Avoid Wagerweb

[dwaechte]

Question: Did the clerks accepting these bets know at the time they booked them that the game had already started several minutes ago? If a game was 7-0 already and this guy was placing a 1H bet, were they aware or mandated to check whether that game had started, and what the score was?

Bill and John seem to be taking the stance that because these bets were taken by a live person the player has a much better case than if it were a software glitch, but:

What's the difference between a poorly trained staff and a poor software setup? Certainly it's easier to train a staff than it is to ensure that your software is glitch-free 100% of the time, but the intent of the player and the effect on the book is the same in each case.

How easy it is to prevent and how often each case presents itself within the industry as a whole has no bearing on the morals of what is being done.

[dwaechte]

I think differences of opinion within SBR are a healthy thing. However, I can't help noting that, at least in the cases that were made public here, Justin seems to be the one leaning most towards the book.

I don't know the precise influence of SBR over the industry, but if it is known that the watchdog's bark is not as bad as its bite, that could, possibly, inspire books to take advantage. Do we really want to see books redefining the boundaries of what is acceptable?

What's the harm in redefining? Standards are changed every day in every industry to fit what works and what is fair.

If the books want to change towards a stance that brings greater accountability to the player, what's wrong with that?

This industry seems to be so lopsided. Players feel that just because books take juice that they should be able to fight back however they please. So many players seem to have the attitude that the books forfeit all right because they take juice.

Players know the books expect to win. Players know that most players lose. That doesn't stop them, because they feel they can win and it gives them a rush. If you're going to gamble, do it within the rules of what bookmakers are willing to offer. In this case, WagerWeb booked the bets, but were they really "willing" to take these, or was it just a case that they didn't have things set up properly? Were they "willing" to take a -3 1H bet when the score was already 7-0 for the team the player was betting on? I highly, highly doubt they were.

The way I see it, gambling should be a two way street with equal accountability on each side. Right now that is not the case.

[bigloser]

This industry seems to be so lopsided. Players feel that just because books take juice that they should be able to fight back however they please. So many players seem to have the attitude that the books forfeit all right because they take juice.

This is not the case the books forfeit all right because that take shots at the players all the time.
There will be books out there at this moment booking bets where the wager is already decided. Where the player has no chance of winning. These will be A books. This is the behaviour that limits the books rights, not the taking of juice.

Just off to find an example for you

[Dark Horse]

Dwaechte, it would appear that the books have been taking greater liberties recently. They are already redefining the boundaries, and it hasn't been good for the players. Just read up on the sportsbook.com threads.

We can only guess at how many books would consider going the sportsbook.com route. But it is certain that their crimes are bad for the industry as a whole. The more books get away with cheating players, the greater the temptation for others to try to cut corners, as WW in this case.

[dwaechte]

Dwaechte, it would appear that the books have been taking greater liberties recently. They are already redefining the boundaries, and it hasn't been good for the players. Just read up on the sportsbook.com threads.

We can only guess at how many books would consider going the sportsbook.com route. But it is certain that their crimes are bad for the industry as a whole.

I'm aware of the Sportsbook.com situation, and certainly don't condone redefining the boundaries in that way.

Entirely different situation, since I don't feel that this is crossing the line, and obviously the Sportsbook.com did.

[Dark Horse]

They're all different situations, but many reflect the same underlying attitude by the books. That attitude is the problem, and I'm willing to bet it's contagious.

[cobra_king]

So when can we expect Wager Web to commence the refunding of bets to players who lost money on half-time wagers placed after the start of the second half?

To me this is the post of the thread! It's fine and dandy to say that they cancelled all past posting action with this individual player. However to be consistent they must now refund all past posted losing bets, and take back the winnings of all past posted winning bets from ALL their players. Otherwise pay this player his money and correct the problem at the source.

[eric dy]

This is getting to be ridiculous.......I am shocked that it sounds like a representative from SBR is agreeing with the Sportsbook. This is black and white. The sportsbook took the action, the action was taken from a live person, pay the man!

If anybody else would have found this small advantage; we would have taken advantage of it. If you disagree, you are a complete liar. Furthermore, it is not the players responsibility to ensure protective risk measures are in place to operate a sportsbook. We don't know the truth........many books keep games on the board past kickoff, maybe this was WagerWeb's policy also. If not, it is there responsibility to take the games off the board when they feel it is appropriate. There are some books that take the games off 5 minutes prior to start time.

Regardless, this customer is getting SCREWED by WagerWeb and it would be a shame if SBR can't get this resolved. If SBR wants to be the well known in the industry for helping customers then this is a perfect case.

Again, still feel this is a great opportunity for both SBR and WagerWeb. Read all these threads and the majority of us feel WagerWeb is in the WRONG. They are getting terrible publicity. Guaranteed they could change this perception immediately, if they did the RIGHT thing.

Is it really worth this negative publicity to WagerWeb? If I ran their organization I would have already jumped on this opportunity. Maybe the problem is with their management? I guess that is why they are having this problem in the first place????

Step up WagerWeb - do what is right!!!!!!

If not, SBR needs to step up and figure out what to do about WagerWeb!

[TLD]

Most of what I’d want to say on this topic has been ably covered by previous posters, but I’ll add my vote to those who think Wagerweb is obligated to pay this player his balance in full.

Books choose very different policies as far as how long to leave lines up. (Or for that matter when to put them up. Greek, as mentioned earlier in this thread, sometimes puts its second half lines up when there is still some time left in the first half.) Apparently Wagerweb has a policy that if lines are still up for an event when a phone call is commenced, they will remain up for the duration of the call, which clearly results in at least some bets being placed on events that have already begun.

This 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.

It is instead a matter of policy, a policy that has pros and cons. The time period right around the start of a game tends to be a period of high volume. If as a book you are willing to leave your lines up a few seconds or minutes longer than your competitors, you will get extra volume. You will also get a certain amount of customer good will. (Imagine as a last minute bettor you are frantically logging into websites and making calls at kickoff, but every place you try has just taken the game down. You finally get your bet in at Wagerweb. You’ll probably feel some relief and gratitude that they bent things for you like that so you could get down.)

But the flip side is that you are allowing customers to place bets during a brief period when there is certain relevant information available to them that can give them an advantage they wouldn’t otherwise have. It might be slight, such as who won the coin toss on a first half bet, or it might be more substantial, such as an opening kickoff being run back for a touchdown.

If a book decides this policy isn’t working for them because savvy customers are gaining too great an advantage, there are many perfectly legitimate options. One is to change to a more strict policy of taking games down as soon as they start. Another is to fine tune the policy for different customers. For instance one could review accounts periodically, and if a customer is found to be taking too much advantage of the policy—such as the customer in this thread—a note could be put in his account alerting phone clerks that the usual procedures do not apply to this customer and bets are not to be accepted from him around the start of a game. Or one could revoke phone betting privileges from customers like this. Or one could boot such customers from the book entirely.

Wagerweb chose none of these routes. Instead they stole money out of the player’s account as “punishment” for betting within their rules when he had an advantage.

Completely unacceptable. In fact, in my opinion this one isn’t a very close call. Wagerweb should be downgraded.

[matskralc]

So when can we expect Wager Web to commence the refunding of bets to players who lost money on half-time wagers placed after the start of the second half?

So when can we expect the jails to commence the releasing of inmates who stole things that were easy to steal and poorly protected?

[dwaechte]

If anybody else would have found this small advantage; we would have taken advantage of it. If you disagree, you are a complete liar. Furthermore, it is not the players responsibility to ensure protective risk measures are in place to operate a sportsbook. We don't know the truth........many books keep games on the board past kickoff, maybe this was WagerWeb's policy also. If not, it is there responsibility to take the games off the board when they feel it is appropriate. There are some books that take the games off 5 minutes prior to start time.

Regardless, this customer is getting SCREWED by WagerWeb and it would be a shame if SBR can't get this resolved. If SBR wants to be the well known in the industry for helping customers then this is a perfect case.

Again, still feel this is a great opportunity for both SBR and WagerWeb. Read all these threads and the majority of us feel WagerWeb is in the WRONG. They are getting terrible publicity. Guaranteed they could change this perception immediately, if they did the RIGHT thing.

Is it really worth this negative publicity to WagerWeb? If I ran their organization I would have already jumped on this opportunity. Maybe the problem is with their management? I guess that is why they are having this problem in the first place????

Step up WagerWeb - do what is right!!!!!!

If not, SBR needs to step up and figure out what to do about WagerWeb!

I can certainly say I would never go to the means that this player did in order to "cheat"(My wording) a book. And I'm not a liar.

It's very hard to be taken seriously when you make condemning statements that simply aren't true, especially when you would have absolutely no way of knowing that or not.


Also, it is clear that Bill and John have taken a stance against WagerWeb's action. Justin has a right to his own opinion whether he is affiliated with SBR or not, and whether his opinion is in line with yours or not.

[BigDaddy]

huge advantage to the player but give me time and i can list plenty of those type bets that lost. They booked the bet they need to pay the bet. We all look for advantages this guy found one and he risked his money plain and simple he needs to be paid in full

i can list a ton of bets that teams are up 3-0 or 7-0 after a few minutes into the game or a team punted on 1st possesion and they dont cover 1st half or 2nd half

[Patrick McIrish]

Getting to the point of almost being alarming that Justin endorses this books right to confiscate 37k in this case. SBR is probably the last line of defense for players, to see staff okaying this is bothersome to say the least. What's the final word here, did WW get away with this or not? If so are they going to be downgraded?

[Bill Dozer]

Most of what I’d want to say on this topic has been ably covered by previous posters, but I’ll add my vote to those who think Wagerweb is obligated to pay this player his balance in full.

Books choose very different policies as far as how long to leave lines up. (Or for that matter when to put them up. Greek, as mentioned earlier in this thread, sometimes puts its second half lines up when there is still some time left in the first half.) Apparently Wagerweb has a policy that if lines are still up for an event when a phone call is commenced, they will remain up for the duration of the call, which clearly results in at least some bets being placed on events that have already begun.

This 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.

It is instead a matter of policy, a policy that has pros and cons. The time period right around the start of a game tends to be a period of high volume. If as a book you are willing to leave your lines up a few seconds or minutes longer than your competitors, you will get extra volume. You will also get a certain amount of customer good will. (Imagine as a last minute bettor you are frantically logging into websites and making calls at kickoff, but every place you try has just taken the game down. You finally get your bet in at Wagerweb. You’ll probably feel some relief and gratitude that they bent things for you like that so you could get down.)

But the flip side is that you are allowing customers to place bets during a brief period when there is certain relevant information available to them that can give them an advantage they wouldn’t otherwise have. It might be slight, such as who won the coin toss on a first half bet, or it might be more substantial, such as an opening kickoff being run back for a touchdown.

If a book decides this policy isn’t working for them because savvy customers are gaining too great an advantage, there are many perfectly legitimate options. One is to change to a more strict policy of taking games down as soon as they start. Another is to fine tune the policy for different customers. For instance one could review accounts periodically, and if a customer is found to be taking too much advantage of the policy—such as the customer in this thread—a note could be put in his account alerting phone clerks that the usual procedures do not apply to this customer and bets are not to be accepted from him around the start of a game. Or one could revoke phone betting privileges from customers like this. Or one could boot such customers from the book entirely.

Wagerweb chose none of these routes. Instead they stole money out of the player’s account as “punishment” for betting within their rules when he had an advantage.

Completely unacceptable. In fact, in my opinion this one isn’t a very close call. Wagerweb should be downgraded.

Good post.

SBR is fair with leaving the book room to protect itself. Sometimes the best solution unfairly stings the player because there is no perfectly clean way out. But, there are very few situations where the book can retroactively go back and call fouls after the whistle blows when it realizes what the final score is.

Had the player complained that Wagerweb canceled one bet after the game due to it coming in late, it would be a non-issue. His funds were risked and there was no attempt to let him know his bet was no goof before the game ended.

When it happens 60 times it becomes clear that neither party is doing it by accident. The facts are the player bets late as allowed and WagerWeb allows late bets.

[Patrick McIrish]

Good post Bill. In the old days it was almost NEVER that an accepted bet was not honored. Books just didn't do it, when it happened it was a major clusterphuck. Now books go back and rectroactively grade papers whenever it serves them best. It's getting way out of hand. Books now going back and not honoring bets because the bets were "correlated"? Or not honoring bets because they took them late and the results were not favorable? Or because they claim winners were following a tout? It's unbelievable the way this industry is heading. This book has made clear what their ongoing policy was, now that's it not convenient they want to cry foul? That's a horrible call for anyone backing the book in this. At the very worst they need to pay the guy and show him the door. No reasonable case can be made for an out and out confiscation IMO.

[trixtrix]

So when can we expect the jails to commence the releasing of inmates who stole things that were easy to steal and poorly protected?

your analogy is terrible and illogical. there is absolutely no comparison between the two, not one iota of similarity. i can only conclude that you're lacking many a brain cell...

[Dark Horse]

Good post Bill. In the old days it was almost NEVER that an accepted bet was not honored. Books just didn't do it, when it happened it was a major clusterphuck. Now books go back and rectroactively grade papers whenever it serves them best. It's getting way out of hand. Books now going back and not honoring bets because the bets were "correlated"? Or not honoring bets because they took them late and the results were not favorable? Or because they claim winners were following a tout? It's unbelievable the way this industry is heading.

Exactly. We have an industry problem. This is merely the latest example. So the question is: if SBR isn't ready to take stronger stands, who will?

[JC]

It's a slippery slope out there.

Clearly this is a problem with Wagerweb's internal controls. Low paid clerks, by design? It doesn't matter.

They should pay the player, fix the problem, and move on. That's the right thing to do.

If not they join the ranks of SBG, Sportsbook.com, BetUS, Oddsmaker, BOS, and the dozens of others that have robbed their own players.

[curious]

You have got to be kidding. All spreads applying to the game would be affected in that time.

I only bet sides and totals, so I wasn't thinking about prop bets. You're right, this would be a big advantage in the case of a quarter bet if you knew a team had already scored. I was also thinking that "six minutes" was the exception and that the norm was a few seconds or a few minutes.

I was also NOT thinking about a player purposely abusing this. But thinking of it as an honest "mistake". After reading Justin's post which show that the bets were quarter and half bets and the teams bet on had already scored, then I agree my post was naive.

[curious]

Something I don't understand. It seems like the player knew that Wagerweb's system only checks for a game being "off the board" at the start of a phone call, and if the game goes "off the board" during the phone call, it will still show up...if I read one of the posts right.

How could this bettor know this?

Or, is it more likely that he accidently got to bet on a game after the game started at some point and kept pushing it and pushing it and just figured out the "hole" in Wagerweb's system?

[acw]

So when can we expect the jails to commence the releasing of inmates who stole things that were easy to steal and poorly protected?

This is not a proper comparison. What happened here was that someone approached someone else and asked:”May I have your car?”. Both humans are not drunk! The other said:”Sure, my car is yours!”. Then later on the one that gave the car thinks: Why did I give my car away?

[joeygats]

the player should be paid and i hope he or she is cause this is just not fair in any shape or form if he lost he wouldnt get get his money back so why shouldnt he get paid for winning?????

[Dumb_lucK]

I wonder if the player had lost if he would have contacted WW to tell them that he posted on events that had already started, saying that he lost $30k on these events and wanted it back? How would your opinions then be?

It's a loophole that was caught by the player, he abused the loophole he found, got caught and cried theft.. I think the settlement to void all late wagers wins and losses should be fair enough.

You had to admire Justin's take on this matter when looking at the facts of the complaint. The bottom line is, don't take a shot on a book, you may get a shot taken back.

Try taking a shot on your tax collector.. There is no forum to help you there!

[Bill Dozer]

Something I don't understand. It seems like the player knew that Wagerweb's system only checks for a game being "off the board" at the start of a phone call, and if the game goes "off the board" during the phone call, it will still show up...if I read one of the posts right.

How could this bettor know this?

Or, is it more likely that he accidently got to bet on a game after the game started at some point and kept pushing it and pushing it and just figured out the "hole" in Wagerweb's system?

That's right. Anything after the coin toss was a good bet for him. Most books will tell you it's OTB when it comes down off the site. If it's close the clerk can check with mgt. who will check the game status.

[bigloser]

Try taking a shot on your tax collector.. There is no forum to help you there!

He wasnt taking a shot. WW was using this service as marketing tool, you can get bets on at the last minute.

He is no more taking a shot than someone who accepts a bonus.
Just as some use the benefit of a bonus better than others, he was using the ability to get a late bet on better than most.

[eric dy]

Well, there has been a lot said here and it appears that the large majority of the posts are supportive of the customer and feel that WAGERWEB is clearly in the wrong here.

The only remaining question is what is the outcome? Is WAGERWEB going to do the right thing and pay this customer? If so, great! It will make WAGERWEB look good and also make SBR look good!

If not, what is SBR going to do about it? One post mentioned that SBR may be the last resort for this customer. I am not sure if that is true, but I can't think of anyone else out there that will help this customer.

Who runs SBR? What is the status here? Very interested in the outcome...........I am sure all of us are interested.

This customer needs to be taken care of OR SBR needs to "flex its muscle" to ensure NOBODY else does business with WAGERWEB.

[Bill Dozer]

Wagerweb mgt. and SBR will be finalizing our initial discussion on this tomorrow. Confiscating this money is not behavior indicative of a B level sportsbook.

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts in this thread so far.

[eric dy]

Good to hear! It is nice to know that if a customer does have a legitimate problem with a sportsbook that SBR is there to help them. This is a great example and will make SBR a stronger and more recognized organization. In addition, this will help WagerWeb with their recognition. Like I have said, it is okay for a sportsbook to make a mistake; as long as they correct the problem.

Great job SBR !!!!!

[Dumb_lucK]

He wasnt taking a shot. WW was using this service as marketing tool, you can get bets on at the last minute.

He is no more taking a shot than someone who accepts a bonus.
Just as some use the benefit of a bonus better than others, he was using the ability to get a late bet on better than most.

Then again I ask "I wonder if the player had lost if he would have contacted WW to tell them that he posted on events that had already started, saying that he lost $30k on these events and wanted it back? How would your opinions then be?" I would think that he knew he was posting his wagers late, deliberately holding a clerk on the line etc.. though it's stupid for any system to keep odds up based on a phone call time, but regardless, he knew the system was set this way and used it to his advantage, if he lost it'd be a different arguement and you'd all still be yelling that the book was in the wrong..

They're both at fault. make a comprimise and lick your wounds and move on..

[SBR Lou]

Good to hear! It is nice to know that if a customer does have a legitimate problem with a sportsbook that SBR is there to help them. This is a great example and will make SBR a stronger and more recognized organization

That's why SBR is the best in the business. Books know their ratings are respected and taken seriously here, it's not just an operation that casts any book in a favorable light so long as it pays, if that was the case a number of disputes would go unresolved.

[bigloser]

Wagerweb mgt. and SBR will be finalizing our initial discussion on this tomorrow. Confiscating this money is not behavior indicative of a B level sportsbook.
.

How are the discussions going?

[Bill Dozer]

WW asked for the rest of the business week to discuss the case internally. The player is happy this is being revisited and willing to wait.

[Gurni]

If $37k is all that it takes for WW to flush their reputation down the toilet, than they are done imo.

No matter how this turns out, players will remember it.
Imo there is no excuse to do this after the player won, they always had the option to cancel the wagers right away..but you already knew that hehe, lots of good posts in this thread.

[bigboydan]

If $37k is all that it takes for WW to flush their reputation down the toilet, than they are done imo.

No matter how this turns out, players will remember it.

Imo there is no excuse to do this after the player won, they always had the option to cancel the wagers right away..but you already knew that hehe, lots of good posts in this thread.

So will this moderator when it comes to members asking for info/opinions about how good WagerWeb is.

[groovinmahoovin]

Do I understand this correctly that you're unhappy with a book's refusal to pay past-posted wagers, yet have no problems with BetJamaica's refusal to pay legitimate wagers that might have exceeded an ambiguous limit?

Hmm, what's the difference between WagerWeb and BetJamaica... I just can't place it.