Sportsbook.com to no-action if-win wagers on same game

[bigboydan]

Sportsbook.com (SBR rating D-) to no-action if-win wagers on same game

A player complained that his $28,000 account was frozen after a payout request. Sportsbook.com was reviewing his wager history. The player explained that he made numerous if-win wagers on the same game giving him an unfair advantage. He and Sportsbook.com have agreed the best solution was to cancel all wagers made in that manner. Sportsbook.com states that all players who made if-win bets on the same game will have their wagers canceled and that balances will be adjusted this weekend. Players who made losing same-game if-win wagers should verify that they received a credit adjustment for those losses.

[InTheHole]

What's the logic behind that and will they email all players?

[rm18]

What's the logic behind that and will they email all players?

the same as correlated parlays you play under 48 and then if that wins then +24 is much likely than 50% to cover.

[tomcowley]

Wait, is this spread -> total if-wins, or dog ML -> dog spread if-wins like somebody posted about a couple of weeks ago? Canceling the former after the fact is absolutely ridiculous.

[trixtrix]

i'm troubled by sbr's stance on this issue, the wording of this post seems to indicate that sbr is in implicit agreement w/sportsbook.com's decision to void these bets post-fact. more explanation is needed: how are these bets different than the correlated parlay cases that sbr took a hardline stance against sportsbook.com on?

if the if-bets are something like 1st half dog+5 -> full game dog+8, the player still placed his funds at risk, as there was no guaranteeing the win in the outcome. and therefore post-canceling the wagers after the outcome have been decided cannot be correct. this is in the same vein as the correlated parlay case, just b/c the 2nd outcome have now a higher probability of occurring does not justify voiding the entire bet. in either case: the player jeopardized his money.. in other words, if the player lost the bet, would sportsbook.com have refunded his acct?

unless it's some exotic case here, where the 2nd outcome is 100% guaranteed on the first outcome (such as nhl dog ml-> nhl+1.5) then i can see an exception here. even still, the general rule of thumb is: if you book the bet, you PAY the bet. post-voiding wagers is never the correct approach, the reasonable method of handling this, is to pay then re-config your software to restrict those type of wagers in the future.

[BrentCrude]

I got alot of small potatoes winning correlated parlay checks from Jazette.

They finally banned me from some of their umbrella of books for mainly using the weekly free bets but I won alot of correlated parlay bets there that they paid me.Some of their books still send me comps and I play there.The whole group of books this outfit operates just doesn't have their sh&t together and if they decide to whoop on you,they will.If they decide to be overly kind to you,they will.It's kind of like being a faltering car company or bank where some get government bailouts and others are told to go suck an egg.

In life I hate alot of rules and regulations but for certain things like games and betting,I love rules.Why don't they just come up with better software where it shuts you out of making bets they won't honor instead of telling you after you won that you cheated them using a tactic to your advantage that they allowed.

[Justin7]

No-actioning correlated parlays is bush league. They claim they are no-actioning losers as well. The last time they made this claim, it was provably false - I had several players write me, and they would not fix it.

I hope Sportsbook.com takes a hard look at its current MO... But right now, these guys are crooks to anyone with a brain.

[InTheHole]

^ That's why they should email all players

[gambleballs]

I think this situation is a lot different from the Correlated parlay issue. NO book would ever accept the bets in this case. If he would "if-win" a 1 point dog with a moneyline, we was getting something like a +260 on a game that was essentially a pk. Obvious line error would what I file this under. At least the No Actioned the bets instead of stealing all his balance like they usually do.