Who Do You Support in the WagerWeb/WagerWebSucks Scandal?

BigBollocks · 01-07-08, 07:35 AM

Sorry for the delay, I messed up the poll the first time (only 100 characters were allowed)

SBR_John · 01-07-08, 01:01 PM

[QUOTE=BigBollocks;474039]Quick poll to gauge poster sentiment. Here are the three options (would prefer a little familiarity from posters voting)....

Its not so much defending the player as looking for a fair settlement. For a book to go back, after the game is long over, and decide they have angle to short change the player thats wrong.

If WW was truly honorable they would settle at some fair middle ground.

TLD · 01-07-08, 01:11 PM

I’d consider voting if it were not set up in such a way that one has to endorse your editorial comments rather than just pick a side.

JimmyG · 01-07-08, 02:04 PM

[QUOTE=SBR_John;474245]

Originally posted by BigBollocks

Quick poll to gauge poster sentiment. Here are the three options (would prefer a little familiarity from posters voting)....

Its not so much defending the player as looking for a fair settlement. For a book to go back, after the game is long over, and decide they have angle to short change the player thats wrong.

If WW was truly honorable they would settle at some fair middle ground.

I dont think thats a bad idea either.

Has anyone contacted WW to see if they would go back and take each of his plays at the time he bet and create an adjusted line?

To me that would be a fair settlement and end this mess.

You would need to know what type of advantage he had when he placed each bet and then back into it.

I think that would be a fair settlement but Im not sure how to come up with those numbers.

BigBollocks · 01-07-08, 02:47 PM

[QUOTE=JimmyG;474318]

Originally posted by SBR_John

I dont think thats a bad idea either.

Has anyone contacted WW to see if they would go back and take each of his plays at the time he bet and create an adjusted line?

To me that would be a fair settlement and end this mess.

You would need to know what type of advantage he had when he placed each bet and then back into it.

I think that would be a fair settlement but Im not sure how to come up with those numbers.

Justin had suggested this, but I want to say that they ended up determining that his average advantage would have been around -250, and that his balance would have reached zero at some point if calculated based on true odds...

20Four7 · 01-07-08, 03:03 PM

What we have here is 2 angle shooters. The book took a shot once it realized what the player was doing and intended NOT to pay him. The player was obviously taking a shot and as much as admitted it. Here we have 2 sides where both are reaching up to hit bottom.

I certainly don't think the player is owed the entire amount, and I'm not in a position to state if he should receive x% or whatnot. Certainly Justin is in a better position for that.

I think there needs to be a resolution that doesn't involve stealing the entire amount. GL to finding some middle ground when it seems to me both sides have their head up their ass's.

magnavox · 01-07-08, 03:47 PM

I don't think it can be said WW took a shot and was in a win/win position from the beginning. (That's how I define taking a shot from a sportsbook perspective; highly rated sportsbook do that regularly to players betting obvious bad lines.) From Justin's report it seems they weren't aware of such exploits by this player until his greed culminated.

pokernut9999 · 01-07-08, 04:08 PM

My opinion is if you book the bet you pay. They knew what they were doing just as much as he did. They is no guarantee when betting after a team scores you have a winner.

Buffalo 14-0 loses to Giants 38-21
Detoit 19-0 does not cover 26-20
Air Force +5 leads 21-0 loses by 6
Texas A&M +6.5 leads 14-0 loses 21-14

I could go on and on here. Someone is dumb enough to give you an edge you take it.

Dark Horse · 01-07-08, 04:09 PM

WW was taking a shot through its policy of accepting late bets. That is number one. The question is if they are responsible for that or not. I say they are. They blame it on 'software'... (how weak is that?)

The identity of all the players who placed late bets is only a distant second to the above. If WW didn't condone past posting they would never have had this problem. Live clerks were accepting the wagers.

Why did WW suddenly have a problem? Because the player won more than they liked and decided to cash out. They then were able to pull up the player's past at other books, but that past, like the accepted wagers, can NOT be used retroactively against the player. It CAN and probably should be used going forward. In other words, pay the guy and blacklist him.

Also, if WW is going to retroactively cancel wagers, it should do so for all wagers that were past posted and for its entire client base; not just the winning wagers of a single individual. WW opened the door. They then accused one player of walking through it too many times.

Remember that the dynamic of the wagering world is that the house holds an unfair advantage. Any casino worth its salt knows that players are going to look for ANY edge imaginable. That is the whole nature of the game. It is, in my mind, utterly hypocritical for books to complain when a player turns the table on them. Especially when everything he did was out in the open.

What does need to be clearly established is the extent to which accepting late wagers was a WW policy. Actions speak louder than words. If they overruled their own rules that is their problem.

WWSucks isn't scum. Yes, on the surface he appears to be a thief. But who are we kidding? If we saw this in a movie, -Jack Nicholson going through the whole process of calling the book, holding the clerk busy with small talk, etc - we would all be smiling.

Lastly, the guy was doing this in full view of everyone. So either WW is lying that they didn't know what was going on, or their security was so horrible that they were asking for trouble. Take your pick. Lack of honesty or lack of security...

The HG · 01-07-08, 05:13 PM

I haven't followed this thing too closely, so I'm not familiar with the bad stuff WW did. But I do know the player started it. And my feeling is, look, this is an industry, where you have legitimate offers and wagers. If you want a side, take it. If you don't like either side, don't take it. If you want to start your own book, get some backing and try. But funny business messes things up, it's not good for anyone in any way. And this player started this fight, with his own funny business. Did WW hit back with their own funny business that was not warranted? Maybe, I don't know. But to my eyes, the palyer started it. If he gets away with it, fine. But if he gets fukked back, fukk him, he should have calculated that into his funny business calculations when he started the whole thing. I'm on the side of WW in this one, even though they may have done their own bad BS, because the player started it.

Dark Horse · 01-07-08, 05:25 PM

So we're back to the chicken and the egg. When the player past posted for the first time, WW could have told him right away that wasn't allowed. Both sides started simultaneously.

Justin7 · 01-07-08, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

WW was taking a shot through its policy of accepting late bets.

I don't think WW has a "policy of accepting late bets". They knew about the software vulnerability, and might have been aware that some people were confirming bets right as the game kicked off. This was more due to software limitations than a conscious choice to leave the game open longer (which ASI can do also, but that leaves the market open for all new callers and online as well).

Dark Horse · 01-07-08, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

I don't think WW has a "policy of accepting late bets".

Fact remains that this opened the door for them to accept wagers and then, if they didn't like the outcome, conveniently point at a rule.

You 'don't think', but are you sure? That would be a crucial piece of the puzzle.

Originally posted by Justin7

They knew about the software vulnerability, and might have been aware that some people were confirming bets right as the game kicked off. This was more due to software limitations than a conscious choice to leave the game open longer (which ASI can do also, but that leaves the market open for all new callers and online as well).

If they knew about it, shouldn't they have taken responsibility earlier? Apparently, it wasn't a big deal to them before. Why wasn't an obvious security breach handled immediately? Because WW realized it represented a one-way street?

The HG · 01-07-08, 05:48 PM

I don't want to argue my position too forcefully, as I haven't been following it from the beginning. But obviously, if WW has a policy of accepting late bets, then they are completely in the wrong of course. But if they really had that policy, then why would this player have had to go through the trouble of doing whatever it was he was doing. He was obviously trying to make bets that were not in WW's "policy", or he would have just done it over the net.

Look, this guy thought he had an angle, but he didn't think it through fully. If he had asked me about, I probably would have said something like "but what if they..."

So now we know that if you are going to try to skirt rules and take shots, WW is not a place you want to try. But their actions towards shot takers are not necessarily reflective of their actions towards non-shot takers.

Yes pinnacle would never do what they did. If I had a book, neither would I. But just because they did, it doesn't necessarily reflect on their value as a book to non-shot takers, which is what most bettors care about.

Dark Horse · 01-07-08, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by The HG

So now we know that if you are going to try to skirt rules and take shots, WW is not a place you want to try. But their actions towards shot takers are not necessarily reflective of their actions towards non-shot takers.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't see the problem with past posting if the book allows it (I wouldn't do it because it could be a no-win situation). And I wouldn't put it beyond a questionable book to open that door only to keep the winnings and cancel the losses. Of course, we would never hear of 99.9% of such cancellations.

picantel · 01-07-08, 07:45 PM

They took the bet. They let it go on for a long time. They should pay.