[redapple]

There was a pitcher change earlier today (Reds Maloney for Willis), but it was changed back to Willis later. The bets that I made before the first pitcher change, with Willis starting, will they stand ? Is there a general industry standard for this kind of special situation?

[donkdown]

ask zeta he is a pasty prick

[Br0nxer]

[Dark Horse]

Good question. Don't know the answer. If bets were accepted on the second pitching matchup the earlier bets should probably be canceled. The other option is to keep all bets open, but that gives the book a chance to freeroll the player.

[Dark Horse]

This thread should be in the sportsbook section. Let those guys chew on this one.

[Illusion]

This thread should be in the sportsbook section. Let those guys chew on this one.

It is now.

[Illusion]

Check this thread out by SBR Lou:

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...fo-vs-cin.html

[Dark Horse]

That makes sense. Is that industry standard?

[skrtelfan]

That's a screwup on SBR's part. For that reason, bets should never be voided until the game actually starts.

I had a similar issue with Pinnacle once. They voided my bet which lost, and after the game they reinstated my bet and graded it a loser. I complained as I'd rebet it elsewhere, but they said the original void was a mistake and since they paid out winners on the other side, they had to grade mine a loser.

[jeffksu]

So, what is the proper way this bet is grades as I listed pitchers in my bet as well only mine is at Bodog....I have SF, so can they wait to see what happens after the game to make their decision...

[redapple]

My original bet with sportsbook group before the first pitcher change was voided, and I asked them about this on live chat after the pitcher was changed back to Willis. They checked and confirmed with me that the bet won't stand despite the fact that correct pitchers were listed on the ticket. Not sure how other sportsbooks deal with this case, and if there is a clearly written rule, industry standard here.

[Hareeba!]

For that reason, bets should never be voided until the game actually starts.

this is just so simple and so sensible it should be standard procedure

[Dark Horse]

this is just so simple and so sensible it should be standard procedure

It is.

But it's not the rule at this point. So with some books canceling and others letting bets stand, we're clearly in freeroll territory.

[skrtelfan]

My original bet with sportsbook group before the first pitcher change was voided, and I asked them about this on live chat after the pitcher was changed back to Willis. They checked and confirmed with me that the bet won't stand despite the fact that correct pitchers were listed on the ticket. Not sure how other sportsbooks deal with this case, and if there is a clearly written rule, industry standard here.

I would file an SBR complaint. Your bet said Willis must start. Willis started. That another pitcher was scheduled to start in the interim is not relevant to your bet, and sportsbook.com obfuscated the issue by cancelling your bet before the game started. Unless sportsbook.com has a specific rule that states otherwise, you should have action, regardless of what the person said in live chat.

There isn't even really a need for a specific "rule" here if books were competent enough to simply not void listed pitcher bets before the game starts.

[redapple]

I believe the simple and correct approach is just to let bets stand and they can grade bets as no action after the games ended if any pitcher on the ticket didn't start. But some sportsbook like sportsbook group is too quick hand and they will void the bet right away after the pitcher change announcement.

[Dark Horse]

Not so sure about that. Let's say a player had $500 in his account and wanted to bet it all on team A. But after the pitching change he wanted to bet it all on team B. The problem, if the bet wasn't first canceled, is that -at least technically- he wouldn't have the money to bet. But if only the current pitching lineup counts then he could bet on the game. It's a realtime thing. In other words, the book can't tie up the player's money on a canceled pitching matchup. Therefore canceling is the only thing that makes sense. The rule has to be equal for everybody, including players who don't have funds in their account beyond the first bet.

[skrtelfan]

Not so sure about that. Let's say a player had $500 in his account and wanted to bet it all on team A. But after the pitching change he wanted to bet it all on team B. The problem, if the bet wasn't first canceled, is that -at least technically- he wouldn't have the money to bet. But if only the current pitching lineup counts then he could bet on the game. It's a realtime thing.

Tough titties, then. Them's the breaks when you list pitchers.

In other words, the book can't tie up the player's money on a canceled pitching matchup. Therefore canceling is the only thing that makes sense. The rule has to be equal for everybody, including players who don't have funds in their account beyond the first bet.

No, that makes absolutely no sense. The book can certainly tie up the player's money because there is no such thing as a "canceled pitching matchup" before the game starts. There is no such thing as an "officially scheduled starting pitcher"; starting pitchers are advisory. During the playoffs, I've seen some of the larger books, I think Pinnacle or Greek, list multiple pitchers when it's unclear which pitcher will start. If I have $500 in my account and want to bet $500, is it unfair of the Greek to list two potential matchups? Of course not. If I bet listed pitchers Willis, I bet with the expectation of having a valid bet if Willis starts. It's ridiculous to cancel my bet before the game starts because someone else who might want to bet the game doesn't have enough money in his account. If you only have $500 in your account, then bet action to prevent that scenario.

Some books grade bets immediately, others take a while. If I have $500 in my account and bet the whole balance on a 10am Sunday NFL game that ends at 1:01pm, and the book hasn't graded my bet by 1:05pm in time for me to bet a 1:05pm game, is that unfair? Of course not, my loss for not having enough money in my account.

[Hareeba!]

totally agree with skrtelfan on this

[Dark Horse]

I'm not presenting it as my opinion. It's the best reason I could think of why books would cancel the first wager. Let's hear it from SBR themselves, since Lou mentioned their rule on the matter in the provided link.

[Dark Horse]

Some books grade bets immediately, others take a while. If I have $500 in my account and bet the whole balance on a 10am Sunday NFL game that ends at 1:01pm, and the book hasn't graded my bet by 1:05pm in time for me to bet a 1:05pm game, is that unfair? Of course not, my loss for not having enough money in my account.

There's such a thing as reasonable expectation. Betting on one and the same game is clearly different than betting on consecutive games.

[tomcowley]

Has anybody actually bothered to look for that rule in the SBRbook rules? Or should Lou have said "by our abysmally shitty coding, we void the bets and can't reinstate them"?

[Killer_Demo]

so everyone that bet this game had their bets voided? my SFG ML bet was voided also

[Kaabee]

so everyone that bet this game had their bets voided? my SFG ML bet was voided also

my promo runline be was voided as well even though the odds would be ev/ev regardless

[hhsilver]

I posted in the other thread that is linked above that my play was a Free Play and as of now, long after the bet was canceled, the free play amount hasn't been returned and is no longer available. Can that really be the case????

[tomcowley]

Unless the book has a specific rule, this should be action of course. Sportsbook.com group has been ******* it up for... over 4 years now. http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...g-dispute.html

[Dark Horse]

If SBR, the arbitrator in sportsbook disputes, cancels this in their own book, either they don't know their business or books are way off not canceling this. Both can't be right.

[skrtelfan]

It seems like it's more that the software is broken. Lou said in that thread "in this situation we would [reinstate the bets] if we could."

[Dark Horse]

This is what he said: "By rule, after the change was announced, listed bets were auto-canceled."

So could someone at SBR clarify this rule? This is, after all, the SBR forum. Don't be shy...

Is the rule referred to the industry standard?

[Boxer300]

In my bet history at Bodog it shows up as No Action

[sweethook]

i no sfa run game is still like sht 1,2,3 done if that

[tomcowley]

If SBR, the arbitrator in sportsbook disputes, cancels this in their own book, either they don't know their business or books are way off not canceling this. Both can't be right.

-1000 their site is just created by morons and they either can't handle a mix of action and no-action bets at post or can't mass-undo a void and it has nothing to do with industry standards or anything else.

[Dark Horse]

Sure.

So far we have Bodog no action, Sportsbook.com no action, SBR book no action.

Seems to me that either they follow the industry standard, or there is no industry standard, in which case every book uses its own arbitrary rules (unless they specifically mention this situation in the rules). Freerolling anyone?

[frankthetank]

Take the Reds today. (Saturday)

[HedgeHog]

Looks like I also got screwed by this pitcher change that wasn't.

Internet / -1Ticket #: 872857
Jul 29 07:10 PM

MLB
STRAIGHT BET
[8501] SFO +1½EV
( VOGELSONG -R / D WILLIS -L )

100.00 / 100.00

0.00
NO BET
N/A PITCHER
07/29/2011 10:29 AM

[Dark Horse]

nm.