[trixtrix]

The point is there is no need to argue what is a bad line. Everybody has their own defiintion. The solution though, should at least include a choice for bet to stand, like Pinnacle usually does.

entirely disagree, if you don't explicitly explain what the bettor is doing is wrong, then it is unfair punish them afterward for being "wrong".

the choice of having your bet stand and your acct canceled is still punishing the bettor.

[trixtrix]

If you consider this a moral issue, you may ask "What would Jesus do"? I think of it more as gambling issue, so I'd ask "What would Tony do"? Can you imagine how that live chat would go?:

Me: May I speak to Tony please?
Tony :How can I help you?
Me: Why has my arena bet on Arizona canceled?
Tony: Obvious bad line.
Me: Obvious?
Tony: Very.
Tony: Correct line is 12 not 2
Me: Arizona was -2 at all my other Books, so it was not an error.
Tony: You think 2 is a fair line for an 11-2 team at home?
Tony: Versus a sub .500 team?
Tony: You took a shot.
Me: No I didn't. It's a small market event, so a larger line variance is to be expected.
Tony: 10 point variance?
Me: Justin7 and other respected SBR forum members think AZ-2 is a fair bet.
Tony: I could care less what the forums say.
Tony: Anything else?
Me: Yes, you can reinstate my AZ-2 bet.
Tony: No can do.
Tony: But I can disable your account if you persist with this nonsense.
Me: Never mind
Tony: Good. Take another shot and your account will be closed.
Tony: Now get off my live chat.

incomparable, tony = jesus's father

[yisman]

I've never understood why the market openers don't do this all the time.

Do what? Void bets if the market moves a lot?

[durito]

Do what? Void bets if the market moves a lot?

open way off, and then bet into the copiers

[trixtrix]

open way off, and then bet into the copiers

i happen to know that this happens in a lot of smaller mma markets, the trick is also to have smaller limits so your personal book does not get hit hard by knowledgeable bettors (while not making that aspect visible), i prolly already gave up the farm..

[yisman]

CRIS probably took some bets, bet out five times as much at the offscreens who copy their lines exactly, then said we will honor the bets so the offscreens would do the same.

CRIS probably made more that way then they would canceling and on top of it made every other book look stupid.

Even if this happened, I'm not sure it worked out so well for CRIS considering at least some of the offscreens voided the bets.

open way off, and then bet into the copiers

Yeah, now I see. It was talked about later in the thread. thanks

There are some stories at the other forums of how back in the early days of offshore gambling, the linesmakers would PURPOSELY set bad opening lines so they could personally bet them (through beards) at the copy cat books- and they got paid!

You know what's funny? If more people cared about AFL, you'd see threads about how the original -2 line was a trap and that you should bet +2.

[yisman]

Reading the rules of most books, "obvious error" is not defined. Everyone knows that if a book puts up +3.5 on an NFL game when the market is -3.5, that is an obvious error. In every single dispute I have ever seen with SBR, the market price is a starting point to determine whether there was an obvious error. What if there is no comparable market, like in props? The legendary Henry chewed me out once for voiding wagers once. I screwed up, and a price was set at pick when the fair price was about -500. But, there was no market. Per Henry, "When there is no market, you can't void bets for a bad line".

The market price is the standard for whether there is an obvious error. If you start looking at line movements to determine this, you are suggesting that a weak line put up initially can be voided if there is a big move. There was an NBA game with a 6-point move near the end of last season. Was that bad?

I once wrote for the Pinnacle Pulse about bad lines. Let me quote myself... "A general rule of thumb is that a number is bad if it gives you a 7% EV (expected value) versus the market price." (Pinnacle Pulse #25, incorrectly listed as #24 here: http://www.bettorsworld.com/pinnacle-pulse/24.htm )

I was actually searching for anything regarding that line you quoted from Henry and came across you posting that back in 2006.

[wrongturn]

entirely disagree, if you don't explicitly explain what the bettor is doing is wrong, then it is unfair punish them afterward for being "wrong".

the choice of having your bet stand and your acct canceled is still punishing the bettor.

Well, books have right to close account for any reason, as long as balance paid in full. Although it sounds unfair to players, it is still better than being paid in full and account closed a day later, without receiving a second choice.

[skrtelfan]

The flagrantly violate gaming law (i.e. offering a line, and refusing to take a bet on a line).

BetUS does this and you recommended them in your book.

[Justin7]

BetUS does this and you recommended them in your book.

BetUS is not without faults... But any bet I have tried to place, they have taken. Do you have a dissimilar experience?

[durito]

They have a selective delay. Line is +4, I try to bet, it thinks for 90 seconds and says no line is now 3.5. I don´t bet, refresh lines, or have someone else check, line is still 4 for everyone else but i can´t bet, they are effectively dealing me +3.5 and -4.

[ForgetWallStreet]

They were doing this to me on EVERY premier leagues soccer line I tried to bet when I last played there.

[Justin7]

They have a selective delay. Line is +4, I try to bet, it thinks for 90 seconds and says no line is now 3.5. I don´t bet, refresh lines, or have someone else check, line is still 4 for everyone else but i can´t bet, they are effectively dealing me +3.5 and -4.

Another poster sent me an email of a similar complaint. I asked for some sort of proof, and didn't get it.

Any chance you could do a short vid showing this? Or even screen-shots?

[durito]

It was over a year ago, I don´t have money there anymore.

[bubba]

Another poster sent me an email of a similar complaint. I asked for some sort of proof, and didn't get it.

Any chance you could do a short vid showing this? Or even screen-shots?

they definitely did this to me too! if a price looked good, half the time i was unable to bet it.

[evo34]

I love how being in a renegade industry (immune to regulation and lawsuits) allows for absurd policies. If a market maker in stock trading makes a big mistake and gets destroyed, guess what...he eats it. He doesn't try to cancel it, claiming he followed some other market maker who made an error. It's very clear what the right ruling is here; the only reason the "obvious error" defense even exists is that sportsbooks have zero responsibility for their actions.

[wrongturn]

Why is it a surprise for betus dealing dual lines? Bodog is a leader in that technology . I still think it is a great book though.

[yisman]

They have a selective delay. Line is +4, I try to bet, it thinks for 90 seconds and says no line is now 3.5. I don´t bet, refresh lines, or have someone else check, line is still 4 for everyone else but i can´t bet, they are effectively dealing me +3.5 and -4.

It sounds to me like the delay doesn't play into it. If the line was still 4 for everyone else after rejecting the bet, they're just not allowing you to bet +4. It doesn't sound like they'd need a delay to do that.

[Justin7]

Why is it a surprise for betus dealing dual lines? Bodog is a leader in that technology . I still think it is a great book though.

The claim against BetUS is worse. It is fair for a book to deal dual lines. The claim here is that BetUS is offering a line, but only willing to take one side of the bet. If you take the "good side", they are claiming the line moved.

If anyone could replicate this with proof, I would do a feature on it. I imagine that if they do this, they only do it to certain accounts.

[wrongturn]

The claim against BetUS is worse. It is fair for a book to deal dual lines. The claim here is that BetUS is offering a line, but only willing to take one side of the bet. If you take the "good side", they are claiming the line moved.

If anyone could replicate this with proof, I would do a feature on it. I imagine that if they do this, they only do it to certain accounts.

Maybe I misunderstood. But after the line moves from +4 to +3.5, can he cancel the +4 bet, and then bet -3.5? Because if it is allowed to bet -3.5, that is essentially dual line, although the setup is much worse than bodog, which is upfront about it.

[durito]

It sounds to me like the delay doesn't play into it. If the line was still 4 for everyone else after rejecting the bet, they're just not allowing you to bet +4. It doesn't sound like they'd need a delay to do that.

They don't. The delay is used to pretend they aren't selectively taking action. It is supposed to appear that the line just happened to change during the delay.

[skrtelfan]

They have a selective delay. Line is +4, I try to bet, it thinks for 90 seconds and says no line is now 3.5. I don´t bet, refresh lines, or have someone else check, line is still 4 for everyone else but i can´t bet, they are effectively dealing me +3.5 and -4.

Same thing here, as ForgetWallStreet says below, the dual line thing seems worse with soccer. As the other poster says, the delay really isn't necessary to do that, and sometimes the line changes immediately while other times it does the 90 second pause.

I don't understand why Justin7 doesn't seem to know about this issue because I've read many threads where this issue has been discussed in response to Justin7's discussion of BetUS.

[skrtelfan]

The claim against BetUS is worse. It is fair for a book to deal dual lines. The claim here is that BetUS is offering a line, but only willing to take one side of the bet. If you take the "good side", they are claiming the line moved.

If anyone could replicate this with proof, I would do a feature on it. I imagine that if they do this, they only do it to certain accounts.

I deposited a very small amount there, only made a few bets, and they weren't very large at all, so I would be flabbergasted if they somehow targeted my account. Did you ever bet soccer there? I would further be flabbergasted if you were able to bet soccer there without any problems, as I've seen numerous threads about BetUS's soccer shenanigans.

[Justin7]

Same thing here, as ForgetWallStreet says below, the dual line thing seems worse with soccer. As the other poster says, the delay really isn't necessary to do that, and sometimes the line changes immediately while other times it does the 90 second pause.

I don't understand why Justin7 doesn't seem to know about this issue because I've read many threads where this issue has been discussed in response to Justin7's discussion of BetUS.

I have heard about it. I have asked for proof. If I am going to blast a book, I need to confirm or duplicate the issue.

[ForgetWallStreet]

I have heard about it. I have asked for proof. If I am going to blast a book, I need to confirm or duplicate the issue.

When you get kicked from there they make it so you that can't even log in so most of those who have experienced this issue in the past won't be able to help you here.

[trixtrix]

Well, books have right to close account for any reason, as long as balance paid in full. Although it sounds unfair to players, it is still better than being paid in full and account closed a day later, without receiving a second choice.

the pt of contention is NOT whether book has the right to close account, it's whether it would be fair to the players if they don't explicitly define the reason for doing so up front.

that is explicitly punishing the players for something the book could've spelled out up front, essentially punishing the players for a book's laziness

[Frank]

the pt of contention is NOT whether book has the right to close account, it's whether it would be fair to the players if they don't explicitly define the reason for doing so up front.

that is explicitly punishing the players for something the book could've spelled out up front, essentially punishing the players for a book's laziness

Taking a shot at a book is reason enough to punish a player and it doesn't need to be spelled out in a rule.

It's like a boxer smashing his oppenent's face at the beginning of the fight when he was trying to touch gloves. There isn't a rule on that.

It's a cheap shot.

[trixtrix]

Taking a shot at a book is reason enough to punish a player and it doesn't need to be spelled out in a rule.

It's like a boxer smashing his oppenent's face at the beginning of the fight when he was trying to touch gloves. There isn't a rule on that.

It's a cheap shot.

there is an explicit rule on that: "protect yourself at all times" (in fact the ref reiterates this at the beginning of every fight)

[wrongturn]

the pt of contention is NOT whether book has the right to close account, it's whether it would be fair to the players if they don't explicitly define the reason for doing so up front.

that is explicitly punishing the players for something the book could've spelled out up front, essentially punishing the players for a book's laziness

I'd love to see books clearly define what a bad line is. In reality they can't and won't. In most disputed cases it is totally unfair to players to have bets voided, but at the same time books feel it is unfair to them to let bets stand, and in some cases, justifiably so. So Pinnacle's two-choice solution is a good trade-off, and it is much better than voiding bets as the only choice.

[Frank]

there is an explicit rule on that: "protect yourself at all times" (in fact the ref reiterates this at the beginning of every fight)

That is not in the boxing rulebook.

It is something taught to boxers as a guideline to fight by kinda like don't take shots is a guideline to gamble by.

[trixtrix]

That is not in the boxing rulebook.

It is something taught to boxers as a guideline to fight by kinda like don't take shots is a guideline to gamble by.

it is an explicit instruction given to the fighters both in their dressing rooms and before the match by the referee, you're 100% wrong here, i'm a bit of stickler when it comes to fight sports

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...g_instructions

http://ezinearticles.com/?Protect-Yo...mes&id=6092492

[sharpcat]

it is an explicit instruction given to the fighters both in their dressing rooms and before the match by the referee, you're 100% wrong here, i'm a bit of stickler when it comes to fight sports

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...g_instructions

http://ezinearticles.com/?Protect-Yo...mes&id=6092492

+1


Protect yourself at all times is warned seconds before the start of every single fight for at least the last 30+ years.

You drop your guard and get KO'd you got KO'd!!!!!!!!!!

[soxwin1917]

+1 Protect yourself at all times is warned seconds before the start of every single fight for at least the last 30+ years. You drop your guard and get KO'd you got KO'd!!!!!!!!!!

THIS. However let's not get too far off-topic here.

[Frank]

it is an explicit instruction given to the fighters both in their dressing rooms and before the match by the referee, you're 100% wrong here, i'm a bit of stickler when it comes to fight sports

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...g_instructions

http://ezinearticles.com/?Protect-Yo...mes&id=6092492

Either way smashing an opponent while touching gloves is totally frowned upon and thought of as unsportsmanlike.

The same could be said as taking a shot at a book or a book taking a shot at a player.

All are cheap shots.

[sharpcat]

Either way smashing an opponent while touching gloves is totally frowned upon and thought of as unsportsmanlike.

The same could be said as taking a shot at a book or a book taking a shot at a player.

All are cheap shots.

If a fighter drops his guard during a fight he is fair game.

Gamblers dropping their guard are fair game to bookies.

Why are bookies exempt from paying the price when they drop their guard?