Originally Posted by
tomcowley
I think you're wrong on 1, although click-thru no-read agreements are an unsettled area with decisions in different places going each way, so there's no point in the two of us personally arguing about it here. 2 is not in dispute (if 1 is true). I also think your logic for 3 is wrong, but I could show much more easily that it's clearly inconsistent with past decisions.
But I'm not going to do any of that- your error in this dispute is a philosophical one that's far simpler to explain. In past disputes- literally all past SBR wager dispute decisions that I'm aware of- the contract in question was the implied book-the-bet, pay-the-bet contract created when a wager was accepted and the principles of contract law were then applied to that contract, with the default assumption that both sides intended to agree to the wager they agreed to (because a reasonable person would conclude that a book offering a wager and a player betting it form such a contract). Furthermore, when you look at industry standards, it is obvious that they were developed from that perspective as well. Several common rules allow both parties relief. Some nonstandard rules are allowed because they are not biased towards either party- they're just strange. In no case, however, is a book allowed unilateral relief unless a player has entered into the wager contract under fraudulent/false premises. Let's look at a few of these.
1) Steam and stale numbers, nonrecreational play, etc: Some books have rules against steam play, and books have tried to void stale numbers as bad lines. Even though these rules are nominally reaonable, as they protect against sharp players being faster to moves, these rules and voids have been considered universally unacceptable. SBR-approved solutions to the problem are mutual delays (where the player can back out too, not asian-style freerolls) and phone-only wagering. No silliness about steam players being more expert at monitoring line moves. The contract principle is that, barring a specific duration, an offer is valid until it is withdrawn, and the information-based accept/withdraw race is fair game.
2) Bad line. All books have a bad line rule, and even though it's 99% to the book's benefit, if anybody accidentally bet Dallas -55 instead of -5.5 tonight, they'd also have a bad line claim. SBR approves of this rule because it mirrors the unconscionability provision in contract law.
3) Past-posting. All books also have this rule, and it's also mostly in the book's favor, although players can mount a past-post defense (betonline had one in the last month). SBR also approves of this rule because it's implicit that a pregame line is only intended for action before the game starts, and it's generally absurd to consider that the book ever intended to enter into that wagering contract.
4) CPs. Plenty of books have anti-cp rules, and they're also "reasonable", but SBR has considered them universally inapplicable because, in their view, the software accepting the bet is a strong enough display of intent to enter the wagering contract. The remedy is getting the software to not accept the bet (or, as always, SPECIFICALLY telling the player what he's not allowed to do in the future). trixtrix's wagerweb decision, sportsbook.com, etc. No nonsense about expert parlay players being held to a higher standard.
5) BetEd 3rd party deposit situation. A player, with no demonstrable intent to defraud, and supposedly with permission from the book, made an authorized deposit from somebody else. BetED voided the account upon cashout. This was considered completely ridiculous by SBR, despite a rule in the T&C. Upon reflection, I think SBR actually botched the logic in this case (claiming it's a no-possible-harm T&C violation, instead of not even grounds for a wagering contract violation), but it's the right final conclusion because BetED couldn't show any grounds to disallow the book-pay wagering contract. The no-possible-harm T&C violation argument clearly doesn't jibe with the advantage play SBR approves of in 1 and 4.
6) Multiaccounting to collect extra bonuses, exceed limits, bet after being banned, etc. All books have rules against this, and SBR recognizes them all because it considers that the player is materially misrepresenting who he is in order to get the book to enter into a wagering contract (or pay signup bonus money) that it wouldn't do if it he had properly represented who he was. In contrast to (5), where the player wasn't trying to evade any limits or collect undue bonuses. And there's a provision in contract law that allows for voiding due to misrepresentation.
I can go through a few more decisions if anybody really cares, but I think I've made my point.
With 5d, the mechanism of entering the wagers clearly doesn't meet any of the standards for voiding the wager contract, and although the rule is "reasonable", in the loosest sense of the word, it is not necessary, or logically enforceable, any more than a CP rule is. The "problem" of volume play is totally fixable by software methods, with caps/flags on hands, money churned, winnings, hands/minute, etc. that can pause play and alert the casino to examine the game/player more closely if desired, just like the problem of taking certain CPs is fixed by making the software not take them.
What a lot of people have recognized here, even though I don't think anybody has put it eloquently yet, is that your perspective on this dispute is clearly not the same as it was on older disputes. For the first time that I'm aware of, SBR, and you personally, have stopped being (generally excellent) arbitrators of the book-the-bet, pay-the-bet wagering contract between book and player, and instead, your arguments have given default primacy to the T&C over the wagering contract.. and if they gave primacy to the wagering contract, it would be an absolute slam-dunk for the player. The old SBR has rejected plenty of T&C based arguments with far more merit (steam, CPs, etc)
In the simplest possible terms, you're posting as 5d's defense lawyer here, rationalizing their conduct with bad arguments, instead of posting as the arbitrator of the wagering contract, which is your historical role and the whole reason you have the reputation you do. This is a really sad thing to see- it's the exact kind of shit Shilheim would pull if he were smart enough to make it look that good.
You can still make this right.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Reply With Quote
