Bookmaker fking robbed me

[touchback]

Did you read what SBR said throughout the thread? It is almost like they aren't even reading my posts, the majority of what I"ve said has been ignored.

They ignored all my complaints and took everything Bookmaker said as fact. Doesn't anyone see the problem with that process.

I hear you Sharpy... was just surprised with all the action you stirred up. No commentary on the content though, I want to see where this goes. At least, just a little longer...

[sharpcircle]

Also requested proof of the changes Bookmaker is claiming with my dispute that SBR is handling.

Have yet to hear back after a day. Will keep thread updated.

[raydog]

what did/do the people at bookmaker have to say when you question them? your bets on the 24th were cancelled but no notice of new rules taking effect until the 27th...i think thats your complaint... what kind of excuse are they giving you for cancelling the bets?

[sharpcircle]

Ray,

They claim to have changed the live betting rules on the 21st of May. They also claim to have changed their general rules on the 27th of May.

I dispute both these claims as outright lies. They have yet to show any evidence that these things were changed as of these dates. They do however confirm canceling my bets from the 24th of May when their general rules were not updated as of May 27th to justify the cancellation.

Its been 3 days since asking SBR for any form of evidence/proof to any of DSI/Bookmakers claims and I've heard nothing yet.

[sharpcircle]

If anyone has screenshots of Bookmakers general rules or live-betting rules from May 21-30th please post in this thread or contact me. I have a lot of money being stolen and wouldn't mind paying someone a reward for the evidence that I know exists.

[sharpcircle]

SBR FORUM,

you've been around last few days and yet to respond. Where is any proof or evidence of Bookmakers/DSI claims for my case?

You must have some evidence to be siding with Bookmaker. Please produce the evidence that caused you to support Bookmakers claims. Its been over 7 days now without a response from my request for evidence with my dispute. Shouldn't be hard to respond to the forum/my complaint and produce what convinced SBR to side with Bookmaker.

Why is this question being ignored?

[SBR Forum]

SBR FORUM,

you've been around last few days and yet to respond. Where is any proof or evidence of Bookmakers/DSI claims for my case?

You must have some evidence to be siding with Bookmaker. Please produce the evidence that caused you to support Bookmakers claims. Its been over 7 days now without a response from my request for evidence with my dispute. Shouldn't be hard to respond to the forum/my complaint and produce what convinced SBR to side with Bookmaker.

Why is this question being ignored?

We understand why you'd be mad to find out the live betting rule was changed this way. A same-day email should be standard for any rule change in our opinion. But in terms of being cheated or them selectively applying a rule, that's something different. If it happened, we'd almost certainly have people who lost money on that game coming forward to say their bets should be refunded. So all signs suggest it was graded consistently versus them picking on you or trying to deny winners funds.

[sharpcircle]

Why did you respond to my post but ignore the question.


POST EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY ARE CLAMING/YOU ARE ACCEPTING AS TRUTH?

Show evidence that they changed this rule that verifies any of their claims. I dispute their released date changes as an outright lie.

Nothing you or Bookmaker/DSI has shown justifies the ticket cancellation. I'm not mad the rule was changed i'm embarrassed that an "INDUSTRY LEADER" is stealing and disregarding their own posted rules (A fact that they confirm)

please post the evidence that confirms your claims...

[sharpcircle]

If it happened, we'd almost certainly have people who lost money on that game coming forward to say their bets should be refunded.

I placed a couple of wagers on the same game, Braves vs. Mets. Bets were voided. It was suspended going into the 9th inning at 5-5. The suspended game was resumed and completed the next day prior to that day's scheduled game.
My wagers would have been winners. I contacted them about the rule change and was told that although I received notification about the rule change 27th May

Oh hi there people coming forward who BOOKMAKER has used the rules to steal from.

[mangotimed]

I think they changed the live rules again.

[Falcon4]

BetCris/Bookmaker is lying about rule changes to rip me off!

On May 24, I placed 2 bets at BetCris on the ATL v NYM game. The game was postponed after 8 innings and was completed the following day. Both of my bets were wins but BetCris decided to cancel them. Here are the tickets...


At the time of my bets, the first BetCris live betting rule read as:

1. Any game or event must play to their conclusion in order to have action, irrespective or whether or not an official result is confirmed.

Both my bets were played to their conclusion and there isn't any mention of a time constraint in this rule.

On May 27, I got this message from BetCris...


After reading this message I contacted BetCris Live Chat to see when this rule was changed. He told me that it was changed in the last week but was unable to give me a specific date. I still had some questions that he couldn't answer so I asked for the phone number of the wagering department, which he gave me.

Before phoning, I wanted to read over the rules once more and found that BetCris had not updated the new rule on their website yet.

On May 30, I phoned the wagering department and was given the same reasoning on the cancellations, that the new rule was in effect even though it was not updated on their website. I asked for some clarification on the rule and when it was changed. He couldn't help me so I was passed onto another department.

This second person also couldn't explain the rules so they forwarded me to the live betting department.

The third person had quick responses to all my questions. He told me that the bets were cancelled because the general rules were being applied not the new live betting rule which I read to him. He said, at the time the game was postponed it was tied 5-5, therefore the moneyline bet was a push and the spread bet was a "no bet" because the game didn't complete. He told me multiple times that if the game was not tied at the time of the postponement, that the bet would have been graded. I asked him when the rules were changed, he told me that they had been changed at the beginning of the previous week but had still not been updated on the website.

On June 3, I checked the rules page on the BetCris website and the original rule still had not been updated.

On June 5, I got another message from BetCris...


On June 6, I sent an email to the BetCris live betting department. I asked them for an explanation as to why my bets were cancelled. Here is the response...

Thank you for contacting our live betting department, regarding your tickets; The reason why those bets were cancelled was because the game was suspended completely due to rain and re-scheduled to continue the next day at 3:10pm Pacific time; for betting purposes that game was over at that point. Why?? Very simple, they were going to have rest until the next day which makes all the live lines posted on full game props NOT VALID. The live lines are based on the live game, the game was suspended with a night in between, so we couldn't continued that game because it was going to be a completely different game. We updated our rule in order to be clearer about this type of issues, but the game never got its conclusion. Here's is the updated rule:

1. Any game or event must be played to its conclusion on the same day or within 5 hours of the next day in order to have action on full game props. Games shortened for any reason such as weather, etc., will be graded as No Action irrespective of whether or not an official result is confirmed.

We apologize for any type of inconvenience and also we hope we were clear enough on why we graded that game as a suspended game (No Action). If you have any more questions please don't hesitate and contact us back.

Regards,

Moe
Live Betting Department

On June 13, I emailed the BetCris live betting department again. I asked them the dates that the rules had been changed. Here's the response...

The rule was changed in the live betting platform on May 21st. On the website it was changed on the 27th.

This is a blatant lie, I checked their website as late as June 3 and it still wasn't updated.

In summary, BetCris cancelled my bets by going against their own posted rules. Their original rules were poorly worded and now they are trying to avoid paying for this mistake by stiffing the players. BetCris applied the new rule but didn't update their website or inform players. They didn't even update their website over 10 days after my bets took place and continue to lie about what day it was updated. They have consistently changed their story on the reasoning behind cancelling these bets. They have changed the rule multiple times since my bets on May 24th and have used both rules against me to steal. The newest rule was updated after my bets took place and is being used as reasoning for their cancellation.

Justin7, could you please give us your opinion on this?

[LT Profits]

Seems some of you need to look up the definition of the word "conclusion". The game was played to its conclusion. The rule is clear. BM owes this player money.

No the game was NOT played to its conclusion, at least not it the spirit that the rule intended. In this context, "played to its conclusion" means played nine innings or enough extra innings until a winner was determined.

[sharpcircle]

Over a week after asking for any form of evidence from SBR / BOOKMAKER.... not even a response.

so does SBR actually do reviews anymore?

[LT Profits]

Oh hi there people coming forward who BOOKMAKER has used the rules to steal from.

How is Bookmaker stealing, those plays would have been refunded BOTH before and after rule change.

[sharpcircle]

LT you have no clue and are either reading too quickly and or not understanding the case. Bookmaker has already acknowledged aspects you are arguing.

They have already confirmed they would have paid out the bets if they had not changed their rules. (These rules were unposted at the times of the bets, they have yet to prove otherwise)

This is nothing else but outright theft and Bookmaker has shown nothing to identify otherwise and is abusing their position as a respected book by changing the rules after the bets. They themselves have confirmed they didn't update the rules they are enforcing . think about that : they are enforcing rules they didn't update........

[teaserpleaser]

Surprised LT still posts here

[LT Profits]

LT you have no clue and are either reading too quickly and or not understanding the case. Bookmaker has already acknowledged aspects you are arguing.

They have already confirmed they would have paid out the bets if they had not changed their rules. (These rules were unposted at the times of the bets, they have yet to prove otherwise)

This is nothing else but outright theft and Bookmaker has shown nothing to identify otherwise and is abusing their position as a respected book by changing the rules after the bets. They themselves have confirmed they didn't update the rules they are enforcing . think about that : they are enforcing rules they didn't update........

How could they have possibly paid off bets under any circumstances? Whoever told you that was mistaken. I am VERY aware of Bookmaker's rules. Before the rule change, bets would have been pushed because score was 5-5 after last completed inning before game was suspended, identical to what Vegas standard is if bets were made pre-game. After rule change, bets would be refunds because game was not completed before suspension. The onus should really only be on Bookmaker to prove an exception to a rule, not on applying a rule properly per the Vegas standard. It seems to me what is catching you off guard is you are interpreting "to its conclusion" to include suspended games resumed at a later date. Suspensions are not recognized in ANY other type of MLB regular season single-game wager, and there was really nothing explicitly saying otherwise in their live rules. I think they have since amended "concluded" to "concluded on same day", but in reality that should not really be necessary because it should be understood. And even if some newbie bettor misinterprets it, Bookmaker could always fall back on applying Vegas standard when there is any doubt. The biggest key here is I bet Bookmaker refunded your plays Friday night and not after the game was resumed Saturday, which would be a clear indication of what the spirit of the rule is (and should be).

[sharpcircle]

How could they have possibly paid off bets under any circumstances? Whoever told you that was mistaken. I am VERY aware of Bookmaker's rules. Before the rule change, bets would have been pushed because score was 5-5 after last completed inning before game was suspended, identical to what Vegas standard is if bets were made pre-game. After rule change, bets would be refunds because game was not completed before suspension. The onus should really only be on Bookmaker to prove an exception to a rule, not on applying a rule properly per the Vegas standard. It seems to me what is catching you off guard is you are interpreting "to its conclusion" to include suspended games resumed at a later date. Suspensions are not recognized in ANY other type of MLB regular season single-game wager, and there was really nothing explicitly saying otherwise in their live rules. I think they have since amended "concluded" to "concluded on same day", but in reality that should not really be necessary because it should be understood. And even if some newbie bettor misinterprets it, Bookmaker could always fall back on applying Vegas standard when there is any doubt. The biggest key here is I bet Bookmaker refunded your plays Friday night and not after the game was resumed Saturday, which would be a clear indication of what the spirit of the rule is (and should be).

Bookmaker tells us the live betting rule was changed on May 21st inside of the live betting system.

Their general betting rules page was the one updated on May 27th. Players were also sent a notice in case they missed the live betting rule on the live betting page from the week before.

Based on this, the wagers in question were placed after the rule had been changed and correctly settled.

These bets were cancled because of the rule change. They would have had action if they followed their own rules. Also it looks like BOOKMAKER has just changed their live rules AGAIN... guess what they changed them to LT.

your first theory is debunked please find another way to attempt to justify this THEFT.

[LT Profits]

These bets were cancled because of the rule change. They would have had action if they followed their own rules. Also it looks like BOOKMAKER has just changed their live rules AGAIN... guess what they changed them to LT.

your first theory is debunked please find another way to attempt to justify this THEFT.

What is throwing you off is there were two rule changes on the site, but it was just one rule change in reality. The one actual rule change was when they switched from grading in-play wagers the same as pre-game wagers to requiring in-play wagers to be completed in full. However, the wording they used after the change is what you posted in Post #9 where it reads "Any game or event must play to their conclusion in order to have action". The second rule change was when they added "on the same day" (as in the email), but that was actually the spirit of the rule all along and not a real rule change por se. Personally, I think that should have been understood without the clarification though based on how every single other MLB single-game bet is graded during the regular season.

[LT Profits]

Surprised LT still posts here

Um, because I am as familiar with the rules of betting as anyone here?

[sharpcircle]

What is throwing you off is there were two rule changes on the site, but it was just one rule change in reality. The one actual rule change was when they switched from grading in-play wagers the same as pre-game wagers to requiring in-play wagers to be completed in full. However, the wording they used after the change is what you posted in Post #9 where it reads "Any game or event must play to their conclusion in order to have action". The second rule change was when they added "on the same day" (as in the email), but that was actually the spirit of the rule all along and not a real rule change por se. Personally, I think that should have been understood without the clarification though based on how every single other MLB single-game bet is graded during the regular season.

Do you know what the current Bookmaker live rules are? Rule one you should concentrate on. (I'll let you check because you obviously don't know )

Then comeback and explain your position again.

Um, because I am as familiar with the rules of betting as anyone here?

myth 2 debunked

you have no clue as per your posts ITT. please read first before making me waste my time explaining why you're wrong repeatedly.

[LT Profits]

Do you know what the current Bookmaker live rules are? Rule one you should concentrate on. (I'll let you check because you obviously don't know )

Then comeback and explain your position again.




myth 2 debunked

you have no clue as per your posts ITT. please read first before making me waste my time explaining why you're wrong repeatedly.

WOW, did they change the live rules AGAIN? Sorry, but the last time I saw them, they read exactly as you posted in Post #9, and I received the same email you did anticipating the the only change coming would be the addition of "on the same day". So sorry about that, but this is obviously a change that took place in the last few days, no doubt sparked by the uproar over that Braves game. And this time, I received no new email about any new changes, so this throws me for a loop. But this rule was definitely NOT in place at the time your wager was placed, and it definitely runs contrary to the standard in-play MLB rules at other USA facing books. I could see why you are upset now, but I don't think they could apply this retroactively. I know you are going to say "but they applied the previous rule retroactively" but my contention there is that "same day" should have been understood. Either way, this is nothing personal and I do wish you luck. My gut feeling is that because of the ambiguity, Bookmaker will probably fall back on their house rule that Vegas standards are used if there is any doubt.

[sharpcircle]

keep carrying that water for them LT...

[LT Profits]

keep carrying that water for them LT...

I ain't carrying shit, the rule was exactly as I stated until a few days ago. I am as objective as they come and Bookmaker was using the same full-game same day rule as other books until this change. But again, this is a change that just took place so it should not apply to your wager. That is my opinion, no need to get hostile.

[sharpcircle]

As usual you're wrong on almost all accounts of this case.

You have no idea what is or wasn't a rule at what time. Please go away unless you are willing to read the issue properly wihtout making several incorrect assumptions. (all you have posted is repeatedly been wrong and corrected, yet you still think you have a clue)

same full-game same day rule as other books

just because its easy: pinny graded these games . Myth 3 of yours debunked

[benandjerry]

Bookmaker will probably fall back on their house rule that Vegas standards are used if there is any doubt.

Without wanting to get involved in this particular mess, I've seen you said this a couple of times and I think its a little bit dubious to use such rule if they arent in general following Vegas rules, at the very least for US sports.

While the rules are clear on these events, they void tennis ML if match isnt completed I do believe, I'm not familiar if thats Vegas standard or not but the most common ruling offshore is 1 set completed (or 2 sets on some sites, if its a major). I also believe their NHL TT only include regular time, this is definitely not industry standard and I'd be extremely surprised if it is in Vegas.

I just feel if they should claim Vegas standard they need to be consistent about it, then again, as said those rules are clear I just find it a bit dubious if they could use the reasoning Vegas standard when they see fit.

[sharpcircle]

why don't you wanna get involved in this particular mess?

SBR is taking no steps to ensure that Bookmaker providing evidence of any of their claims. The only thing confirmed is that their live rules contained in their rules were not updated at the time of bets.

They have changed rule number one over 3 times since. Now finally they change the rule to Pinnacle rules which guess what:

would have made these bets valid and paid.

Cliffs:
Rules in place
change rules to cancel bets (1 week after bets)
change rules back adding proper wording
successful theft???

[LT Profits]

First of all son, I have been probably been betting for longer than you have been on this earth, so tone it down when you talk to me. Second of all, I don't need to read this entire thread to know what Bookmaker's live betting rules were less that a week ago, i.e., after your game in question. And I DID read your very first post in this thread your where you interpreted "game or event must play to their conclusion" to even include games completed at a later date, and right then and there I didn't feel you had a case. Now I totally see the ambiguity in that wording, but I feel their addition of "on the same day" was more of a clarification than a rule "change", and that was the intent of the rule all along, consistent with the same full-game rule as other USA FACING books (there...happy? Yes, Pinnacle still has USA whales playing there but they have done some Euro-tweaks to their rules). Anyone that has bet baseball for any length of time should know that suspensions are not recognized, which goes back to it not really being necessary for Bookmaker to add the "on same day" phrase, and in actuality it may have done more harm than good as it gives the appearance or a change when it really wasn't. So debunk that.

[LT Profits]

Without wanting to get involved in this particular mess, I've seen you said this a couple of times and I think its a little bit dubious to use such rule if they arent in general following Vegas rules, at the very least for US sports.

While the rules are clear on these events, they void tennis ML if match isnt completed I do believe, I'm not familiar if thats Vegas standard or not but the most common ruling offshore is 1 set completed (or 2 sets on some sites, if its a major). I also believe their NHL TT only include regular time, this is definitely not industry standard and I'd be extremely surprised if it is in Vegas.

I just feel if they should claim Vegas standard they need to be consistent about it, then again, as said those rules are clear I just find it a bit dubious if they could use the reasoning Vegas standard when they see fit.

There really is no Vegas standard for Tennis, so books can set there own rules, which range for one ball served to one set completed to two sets completed to must be fully completed. Yes, Bookmaker's NHL team totals rules are unique, but they are clearly stated in their rules which is fine. The Vegas standard fall-back really only comes into play if something is not clearly explained in the rules, and I could see how sharpcircle and anyone else can interpret "played to their conclusion" to include games resumed at a later date, which was not the intent of the rule at the time (but was changed to having seven days to complete in the last few days).

[sharpcircle]

I don't need to read this entire thread to know what Bookmaker's live betting rules were less that a week ago,

Stop clouding up this thread with your uninformed mouthbreathing. You have shown you have no idea what is going on so please refrain from posting essays ofnon-nonsensical rants regarding rule updates you're unwilling to read.

38k posts of utter garbage, congrats.

[LT Profits]

Let me say just one more thing before going on with my life: If the addition of "on same day" was really a rule CHANGE instead of a clarification of the existing rule at the time, then sharpcircle and everyone else would have been graded on Braves winning and Mets losing. Applying rule changes retroactively is totally unethical and I agree that it should never be tolerated. But they did not apply a "change" retroactively here as the rule was same day all along, and they merely changed the wording of the rule (clarified) to reflect what it actually already us. Proof of this would be that the refunds were issued Friday night after the suspension and before the game was picked up on Saturday, which only sharpcircle and whoever else has live-play action on that game can verify. That is my feeling on the matter and I feel that I am entitled to it without any snide remarks.

[sharpcircle]

Last time i respond to you:

They have never proved to have the rules changed ANYWHERE at the time of my bets. The only thing they have acknowledged is that the General live rules were not changed at the time of my bet. They stole from me and anyone else with bets on this game in applying an unposted rule.

gl breating out of your mouth

[LT Profits]

Stop clouding up this thread with your uninformed mouthbreathing. You have shown you have no idea what is going on so please refrain from posting essays ofnon-nonsensical rants regarding rule updates you're unwilling to read.

38k posts of utter garbage, congrats.

And it continues. I think my very last post #102 sums things up quite nicely, I am sorry if the truth hurts. You realistically have no case here, but I can't stop you from pursuing it, so good luck.

[shari91]

Without wanting to get involved in this particular mess, I've seen you said this a couple of times and I think its a little bit dubious to use such rule if they arent in general following Vegas rules, at the very least for US sports.

While the rules are clear on these events, they void tennis ML if match isnt completed I do believe, I'm not familiar if thats Vegas standard or not but the most common ruling offshore is 1 set completed (or 2 sets on some sites, if its a major). I also believe their NHL TT only include regular time, this is definitely not industry standard and I'd be extremely surprised if it is in Vegas.

I just feel if they should claim Vegas standard they need to be consistent about it, then again, as said those rules are clear I just find it a bit dubious if they could use the reasoning Vegas standard when they see fit.

There is no Vegas standard for tennis so really that idea should be dumped. The vast majority of action bet on tennis is outside of the US and many Euro and Aussie books void the match regardless of when the player retires. They could retire in the last game of the last set (has happened to me sadly) and poof, cash returned. bet365 is a prime example and I'd suspect they're taking in more cash on tennis than every offshore and Vegas book combined. For US sports however, there is a 'Vegas standard' and that's what books tend to fall back on in the event something is ambiguous. But if any book is claiming it for a tennis match they're full of crap.

*sorry sharpcircle, off topic I know but I found ben's post interesting to think about.

[benandjerry]

why don't you wanna get involved in this particular mess?

SBR is taking no steps to ensure that Bookmaker providing evidence of any of their claims. The only thing confirmed is that their live rules contained in their rules were not updated at the time of bets.

They have changed rule number one over 3 times since. Now finally they change the rule to Pinnacle rules which guess what:

would have made these bets valid and paid.

Cliffs:
Rules in place
change rules to cancel bets (1 week after bets)
change rules back adding proper wording
successful theft???

Its just my opinion at the end of the day, wont really change anything what I think. I have no reason to doubt you regarding the rule changes, and I definitely think that part has been sloppy on their behalf. The intent of the original rule isnt completely clear to me, could see it being interpreted both ways, that they called the updating "rule change" is troubling in the way that the updates were meant to affect the grading process rather than just being clarifying.

That said, their most recent rule change is quite rediculous and certainly makes you wonder even further what the initial rule actually meant. If for no other reason I dont think its unreasonable to reconsider the grading out of goodwill, or simply just to avoid further bad PR.

There really is no Vegas standard for Tennis, so books can set there own rules, which range for one ball served to one set completed to two sets completed to must be fully completed. Yes, Bookmaker's NHL team totals rules are unique, but they are clearly stated in their rules which is fine. The Vegas standard fall-back really only comes into play if something is not clearly explained in the rules, and I could see how sharpcircle and anyone else can interpret "played to their conclusion" to include games resumed at a later date, which was not the intent of the rule at the time (but was changed to having seven days to complete in the last few days).

As said, I'm well aware that its clearly stated for those specific events. My point was if you're going to have a safeguard in place to be able to claim "Vegas standard rules", then it would make sense that your markets play by the standard rules, at the very least for the US major sports (NHL), wouldnt you agree?

Let me say just one more thing before going on with my life: If the addition of "on same day" was really a rule CHANGE instead of a clarification of the existing rule at the time, then sharpcircle and everyone else would have been graded on Braves winning and Mets losing. Applying rule changes retroactively is totally unethical and I agree that it should never be tolerated. But they did not apply a "change" retroactively here as the rule was same day all along, and they merely changed the wording of the rule (clarified) to reflect what it actually already us. Proof of this would be that the refunds were issued Friday night after the suspension and before the game was picked up on Saturday, which only sharpcircle and whoever else has live-play action on that game can verify. That is my feeling on the matter and I feel that I am entitled to it without any snide remarks.

I dont know when the refunds were issued, you certainly have a valid point there. But I think you're missing the point overall, I'm not going to pretend to know every detail of this because I dont, but its my understanding the supposed rule change was enforced the 21st (before game) but the website wasnt updated until much later (after game, msg went out on 27th, BM claims to have updated 21st, sharp claims it wasnt). I think thats the biggest problem, they supposedly enforced a rule that was nowhere to be seen and that is essentially what is being refuted, and as I understand it its word against word.

There is no Vegas standard for tennis so really that idea should be dumped. The vast majority of action bet on tennis is outside of the US and many Euro and Aussie books void the match regardless of when the player retires. They could retire in the last game of the last set (has happened to me sadly) and poof, cash returned. bet365 is a prime example and I'd suspect they're taking in more cash on tennis than every offshore and Vegas book combined. For US sports however, there is a 'Vegas standard' and that's what books tend to fall back on in the event something is ambiguous. But if any book is claiming it for a tennis match they're full of crap.

*sorry sharpcircle, off topic I know but I found ben's post interesting to think about.

Wasnt sure how Vegas generally handled tennis to be honest, but realize its far from one of their biggest markets. I more brought to have more than only NHL alone to make the point that all their sports rules may not be the industry standard, and you're right it varies quite a lot, but as far as offshores go I cant think of a single other place that treats them the way BM does.

I know there are EU books that voids, aussies I'm not familiar with, I know its not uncommon among asians to void, but offshores generally does not.

To me the standard has always been complete 1st set (2 sets on majors on some books), but that maybe the majority dont share my opinion on that. Anyway, the only point I was trying to make if they're supposed to be able to fall back on "standard rules", then I think it makes perfect sense for a player to expect markets to be standard rules to start with without having to read some fine print. If there is no Vegas rules to play by, I think standard offshore rules should be next.

ps. I reckon pinny takes a good chunk on tennis, not sure how they stack up vs b365 but wouldnt be surprised if they take more. I also think betfair got a good case.