sick beat... is it legit call by SBGGlobal?

[firedawg]

if this was 5dimes sbr would read the fine print and defend the book

[John Dough]

Graded correctly.

Many books have this rule, and "playing" means actually getting into the game for some period of time ... sitting on the bench is not considered "playing".

This is 100% correct and how player props are graded at every book I know of.

[KEdge2k]

Horseshit call if you ask me. My local graded the same bet as a win. Those "do they play" type of things should only be applicable to a head to head wager, not a COMBINED wager. That's a terrible, terrible cop-out non-paying call.

[mikeyg]

If it is an official DNP then it should be a wash.

[KEdge2k]

I find it hard to believe that people are saying a play where it is NOT head-to-head requires both guys to play. That rule makes no logical sense. Head to head? Sure, you can't have guys winning those bets because dudes don't see the floor. But in a "Bibby + Chalmers" total situation, having one of the guys not see a second of the court makes it HARDER to win the bet -- and that's the justification for voiding it?

Complete and utter shot taking by the book.

[rm18]

you have no case lou is wrong

[Maniac]

I find it hard to believe that people are saying a play where it is NOT head-to-head requires both guys to play. That rule makes no logical sense. Head to head? Sure, you can't have guys winning those bets because dudes don't see the floor. But in a "Bibby + Chalmers" total situation, having one of the guys not see a second of the court makes it HARDER to win the bet -- and that's the justification for voiding it?

Complete and utter shot taking by the book.

I can sorta see your point, but how would you feel if they settled the Over as a winner and you were on the Under and lost this bet because your guy didnt play ?

You would be in here screaming up to high hell about how you got screwed over, and in that situation I would fully agree with you.

Or to put it another way - say Chalmers DIDN'T manage to cover the handicap on his own - how would you feel then if you were on the Over and lost your bet because Bibby didnt play ?

The only fair outcome to all parties is to void bets like this when 1 of the participants doesnt actually play (suited up doesnt count as playing unless he gets on the court for at least 1 play).

[pavyracer]

This is a crap book. Avoid at all cost. If one of the two players covered the prop by himself it doesn't matter what the other did. That's like two guys going to a restaurant and they tell the waiter to have separate checks but when it's time to pay one guy takes both checks and pays for both by himself and the waiter says you can't pay for both because you guys said separate checks before you ordered.

[SBR Lou]

After receipt of the player's sportsbook complaint form, it's been determined that SBG was correct in no actioning his bet. His two-leg prop required that all players play for action -- and according to NBA.com, the second half (Bibby) of his wager did not meet that requirement.

His only hope is if any players that had the under 15.5pts+assists for Bibby & Chalmers had their bets graded as a loss. If there are any such players out there, please write in to help@sportsbookreview.com.

[durito]

Wonder what your initial response lou would have been had greek been the book. Seeing as they copied this prop and the rules (and the proper grading) from them.

[firedawg]

Wonder what your initial response lou would have been had greek been the book. Seeing as they copied this prop and the rules (and the proper grading) from them.

[stikymess]

Graded correctly. Many books have this rule, and "playing" means actually getting into the game for some period of time ... sitting on the bench is not considered "playing".

Agree with this sorry stats.

[skrtelfan]

SBG has a long history of screwing people and they're one of Shrink's old stiff books. Don't play there.

[sharpcat]

This is a crap book. Avoid at all cost. If one of the two players covered the prop by himself it doesn't matter what the other did. That's like two guys going to a restaurant and they tell the waiter to have separate checks but when it's time to pay one guy takes both checks and pays for both by himself and the waiter says you can't pay for both because you guys said separate checks before you ordered.

If the player took the over and found out an hour later that one of the 2 players listed were not playing he would be crying the blues if the book did not cancel the wager.

Correct call the bet is a push

[Monte]

the lesson here is prolly..don't play at one of the biggest crap books around, and if you must don't play exotic props.
This clearly shows you give them a chance to take a free shot (not that sbg has any honor standards anyway) at you, and i fear there is nothing at all that can be done.

[Harmy G]

Let's recap this thread...

Idiots: Monte, pavyracer, KEdge2k, stats13, ChileCheese, Djstucky, dzzznutz, blix177

Everyone else seems to be a reasonable person. Is there a way on sbr that I can block the above idiots so I don't have to read the garbage they post?

[BigDaddy]

Let's recap this thread...

Idiots: Monte, pavyracer, KEdge2k, stats13, ChileCheese, Djstucky, dzzznutz, blix177

Everyone else seems to be a reasonable person. Is there a way on sbr that I can block the above idiots so I don't have to read the garbage they post?

ignore feature

[horsiehung]

probably will never happen again for 25 years....sucks to be a stat though

[Roxxyfish]

what do you expect from a scam book ?? dont play there, look at their rating

[Cap dat 4ss]

Look at CrazyL just waiting to pounce on a book that doesn't sponsor SBR. 100% business move here. Nothings fair in love, war and business. Trying to pressure them into a "donation" and this matter will come up resolved and they will be upgraded

[pavyracer]

If the player took the over and found out an hour later that one of the 2 players listed were not playing he would be crying the blues if the book did not cancel the wager.

Correct call the bet is a push

The problem with your theory is that NBA is not like NFL. In NFL a player is placed on inactive list before the game starts so your bet can be voided before the game starts. In this particular NBA game Bibby was active and until the final second of the game the coach could have thrown him in the game if he chose to. So the book has the upper hand. They can wait until the game is over and see if Bibby played then cancel all the over bets and grade all the under bets as loss which is what they did. So yes I stand by my original assement that this book is crap and screwed the player.

[Mammon]

No action and no big deal

[FishFace5]

As long as those who had the under also had their plays graded as no action then these plays were graded correctly.

[Maniac]

The problem with your theory is that NBA is not like NFL. In NFL a player is placed on inactive list before the game starts so your bet can be voided before the game starts. In this particular NBA game Bibby was active and until the final second of the game the coach could have thrown him in the game if he chose to. So the book has the upper hand. They can wait until the game is over and see if Bibby played then cancel all the over bets and grade all the under bets as loss which is what they did. So yes I stand by my original assement that this book is crap and screwed the player.

Have you seen any proof that this is what they have done ? So far I havent seen anybody say they took the Under and it was settled as a loss - if that was the case then I would agree with you that the player got screwed.

If all Under bets were also voided as well then its the right call...

[pavyracer]

Have you seen any proof that this is what they have done ? So far I havent seen anybody say they took the Under and it was settled as a loss - if that was the case then I would agree with you that the player got screwed.

If all Under bets were also voided as well then its the right call...

I guess we will never know. My gut feeling tells me they have voided all over bets and graded all unders as losses.

[FishFace5]

I guess we will never know. My gut feeling tells me they have voided all over bets and graded all unders as losses.

The OP has a complaint if this is in fact the case....
But unless somebody posts otherwise you completely fabricated this scenario in your own head.
If the book graded both under and over wagers as no action, they did nothing wrong and graded the plays correctly.
If they didnt and graded overs as no action and unders as a loss, they took a shot at their players

[horsiehung]

so is this a good book or not? final verdict?

[stats13]

so is this a good book or not? final verdict?

its a decent book, but in reality compared to other great books, it sucks. i'm never depositing another dime there, and that has zero to do with this situation. well, maybe .0000005%, but they probably handled it per their rules. I still am questioning if unders got graded as pushes as well.

[neverstoppers23]

Well, it is bull shit. Maybe a talk with them would help, but rules are rules not much you can do about it.

[TRone]

I have had this happen to me with props that included player pairings. Works both ways. But if a book is grading it action/no action according to the results, that is when you know a book is very shady.

[Flight]

Yah I've had it happen where I have the under and the guy plays 1 minute and I win so it goes both ways.

The real lesson here is if you have a prop graded push, go on tilt at the black jack table.