[HedgeHog]

This rule has been around a lot longer than covid.

But yes, I will stop. Logic is wasted against blind emotion.

Logic is definitely wasted on you. Books have made other adjustments for covid, like switching MLB games to action instead of listed pitchers. So why wouldn't they make adjustments for football as well, when more games are being postponed and cancelled this season than in all of the past seasons combined? The reason why Books are not addressing this serious situation is obvious. Because they profit from it immensely, duh! The fact that you, as liaison between Books and Players, do not recognize this blatant abuse is worrisome. Maybe it's time you retire as a moderator and turn in your tin badge and plastic whistle.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Why not just grade ALL bets on cancelled games as losers? This way they eliminate any chance of getting your money back...............................

This is really simple. A teaser consists of TWO or more teams. Anything less can not be a teaser and is void. Anybody that disagrees with this only shows complete ignorance, or complete bias towards the thieves masquerading as a sportsbook.

[TheBigD]

In most circumstances, there is no difference between a No Action or Cancellation and a Push. If it’s a straight wager, the bet is going to be refunded either way. If it’s a parlay, a leg that is canceled or results in a push is dropped and the bettor is left with action on the remaining leg(s). While in practice they often result in the same outcome, they’re not the same thing. One involves a game being played and a tie of some sort arising, and the other involves a game not even being played (or postponed significantly). Surely everyone agrees on that.

This teaser situation is one of the rare cases where a No Action is very different from a Push. First of all, they are not the same thing as stated above, so if the book’s rules say nothing about how cancellations will be treated, then it’s up to them to do something fair. They can’t just claim they are the same thing. They’re not the same thing! It requires them to make a ruling.

Any book ruling that a No Action should be treated as a Push is freerolling their clients. Before any game even begins, clients can only hope to get their ticket refunded as their best case scenario. Does that even smell like it’s fair? The games haven’t even begun and the value of the bettor’s ticket has dropped substantially. This is totally different than having Steelers -1 in a teaser and they win by exactly one — that’s a risk you know you’re taking before the game begins, and something undesirable happened to you in the game. Every book has rules on how they treat pushes.

So what’s fair? It requires that all 2 team teasers be canceled when a leg is canceled. This includes tickets where one leg was already played and lost (like if you took the Lions on Thursday). While it’s normal for books to grade a Lions/Steelers teaser as a loss before the Steelers even play, any bettor requesting to get that re-graded as No Action should have that request honored. Such a request is not a scam or “sour grapes”. The SAME rule should apply to people who took Texans/Steelers. They should have their teaser ticket canceled. I have no idea why anyone’s approach to handling this dispute would depend on whether the guy complaining has Lions/Steelers or Texans/Steelers.

FWIW, I didn’t bet any teasers involving the Steelers this weekend.


How any reasonable person can not admit they are wrong about this is.....simply gross & unconscionable. I understand the SBR affiliate model earning 20-40% off player losses. But to have no moral compass whatsoever....yuck. Sickening.

[fried cheese]

yes the teaser should be voided even if one leg lost before the other game was cancelled. dont they void baseball totals if the game gets rained out early even if the over already hit?

[HedgeHog]

In most circumstances, there is no difference between a No Action or Cancellation and a Push. If it’s a straight wager, the bet is going to be refunded either way. If it’s a parlay, a leg that is canceled or results in a push is dropped and the bettor is left with action on the remaining leg(s). While in practice they often result in the same outcome, they’re not the same thing. One involves a game being played and a tie of some sort arising, and the other involves a game not even being played (or postponed significantly). Surely everyone agrees on that.

This teaser situation is one of the rare cases where a No Action is very different from a Push. First of all, they are not the same thing as stated above, so if the book’s rules say nothing about how cancellations will be treated, then it’s up to them to do something fair. They can’t just claim they are the same thing. They’re not the same thing! It requires them to make a ruling.

Any book ruling that a No Action should be treated as a Push is freerolling their clients. Before any game even begins, clients can only hope to get their ticket refunded as their best case scenario. Does that even smell like it’s fair? The games haven’t even begun and the value of the bettor’s ticket has dropped substantially. This is totally different than having Steelers -1 in a teaser and they win by exactly one — that’s a risk you know you’re taking before the game begins, and something undesirable happened to you in the game. Every book has rules on how they treat pushes.

So what’s fair? It requires that all 2 team teasers be canceled when a leg is canceled. This includes tickets where one leg was already played and lost (like if you took the Lions on Thursday). While it’s normal for books to grade a Lions/Steelers teaser as a loss before the Steelers even play, any bettor requesting to get that re-graded as No Action should have that request honored. Such a request is not a scam or “sour grapes”. The SAME rule should apply to people who took Texans/Steelers. They should have their teaser ticket canceled. I have no idea why anyone’s approach to handling this dispute would depend on whether the guy complaining has Lions/Steelers or Texans/Steelers.

FWIW, I didn’t bet any teasers involving the Steelers this weekend.


How any reasonable person can not admit they are wrong about this is.....simply gross & unconscionable. I understand the SBR affiliate model earning 20-40% off player losses. But to have no moral compass whatsoever....yuck. Sickening.

This sums up the unfairness of the situation perfectly.

[juicername]

Exactly... When You Make The Play. That is the key. And neither side knew a game would be cancelled at that time, so there was a chance to win or lose.


I do get why it pisses people off. But it is the only correct way to handle it to ensure BOTH sides of the bet are treated fairly.






Yes. Good warning for people with covid cancels likely

How are both sides treated fairly? The sportsbook is freerolling here.
A game is cancelled, the sportsbook win or push. The player push or lose. How is that fair?

[Brooklyn Dick]

For 100 years the Holy Grail of gambling has been "You cannot lose if you cannot win, and vice versa"............

Anybody that sides with the Books on this should not be posting here anymore...............

I will give you a simple comparison. If you bet an exacta and one horse is scratched and does not run, what happens? Does your other horse have to come in first or second to get your money back?

[StackinGreen]

For 100 years the Holy Grail of gambling has been "You cannot lose if you cannot win, and vice versa"............

Anybody that sides with the Books on this should not be posting here anymore...............

I will give you a simple comparison. If you bet an exacta and one horse is scratched and does not run, what happens? Does your other horse have to come in first or second to get your money back?

Exactly bro. I'm with you, logic and history 100% here. It's a joke when people start giving books extra outs with all the vig edge they have already...

[JoeCool20]

For 100 years the Holy Grail of gambling has been "You cannot lose if you cannot win, and vice versa"............

Anybody that sides with the Books on this should not be posting here anymore...............

I will give you a simple comparison. If you bet an exacta and one horse is scratched and does not run, what happens? Does your other horse have to come in first or second to get your money back?

If you bet a teaser and one game loses, what happens? You lose the bet.

Why would you even care what happened in the next game? Win, lose, cancelled. Who cares? You have already lost.

[Brooklyn Dick]

If you bet a teaser and one game loses, what happens? You lose the bet.

Why would you even care what happened in the next game? Win, lose, cancelled. Who cares? You have already lost.

So you want to bet one game and if it loses you lose, and if you win you get back your money. You must be some gambler.

Again for the dumbfounded out there. You are at the racetrack and you bet an exacta which consists of TWO horses. Same as betting a teaser with TWO teams, right? One horse scratches and does not run. Same as a teaser with one team not playing, right? So what happens at the the racetrack? YOU GET YOUR MONEY BACK.

Here one team scratches and you have to win the other play just to get your money back... Comprendi???

[Shutup]

If you bet a teaser and one game loses, what happens? You lose the bet.

Why would you even care what happened in the next game? Win, lose, cancelled. Who cares? You have already lost.

It is not a loss if the bet is canceled before the game starts. How could you lose a bet when you can't win a bet
Makes no sense. It is officially not a bet at that point

[ace7550]

I think this case is closed. Until books change the way they grade these teaser bets just don't bet them.

[deeppckts]

I think it is important to try to persuade Optional because he is the only person we can hope to advocate on our behalf with offshore books. If I understand his point of view, it's that he thinks a teaser ticket with one leg already lost should be a loser if the 2nd leg is cancelled. This seems intuitive because someone who already lost a leg is dead in the water before the second leg is even played... so who cares if the second leg is played? Their ticket is worthless. This is totally fine if you give potential upside to someone who won the first leg. Someone who won the first leg has a very valuable ticket. It is probably 75% likely to pay out at roughly even money. The book should therefore pay roughly $75 on a $100 ticket. But there is no way to know exactly what this should pay. That is why it is much more simple to allow the bettor to replace the canceled leg with another leg. If the book is going to just cancel this guy's ticket, he is completely denying him from realizing the profit from a high value ticket. And this is fine to deny this guy his upside, if you also deny the first leg loser his downside. It's exactly the same idea as when there's an MLB game where there are 20 runs in the first inning but then the game is rained out in the second inning -- every over bettor gets no actioned, which sucks, but so does every under bettor, which is great.

The way Betnow has set its rules, they are forcing the loser to keep his downside while preventing the winner from realizing his upside. It would be a wonderful outcome for bettors if Optional could have Betnow change its policy in this regard.

-----
So where are we at on how books are treating canceled or moved games?

Betnow: Cancel = Push. AVOID or only bet at the last minute.
Betonline?
Bookmaker?
Pinnacle?
BAS? Cancel = Push. AVOID or only bet at the last minute.
Sportsbook/Carbon?
Youwager?
BetUS?
Mybookie?
GTBets?

[HedgeHog]

BAS has basically assumed the same position as Betnow, so 2 team teasers should be avoided there as well. Regarding Optional, I'll let him speak for himself, but he seems to equate a Cancelled game as a Tie. As such he believes the Book's written rule regarding Ties in teasers applies. If I'm mistaken, I invite Optional to clarify his position on this.

[HedgeHog]

To be fair, I should try to explain BAS' treatment of 2-team teasers, because it's complicated by the fact they offer both "ties win" and "ties revert" teasers. First off, a loss on either leg results in a loss of your bet--regardless of whether the other leg wins, loses, ties or cancels. There is no negotiation on this. Now if you win the first leg, they will automatically void your bet if the second leg cancels. But this where it gets interesting. A few weeks back, I had an open teaser with the first half already winning. I then filled it with another play that was eventually cancelled due to covid. I called them with a request to replace the cancelled leg since I already had a winner. They refused saying that my bet was considered a tie, and that a Win/Tie teaser is a push per their rules. I countered that my teaser was a ties win teaser, so if they consider a cancel a tie, then my bet should be regraded a winner. They were dumbfounded. Obviously they wouldn't give me a win on the bet because I would be freerolling them. Yet they have no problem freerolling their clients on their perverted interpretation of cancellations. In the end, they decided to reinstate my bet as an open teaser with a winning leg. I later filled it and won. Thank God for little victories, but it wasn't worth the time and trouble. Best to avoid teaser action at BAS and BetNow.

[Optional]

BAS has basically assumed the same position as Betnow, so 2 team teasers should be avoided there as well. Regarding Optional, I'll let him speak for himself, but he seems to equate a Cancelled game as a Tie. As such he believes the Book's written rule regarding Ties in teasers applies. If I'm mistaken, I invite Optional to clarify his position on this.

I agree with covid the cancelled game angle is much bigger.

I can see why just about everyone thinks making the second game need to win just to get money back feels like a freeroll.

This has been put to books before at least twice I know of and the same explanation has come back. The explanation I have done my best to try and explain. It's not my explanation, it's just the reasoning why just about every book (I think) has written their rules this way.

I'm convinced the books truly think this is a fair and correct way to grade and personally I don't have any better argument than anyone else here, which is basically "but it feels wrong", "its obviously a freeroll", "but other bets get voided when there is a non-starter".

One other issue, if you do think this is a free roll, is that the change you are asking for is to give the opposite sort of freeroll to the player. If one game loses then we would have a freeroll to get moneyback on a cancellation of the other game.

From previous experience I just don't think we can come up with a cogent argument to argue all those books are wrong in their thinking.


One other point, I imagine you want to take these teasers at Betnow because they offer the best odds?

Would you prefer all books to give you the rules you want but then have to bet at -120 like it is at Heritage with those rules? That might be the trade off.

[JoeCool20]

So you want to bet one game and if it loses you lose, and if you win you get back your money. You must be some gambler.

Again for the dumbfounded out there. You are at the racetrack and you bet an exacta which consists of TWO horses. Same as betting a teaser with TWO teams, right? One horse scratches and does not run. Same as a teaser with one team not playing, right? So what happens at the the racetrack? YOU GET YOUR MONEY BACK.

Here one team scratches and you have to win the other play just to get your money back... Comprendi???

So go try to bet a football teaser at a horse racing track then. LOL

[Pareto]

I never bet teasers so I have no dog in this fight, but its clear the rules are very unfair to the players and should be changed.

There is absolutely no reason why teasers should be treated any different than parlays. Because a teaser IS a parlay.

If you make a teaser bet on the Dolphins and Vikings this sunday, you are basically just betting a parlay of: Dolphins -5½ & Vikings -4½

What could possibly be the reason why a ticket holding a parlay of:

Dolphins -5½ & Vikings -4½

Should be treated any different than a ticket holding a parlay of:

Dolphins -11½ / Vikings -10½ ?

[deeppckts]

I can see why just about everyone thinks making the second game need to win just to get money back feels like a freeroll.



This has been put to books before at least twice I know of and the same explanation has come back. The explanation I have done my best to try and explain. It's not my explanation, it's just the reasoning why just about every book (I think) has written their rules this way.



I'm convinced the books truly think this is a fair and correct way to grade and personally I don't have any better argument than anyone else here, which is basically "but it feels wrong", "its obviously a freeroll", "but other bets get voided when there is a non-starter".



One other issue, if you do think this is a free roll, is that the change you are asking for is to give the opposite sort of freeroll to the player. If one game loses then we would have a freeroll to get moneyback on a cancellation of the other game.

My friend, it is a freeroll against the player currently. As soon as a leg is canceled, you can only push or lose your ticket, and never win.

Whether the book is simply mistaken on what a fair rule should be or knows what they're doing shouldn't matter.
There have been probably a dozen arguments made here on why the rule is unfair. It's not based on how we feel or our gut instincts.

We also never asked for a freeroll in our direction. I don't recall a single post where someone said Lose/Cancel should push and Win/Cancel should pay out (which would indeed be a freeroll for the player).
We only ask that Win/Cancel, Lose/Cancel, and Cancel/Cancel all be voided. This eliminates any freeroll from any side. It's as simple as that.

With all due respect, we do not require a moderator to communicate books' opinions to us. They already do that to us directly if/when we complain and they rarely make sense.
What we do require and would greatly appreciate is a moderator to advocate on what the rule should be.

Voiding any 2 team teaser ticket with at least one canceled leg is easy, transparent, and fair. There is no freeroll to anyone. That any book would push back on this rule shows they want to keep their existing freeroll.

[Brooklyn Dick]

So go try to bet a football teaser at a horse racing track then. LOL

You can bet one at Freehold Raceway in New Jersey if you want. And if one team is cancelled you get your money back. Same as an exacta....................

[Optional]

My friend, it is a freeroll against the player currently. As soon as a leg is canceled, you can only push or lose your ticket, and never win.

Whether the book is simply mistaken on what a fair rule should be or knows what they're doing shouldn't matter.
There have been probably a dozen arguments made here on why the rule is unfair. It's not based on how we feel or our gut instincts.

We also never asked for a freeroll in our direction. I don't recall a single post where someone said Lose/Cancel should push and Win/Cancel should pay out (which would indeed be a freeroll for the player).
We only ask that Win/Cancel, Lose/Cancel, and Cancel/Cancel all be voided. This eliminates any freeroll from any side. It's as simple as that.

With all due respect, we do not require a moderator to communicate books' opinions to us. They already do that to us directly if/when we complain and they rarely make sense.
What we do require and would greatly appreciate is a moderator to advocate on what the rule should be.

Voiding any 2 team teaser ticket with at least one canceled leg is easy, transparent, and fair. There is no freeroll to anyone. That any book would push back on this rule shows they want to keep their existing freeroll.

I don't care what you think "we need".

I am doing my job whether you like it or not.

My answer was directed at Hedgehog. It was not to invite for you to re-troll this sub forum.

And simply repeating for the umpteeth time that I am wrong as this is a freeroll is not a viable argument that could be used.

[cashin81]

Just curious. We dont have "teasers" in UK, everything just called a accumulator (parlay) and you never need to win a game to push.(because of cancelation)

So whats the books argument for doing this?

[Optional]

Just curious. We dont have "teasers" in UK, everything just called a accumulator (parlay) and you never need to win a game to push.(because of cancelation)

So whats the books argument for doing this?

They treat it like a fixed odds accumulator. And if one leg loses and one leg is cancelled they say it does not meet the criteria for the 1 leg winner payout of money back.

Players argument is that if a game is cancelled they should not have to win the other leg to get their money back. Ie: it should be a void.

That's a technical argument that's a bit line ball. But when all of them bar Heritage, including all the A books, believe that is a correct way to grade these, I need some sort of technical argument to respond with better than just insisting it's a freeroll based on common sense or the way it feels.

[Optional]

Honestly, I think the books should void on game cancel. Mostly because just about every player thinks they should.

But I am not going to go and argue with them about that choice without some viable reasoning as it would make SBR look unprofessional.


Has anyone here considered that once covid is over you won't care too much about this issue anymore? Would you really want worse teaser odds forever if that is the trade off?

[jjgold]

I am closing this issue

Covid going to be gone and never will be an issue again like the past 20 years
Football games rarely ever been cancelled last 100 years this was unique

IT IS CLOSED

[deeppckts]

Alright, so it's settled. SBR thinks this is fair and they will not advocate for players. We are on our own to report who is freerolling players.

So where are we at on books that treat cancel as a push? Betonline does not say anything in their rules about how they treat cancellations. I don't see anything at Bookmaker's site either. Ditto Youwager.

PINNACLE, I am pleased to report, has adopted the sensible rule: "In addition, no action in one leg of a two-team teaser will result in no action for the teaser and all money refunded." I suspect Bookmaker would do the same.

CarbonGaming/Sportsbook.ag and MyBookie unfortunately join Betnow in the freerolling category.

As usual PINNACLE leads the industry in setting the standard.

[jjgold]

Pockets just don't bet teasers rest of year knowing this could happen maybe other books will changed their rules because of Covid down the road.

Pockets lets move on here

[ace7550]

Pockets just don't bet teasers rest of year knowing this could happen maybe other books will changed their rules because of Covid down the road.

Pockets lets move on here

No JJ. Let's go around in circles for about 10 more pages of posts.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Quote from Mod: But I am not going to go and argue with them about that choice without some viable reasoning as it would make SBR look unprofessional.

Unprofessional? How would you like to have a 5 dime teaser and told you cannot win anything, but if you win the game left we will let you have your $5,000 back?

Bob Martin and company are rolling in their graves at this one.........................

And I would like to bet high that no book open in Las Vegas does this. If they did Gaming Control would stop this crap immediately....................

[Fishhead]

Pockets just don't bet teasers rest of year knowing this could happen maybe other books will changed their rules because of Covid down the road.

Pockets lets move on here

I'm sure he has no intent knowing the possible outcomes, but what about the hoards of other clients at these places betting teasers?

[Optional]

Quote from Mod: But I am not going to go and argue with them about that choice without some viable reasoning as it would make SBR look unprofessional.

Unprofessional? How would you like to have a 5 dime teaser and told you cannot win anything, but if you win the game left we will let you have your $5,000 back?

Bob Martin and company are rolling in their graves at this one.........................

If I was placing 5k teasers I'd make sure I knew the rules before doing so and would try not to get in a position I was not willing to accept as my own choice.

I have a lot more empathy with someone throwing 100 bucks on it assuming a cancel = void.

[cashin81]

But not everyone is as smart as you. People throw 5k at blackjack drunk, without knowing the rules. Doesnt mean the stoopid drunk guy should be screwed over by an unfair rule. Some things should be expected, Id expect you wouldnt have to win to push and wouldnt read the rules...

But if its been there for years then you are right in saying that holds some merit and maybe it isnt unfair?

[Brooklyn Dick]

If I was placing 5k teasers I'd make sure I knew the rules before doing so and would try not to get in a position I was not willing to accept as my own choice.

I have a lot more empathy with someone throwing 100 bucks on it assuming a cancel = void.

Nobody knew anything about this situation before this happened. Nobody with half a brain would ever think that the books would free roll players like this until it got out here.

[Optional]

But not everyone is as smart as you. People throw 5k at blackjack drunk, without knowing the rules. Doesnt mean the stoopid drunk guy should be screwed over by an unfair rule. Some things should be expected, Id expect you wouldnt have to win to push and wouldnt read the rules...

But if its been there for years then you are right in saying that holds some merit and maybe it isnt unfair?

It's obviously questionable. Everyone questions it.

I think if it's clearly in the rules, like it is with Hedgehog's bet at Betnow, then the rule is justifiable enough to say it is fair.

If it's not clear like that, then I guess we would take the case on and ask.

But as far as trying to tell books they have to change rules, I don't see SBR admin seeing it differently to me on this one.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Clearly SBR would be disqualified in any court of law regarding this matter as a clear "conflict of interest".

We all know this is a complete ripoff that could not be done in Las Vegas, or even with some of the BS Sportsbooks in the US. So leave it at that and don't play at places that sanction this crap.....