put in their rules what scoreboard they use.

BigBollocks · 12-12-07, 03:38 AM

The guy was clearly taking a shot at the book, no doubt in my mind about that. I also don't believe for a second that he sent this e-mail when his team was ahead. As a matter of fact, I'd bet anything that he sent this e-mail after he knew his bet didn't stand a chance. He tried to take a shot at the book and lost, and is now whining like a little girl so that SBR comes to his rescue...

Spend your time on better cases with legitimate player abuse SBR. Wasting your time becoming the refuge for two big shot takers is NOT the direction you want to take....

durito · 12-12-07, 03:54 AM

Regardless of if he was taking a shot at the book, they should pay it. Boot him afterwards if they like sure.

I have to doubt that any of the A+ rated books here would pay this wager (even though the player has a fairly legitimate claim)

2Pac · 12-12-07, 03:58 AM

No, I wasn't taking a shot at the book. In fact, no live scoreboards had updates on this game until a few minutes after 8:30.

I'm a degenerate gambler, that logged onto beted after getting home from dinner, saw that AP was the next game to start, so bet on it. Opened up the NCAA Bball scoreboard on sportsline, they had 8:20 pm as the start time but didn't have a score, so I went to AP's site and opened their live radio link --- and heard the commentary during the under 16 min timeout.

AP was up 4-2.

bigboydan · 12-12-07, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by 2Pac

no live scoreboards had updates on this game until a few minutes after 8:30.

I couldn't tell you if they did or didn't in regards to the scoreboard updates. However I listened to the game Saturday night on this link, and it did start before 8:30.

Dumb_lucK · 12-12-07, 04:37 AM

You bet late lose your match on a wager you "Obviously" intended to place no matter if the line was up a little longer. Why not show us the email you send, with a timestamp, the response and how bout a phone log from betED with the supervisor saying that they purposely leave wagers up late? Personally it sounds kinda dumb for a supervisor to be admitting to leaving a line up late when their lines managers are saying they line was set for 10:30

Once again as we've seen, there's a lack of evidence and information missing. I'd say, you gambled it to win it, you wouldn't have said a thing on this forum about BetED had you won. Don't bet on late games and then cry when you lose!

Ganchrow · 12-12-07, 07:28 AM

Personally, I don't care in the least whether the player was "taking a shot" at the book or not. That's really not my concern. I don't really care all that much if he's paid either. But what I do care about, what is important to me is that this book remain consistent in the enforcement of its rules. If the book's going to take the stance that it will occasionally keep betting in an event open for a few minutes after the event has started I'm OK with that even though it's technically at odds with the letter of their rules (although I'd certainly expect for the text of their rules to be clarified) as it's consistent with industry standards.

But what I don't want to see, what I'd find extremely disturbing, would be if other players were to ever come forward with winning bets that were ever canceled at BetEd because they were placed after the event had started but while the line was still up.

They can't have it both ways.

In my opinion if a player takes a shot at a book the book has every right to refuse to do further business with that player (after honoring any bets it's booked of course). But if a book takes a shot at a player (who if not for watchdogs such as SBR would be completely at the mercy of the book), the book has violated the trust implicitly bestowed upon it by the betting public and should be strongly considered for a downgrade.

BigBollocks · 12-12-07, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Ganchrow

Personally, I don't care in the least whether the player was "taking a shot" at the book or not. That's really not my concern. I don't really care all that much if he's paid either. But what I do care about, what is important to me is that this book remain consistent in the enforcement of its rules. If the book's going to take the stance that it will occasionally keep betting in an event open for a few minutes after the event has started I'm OK with that even though it's technically at odds with the letter of their rules (although I'd certainly expect for the text of their rules to be clarified) as it's consistent with industry standards.

But what I don't want to see, what I'd find extremely disturbing, would be if other players were to ever come forward with winning bets that were ever canceled at BetEd because they were placed after the event had started but while the line was still up.

They can't have it both ways.

In my opinion if a player takes a shot at a book the book has every right to refuse to do further business with that player (after honoring any bets it's booked of course). But if a book takes a shot at a player (who if not for watchdogs such as SBR would be completely at the mercy of the book), the book has violated the trust implicitly bestowed upon it by the betting public and should be strongly considered for a downgrade.

Ganch you are dead on the money with this one. Extremely fair and well reasoned. Hopefully someone on SBR will ask BetEd if all bets on posted lines stand regardless of actual match starting time. If the answer is yes, everything is in order...

I too now believe the best solution would be a more clear wording of the rules, along with a voided bet and subsequent banning of this poster...

Dumb_lucK · 12-12-07, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by BigBollocks

banning of this poster...

LOL ME??

And yes I may not agree with these guys that come in and use the rules to their advantage, cry for assistance when they see an opening, take the shot and lose, however if it was a consistant grade with regards to ALL the wagers placed on that same line which may have gone off late that "won". Oh well the books fault then, they have to pay the winners and losers on this one, cause one the rule says it will be void, and in another case, they accepted the wager so it should stand.

It's pretty unrealistic though how in one thread you have the "You took the wager, pay the man" and in another thread.. "The rules say this the wager should be void so void the wager and the book is at fault.

I play at my share of books and I've hit a line that went off 2 mins or 6 mins into the game, if I win or lose, I took the gamble, if for some reason someone starts bitching that they know they bet on a late line, then poof if I got my winning wager in 10 seconds after tip off.. my win's gone..

As gamblers, it's quite simple to say on one side of the coin we can use this rule to override this possibility, and this one to contradict this rule, so I guess it's no longer a gamble just a little bit o rule manipulation?

Perhaps I shoulda played my cards right and found this forum alot sooner, I probably could have found ways to skirt around a books rules with all this great info

Heck with the books rules, you can put $200 into the account, and never lose if you play the lines right, gamble when the line is left up 10 seconds too long, call and have it void if you lose, or bitch and whine about it till they pay you the win! What an edge!

BigBollocks · 12-12-07, 08:39 AM

Of course not ban you DL lol. I was referring to "2pac" obviously. The book has all the right in the world to show him the door. And for the record I agree with everything you're saying.

Ganchrow made a point that if the book is voiding winning wagers that are past post and not voiding losing ones, then we would obviously have a problem. I see where he's coming from and would like to see a more concrete rule specified. Clearly the player was shot taking, and would never have said a word had his bet lost. However, if the book has policies in place similar to that of sportsbook.com's and are shot taking at players then they're both in the wrong. GL...

wmublows · 12-12-07, 09:39 AM

The first problem I see that you have is the fact that you play at beted. Bottom line is they do not like winners playing there and put the smack down on you in a heart beat.

Last year I signed up, deposited $500 via echeck, and bet a second half football game . The bet won and when I logged into my account it was frozen. I called beted and they said that my account was frozen and the bet was canceled. When I asked why, the manager said that when I signed up I gave them a false phone number, which I indeed did and admitted. I hate being cold called and never give out my real number. THey said because I gave them the a false number that I was committing fraud. Every bit of informtion I gave them, including the information about my checking account and routing number was correct, except my number, which has nothing to do with anything. THe Manager then had the balls to tell methat I was in the wrong but that he would be willing to settle the matter by giving me half of the winning bet. I rejected his offer and told him that I would seek outside help from Bill. He got very natsy at that point and basically said good luck and be on your way.

Anyways, they finally came to their senses before Bill got involved and payed me the winning bet. So I thought all was well until I went to place more bets and realized that my limits were cut to $50! I'm by no means a sharp or a high roller so I thought it was funny they did that. Needless to say I asked for a payout and never went back.

Sorry I went a bit off topic. I think that beted are shot takers and use ever loophole not to pay. I don't see how the player was taking a shot at the book based on the info the player gave. The player said he called right away and told them about it. The team he bet was winning at the time and BBD said the game was close throughout the first half. Had he not called them and his bet won, do you really think they would have paid him? Hell no they wouldn't have. They would have voided the bet and told him he was past posting.

If I were you I'd give Mike Wilson a call. he is beted's Escalations Mgr. Not sure if he still works there but he is a good guy and very fair. HEre is his email michael.wilson@beted.com

Stop playing at shit books and this stuff won't happen as often. There is no reason to not play at betjam, bookmaker, 5dimes, etc.

Justin7 · 12-12-07, 10:36 AM

2Pac,

What was the timestamp of your email? If you really did it right away, this is a slam-dunk case. You did nothing wrong, they did, and they must follow their rules by refunding your wager.

Why didn't you telephone them, instead of relying on email?

Gurni · 12-12-07, 11:10 AM

I´d agree, prolly no chance sorry.
Not a good sign if a smaller book doesn´t answer the email in time and than of course decides to make your bet a loser, maybe they just waited for the result as Ganch wrote...i would cash out there for sure.

Louisvillekid1 · 12-12-07, 11:21 AM

2pac,

Dude, you made a bet and lost why should you get your money back. At the 16min mark why would you want to cancel your bet, i mean the score at that point is meaningless anyway. . . It's a loss , I'm not sure why you think you should get your money back. . .

Doc JS · 12-12-07, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Louisvillekid1

It's a loss , I'm not sure why you think you should get your money back. . .

LK,
(Not that I agree with him)...but He thinks he should get his money back because the book should not have accepted his wager after the game had already started.

Louisvillekid1 · 12-12-07, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Doc JS

LK,
(Not that I agree with him)...but He thinks he should get his money back because the book should not have accepted his wager after the game had already started.

So if he won, would he be trying to give his money back because he got a bet in after tipoff? . . . Or is the argument that the book would not have paid him because he got it in after tipoff, because thats the only reason i see that he has a point. But if they booked it then they can't decide after he hits not to pay.

Doc JS · 12-12-07, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Louisvillekid1

So if he won, would he be trying to give his money back because he got a bet in after tipoff?

Doubt it!

Originally posted by Louisvillekid1

Or is the argument that the book would not have paid him because he got it in after tipoff, because thats the only reason i see that he has a point. But if they booked it then they can't decide after he hits not to pay.

I agree.

As Ganch said, If the books are cancelling winning bets made after the games have started but are allowing to stand losing bets made after the game has started...we have a problem.

OTOH, I've never seen posted here: "Help me. I made a bet after the game started and they paid me. Help me get them to take my money back!"

Once I see that, then I know we're onto something!!

Shark79 · 12-12-07, 12:01 PM

Hmmm ... isnt there a thread in which Wager Web isnt paying a WIN on a customer that wagered after the game started ... so we are looking that REGARDLESS of a wager won or lost AFTER the game started you will still LOSE .... PERIOD .... this is getting retarded ...

Doc JS · 12-12-07, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Shark79

Hmmm ... isnt there a thread in which Wager Web isnt paying a WIN on a customer that wagered after the game started ... so we are looking that REGARDLESS of a wager won or lost AFTER the game started you will still LOSE .... PERIOD .... this is getting retarded ...

Well..that would be wrong.

As Ganch said, I don't think you can have it both ways. You either pay the winners and don't pay the losers. Or cancel both winners and losers.

Personally, I think the best advice is the old caveat emptor - buyer (or in this case, bettor) beware. Don't make wagers after the game has started. Bet at quality books. Saves a lot of hassles on the other side.

TLD · 12-12-07, 06:47 PM

This is a very interesting case when seen in conjunction with the Wagerweb dispute.

The easy response is to charge hypocrisy if one does not rule either that the wagers are good in both cases or the wagers are void in both cases.

But I hold instead that to contend that consistency requires treating similar cases the same is a common logical blunder.

No, logical consistency only requires that two cases be decided the same if they are alike in all relevant respects . The mere fact that they are alike in one respect—e.g., that they both involve wagers placed after an event started—does not preclude the possibility that they also differ in at least one relevant respect.

And I think one can make an argument here that there is indeed a key difference.

Before this case ever arose, I posted the following about the Wagerweb case:

This [Wagerweb’s taking past post wagers on phone calls initiated prior to the start of the game] is not an unintentional or unanticipated result. Thus it is absolutely not analogous to a “bad line” case, such as a book posting +20 when common sense and the market indicate they clearly must have intended –20, nor even like a conventional “past posting” case, where a book accidentally leaves a line up beyond the start of an event, such as when the event start time changed and they didn’t realize it.

But the BetEd case appears to be precisely such an unintentional acceptance of a past post bet. If so, and especially if it turns out the player brought the error to the attention of the book when the outcome of the wager was still very much in doubt, it would not be hypocritical to favor the player in both the Wagerweb and BetEd cases, in spite of the fact that it would mean honoring bets on the one hand and voiding on the other.

In any case, assuming BetEd sticks to its ruling and contends that all wagers are final even when placed on lines accidentally left up after a game starts, like Ganchrow points out, I certainly won’t have any sympathy for them if they try to void bets in the future on grounds that they were past posted. I think they’ve relinquished that defense and have declared open season for “shot takers.”

Bill Dozer · 12-12-07, 07:36 PM

2Pac,

The email you entered in the complaint form looks like it might be mispelled with the vowels swapped. I'll try again.

If you emailed BetEd right after the wager you are in good shape. That's what is asked of the book when the situation is reversed.

Can you forward the email you sent with the header to Help@SportsbookReview.com? We will contact mgt. on your behalf.

2Pac · 12-12-07, 08:33 PM

If this was in court, who would win?

The rule states any bet placed after the start of a game is void.

It doesn't say any bet placed after the first 3 minutes of a game is void. It doesn't say any bet placed after we close a game is void.

The rule is in place for situations exactly like this.

If I had bet Evansville and won, and betED decided to confiscate the winings, I would have NO ARGUEMENT, as the rules are clearly stated.
----------------------------------------------------------

Dozer, I may have misspelled my email address, I'll send it again. However, a lot of posters here are saying that betED will end up kicking me out if they have to end up paying me, then I'd rather not have the complaint sent to them via SBR. I like this book, and have had no other problems.

Let me know what you think,
Thanks

Bill Dozer · 12-12-07, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by 2Pac

If this was in court, who would win?

The rule states any bet placed after the start of a game is void.

It doesn't say any bet placed after the first 3 minutes of a game is void. It doesn't say any bet placed after we close a game is void.

The rule is in place for situations exactly like this.

If I had bet Evansville and won, and betED decided to confiscate the winings, I would have NO ARGUEMENT, as the rules are clearly stated.
----------------------------------------------------------

Dozer, I may have misspelled my email address, I'll send it again. However, a lot of posters here are saying that betED will end up kicking me out if they have to end up paying me, then I'd rather not have the complaint sent to them via SBR. I like this book, and have had no other problems.

Let me know what you think,
Thanks

I would worry about money first, using the book 2nd. Also, it's likely they already know who you are by what you described here. They may even contact us wanting to respond if they do not agree with what you stated.

Iwinyourmoney · 12-12-07, 10:20 PM

Bottom line. If he wins the bet, it would have been voided. Since he lost, he lost the bet. No chance of winning, only a 50/50 shot at breakin even

bigboydan · 12-12-07, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

I would worry about money first, using the book 2nd. Also, it's likely they already know who you are by what you described here. They may even contact us wanting to respond if they do not agree with what you stated.

Agreed 100%

I couldn't have said it better myself Bill.

2Pac · 12-12-07, 10:50 PM

I just don't want any bad blood between BetED and I.

I feel the same way I did before I made the bet --- I like the book, and will continue to play there.

SBR Lou · 12-12-07, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by 2Pac

I just don't want any bad blood between BetED and I.

I feel the same way I did before I made the bet --- I like the book, and will continue to play there.

Detecting a change in tune somewhere, if everything you said was factually true, you should receive your money...

Did you provide all the info Bill requested by email?

2Pac · 12-12-07, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by crazyl

Detecting a change in tune somewhere, if everything you said was factually true, you should receive your money...

Did you provide all the info Bill requested by email?

I said as much earlier in the thread. I like BetED, but the bet should be voided and the case that BetED makes for letting it stand is pretty poor.

I sent Bill the info.

joeygats · 12-13-07, 04:14 AM

i dont think you have 1 gl