SBR Has Become The Site For Scammers, Shot Takers, and Two Bit Hustlers...

[BigBollocks]

A C+ would have been enough imo. Maybe even the B- should have remained. This case and the many like it just highlight how difficult some of these disputes are.

Some mentioned if they were sponsors they would have been treated better. I would highlight the recent 5Dimes dispute where we ruled for the player and the book paid the $60k.

There will always be critics and I find them entertaining. The SBR model allows for open opinions among those that work disputes. We then publish the opinions and encouragre the book, the player and posters a chance to judge.

John I want to preface my opinion by saying that I really appreciate the opportunity to constantly discuss shop out in the open on these boards. I think we're all helping to better define the industry and acceptable standards by discussions such as these...

Here's my problem with the 5Dimes and BetJM comparisons. In both of those cases, you had a player who probably shouldn't have been making additional wagers, but got them through. However, all the additional wagers were made before the events in question started with standard odds found across the net (or track odds in the BetJM case).

This case is entirely different John. Again if it were one or two instances I agree the player should be paid. We can get Ganch to run the numbers, but betting 50-100 halftime lines with an average advantage of 75% is a no-lose proposition in the long run. I really think you're hurting this site's future power and weight in decision making by pursuing cases such as these, and that is where it effects all of us. Why is this OK due to bad/careless clerks via the phone, but past posting on games that are well underway and left up by careless people on the internet isn't? Does betting by phone give you a safe haven for shot taking that betting on the internet doesn't? This whole case and SBR's pursuit of it is very puzzling to me...

[eric dy]

Don't you think it is the books responsibility to protect themselves? There are people all day looking to get the slightest advantage and ALL sportsbooks know this. So if they know this, why isn't it their responsibility to protect themselves. It is like you are saying it is the players responsibility to ensure the book is doing their job properly. Very confusing to me.

[Justin7]

Eric dy,

Do you know the person making a claim against Wager Web? if so, what is your relation?

[eric dy]

Yes, he is a friend of mine..................why?

[SBR_John]

BB some of his bets should have been cancelled. Some were in 0-0. Fair ground should have been found. They supposedly watching this guy as a sharp anyway. It almost looks like they said let him place a bet on whatever he wants, when he tries to cash out we will reveal his past posting.

[Justin7]

BB some of his bets should have been cancelled. Some were in 0-0. Fair ground should have been found. They supposedly watching this guy as a sharp anyway. It almost looks like they said let him place a bet on whatever he wants, when he tries to cash out we will reveal his past posting.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of "The Man"...

There were some bets that were at a score of 0-0. On all of those, one of two things happened: the team he bet on advanced the ball to an average of the 30 (equity of 5 points); or the team he bet against punted quickly (a punt plus starting on your own 40 has equity of about 3 points).

One other minor point - the player was NOT labeled sharp - he was completely below the radar. His bets didn't even show up on the "Bet monitor screen". Lines makers routinely filter incoming wagers by size, sport and player profile. Pinnacle may pay more attention to a "$20 genius" than a 5k square bettor. In the WagerWeb dispute, the account was new and was not profiled as sharp.

That said, they still should have had better risk management. It's not reasonable to let a shot-taker rob you for as long as this happened.

[Justin7]

One other thing made the WagerWeb dispute harder to resolve.

If WagerWeb went back, and graded each bet based on a "live betting line" which kept the same "at risk amount", but adjusted the payout to a fair moneyline, the player would have been worse off than canceling all bets.

If WagerWeb had tried to "pay the bets on fair odds at the time they were taken", the player would have received less than his deposits. Obviously, the player would not take that, so that approach was not pursued. I'm pretty sure that is what WW was looking at when considering a "compromise", but it would be hard to call that a compromise when the player would be worse off.l

[SBR_John]

The games that were 0-0 should stand. You cant regrade at a new price, you grade at the price of the confirmed read back. Kind of like bookmaking 101.

If WW doesnt want to offer that bet they can offer a new line. But they didnt.

They should settle to show they are not classless robbers setting this shot taker up. Which is what it looks like.

[BigBollocks]

The games that were 0-0 should stand. You cant regrade at a new price, you grade at the price of the confirmed read back. Kind of like bookmaking 101.

If WW doesnt want to offer that bet they can offer a new line. But they didnt.

They should settle to show they are not classless robbers setting this shot taker up. Which is what it looks like.

So do you also regrade at the price an internet past post was placed? Where do you draw the line? And why is Justin's ruling being questioned when he has always ruled 100% fair and never had his ruling reversed by you or Bill before John? Something stinks here...

[SBR_John]

No one is being or reversed. Justin's ruling and opinion stand and I respect it although I dont 100% agree with it. I also think Bill was a little harsh with the downgrade. These cases are very close. Not unexpected to have some differing opinions.

I would cancel the bets that were put in when there was a score. The reason is it is the books job to confirm bets. They should pay a price for such terrible bookmaking which borders on shot taking. Thats my opinion. You cant let a book take bet after bet after bet by phone and not have them liable for a single one. And if by chance if all these bets went against theplayer do you think the book would have said; you know what? we found out you actually past posted and we are refunding aLLLL your money! Ya think?

The book should find some middle ground to clear this up and protect their name if they care about it.

[BigBollocks]

No one is being or reversed. Justin's ruling and opinion stand and I respect it although I dont 100% agree with it. I also think Bill was a little harsh with the downgrade. These cases are very close. Not unexpected to have some differing opinions.

I would cancel the bets that were put in when there was a score. The reason is it is the books job to confirm bets. They should pay a price for such terrible bookmaking which borders on shot taking. Thats my opinion. You cant let a book take bet after bet after bet by phone and not have them liable for a single one. And if by chance if all these bets went against theplayer do you think the book would have said; you know what? we found out you actually past posted and we are refunding aLLLL your money! Ya think?

The book should find some middle ground to clear this up and protect their name if they care about it.

That's just it John, THE PLAYER COULDN'T LOSE. You and I don't have to have Ganchrow's statistical ability to know that when you put in 50-100 plays with a 75% average advantage, it is virtually a statistical impossibility to come out behind. That is where my problem lies, and why I substantiate this case very differently from a person who past posted once or twice. 75% one hundred times over is entirely different than 75% a time or two in terms of having one's funds at risk...

[SBR_John]

So what you are saying is that every time a player puts his money at risk on a +% play it should be cancelled no matter what even if it is confirmed by the book via read back? So if the player wins its a void and if the book wins well, all bets are final.

Nope. I understand your arguement I just dont agree. Why even have a read back? In fact, why have any rules? When its time for a payout we will just review the betting history and cancel all advatage plays?

[BigBollocks]

So what you are saying is that every time a player puts his money at risk on a +% play it should be cancelled no matter what even if it is confirmed by the book via read back? So if the player wins its a void and if the book wins well, all bets are final.

Nope. I understand your arguement I just dont agree. Why even have a read back? In fact, why have any rules? When its time for a payout we will just review the betting history and cancel all advatage plays?

So what you are saying is that if you can take money from a book in any way possible, then go for it??? One time I put in a play via phone on a CBB game that was in the 4th quarter, should that have stood? I bet on like five golf matchups via phone with the Greek once being virtually assured of the results and none of those got to stand, so I guess it's time for an Olympic downgrade too (and my money back)?

John this is completely and utterly ridiculous. Get Ganch to put the table out for you. When you make 50-100 halftime wagers with the decided advantage he did he has literally NO chance of losing. It's flat out highway robbery. I can't believe SBR is defending this guy and downgrading books who don't pay players who find a loophole. You're taking an absolute beating on the message boards for this, and the weight of your force in the future is going down by the second. I may need to call you up on the phone as there are a couple of other things happening lately that are beyond me, but THIS IS RIDICULOUS

[BigBollocks]

Btw, How In The Hell Can You Rule For Betjamaica, And Against Wagerweb???

I favored BetJM in that case, but not nearly as strongly as WW. You were strongly unanimously in favor of BetJM based solely on the vague message "no dupes," yet the player was making fair wagers prior to post at track odds.

Yet a guy can take advantage of a flawed clerical error, cherry pick halftime wagers sometimes half way through one of the quarters (which would be like a quarter of a regular bet), and do it enough where he has no chance of losing, and you defend him??? What the hell is going on here guys? Is it simply a funding issue, do you have a piece of some players' grievances, or what? This doesn't make a damn bit of logical and/or mathematical sense, and anyone with half a brain knows this...

[SBR_John]

Hmm if Im taking a beating on this and so forth I dont care. This is one dispute out out of the hundreds we settle all the time. If the players and books chose to go else where I still dont care. We will continue to form our opinions without outside influence. I enjoy the debate but if what I do is popluar or not with posters, books or players thats not important. One side always loses in these. We are very used to that.

Your arguement stretchs to your example of putting in a bet in the 4th qtr and asking if that should count. Thats quite a far cry from my position that he should be paid on bets where there was no score 0-0.

At this point we are headed in circles. Its over and there are a new set of disputes to work on.

Books like WW can not be allowed to take a shot even at a shot taker as they did in this case. The industry can survive any law but it cant survive books taking shots and letting guys bet knowing they will not have to pay.

[BigBollocks]

Hmm if Im taking a beating on this and so forth I dont care. This is one dispute out out of the hundreds we settle all the time. If the players and books chose to go else where I still dont care. We will continue to form our opinions without outside influence. I enjoy the debate but if what I do is popluar or not with posters, books or players thats not important. One side always loses in these. We are very used to that.

Your arguement stretchs to your example of putting in a bet in the 4th qtr and asking if that should count. Thats quite a far cry from my position that he should be paid on bets where there was no score 0-0.

At this point we are headed in circles. Its over and there are a new set of disputes to work on.

Books like WW can not be allowed to take a shot even at a shot taker as they did in this case. The industry can survive any law but it cant survive books taking shots and letting guys bet knowing they will not have to pay.

John we'll call it over, but I don't think you read Justin's hard worked on conclusion very well. Even the bets he made that were 0-0 were either on large underdogs or unders midway through the 1st or 3rd quarters, when a favorite punted, or when a team was driving. There wasn't one play he made that wasn't a huge advantage play, plain and simple.

The book didn't take a shot, he did, and he had no chance to lose with that many plays made. Also, a play made halfway through a quarter of a halftime bet is the same as a play made after the first quarter of a regular bet. Quite simply it's disgusting that you would choose this case of all cases to lose your credibility on, but to each their own.

[magnavox]

What scoreboard shows shouldn't really matter. There are plenty of opportunities in virtually any sport where scoreboard shows 0-0 and we know almost for sure it will change (based on team play) any moment.

This was exactly the case here and Justin proved it beyond reasonable doubt.

[bigboydan]

The book didn't take a shot, he did, and he had no chance to lose with that many plays made.

The player might have taken the first shot, but make no bones about it BB. Both parties fired shots.

[HedgeHog]

These were bets made with live people, not over the net. How can you run a Book and not know when the cutoff (kickoff) times are? If for nothing else but stupidity's sake, WW should pay the sharp, boot his ass, and educate their agents that accept these tardy bets. Fix it so the bet can't even be entered after kickoff--"Sorry, Mr. Shottaker, the game has started."

[eric dy]

The Hedgehog is correct!!!