[ABEHONEST]

What part of "FOR EXAMPLE" didn't you get? My post was about correlated parlays in general (they aren't all improper). Many are acceptable by Books including -14 and over 41 (duh), and has nothing to do with what the OP may or may not have done. Get a fukkin clue, genius.

Oh, only an example HogHead? What's the diff. if it's an example? Now if you had posted an example like -3 and ov. 12, you might have raised my eyebrows?

[Bill Dozer]

Not all correlated parlays are improper. All Books allow you to bet the same game side and total together up to a certain correlated level. For example if you bet a Team -14 and the game to go over 41, is the bet okay (over 34% correlated)? Some Books will accept this bet, others won't. Up to them to decide.

Right. There have been some cases where the book can't be expected to pay like playing side A on the ML and the spread. Sure, it's possible to lose one and not the other but it's an obvious error. This doesn't address the issue of competence but is an extreme example of why the bets have to be seen to draw conclusions.

[BigDaddy]

JollyGreen

any update on your issue

[JollyGreen]

JollyGreen

any update on your issue

None yet. SBR replied to my complaint asking for more info. I will let you guys know how it turns out.

[HedgeHog]

None yet. SBR replied to my complaint asking for more info. I will let you guys know how it turns out.

GL, JG.

[robmpink]

gotta love a thread where someone wishes another person gets shot to wishing them good luck.

[bigboydan]

Updated:


BetPhoenix correlated parlays wagering dispute

A BetPhoenix (SBR rating C) player reports that his account has been frozen. The player holds a $7,226 balance with the sportsbook. The player was placing MLB correlated parlays. SBR is investigating this sportsbook complaint and gathering facts such as the deposit history, wagering history, and most importantly what type of correlated parlay this was. A correlated parlay could involve a number of high expectation combinations, such as an obvious sportsbook error like offering the ability to bet on the same team in the first half and for the game per event. The sportsbook allowing extremely low-risk bets over the long term creates mediation challenges, especially when offered over an extended period of time. The BetPhoenix player reports that after logging into his account on September 5th, he was prompted by a message which reportedly stated that he would not be given any action until it was determined "how much you robbed from us".

The sportsbook's mistake and the inability to identify the error early on is likely attributed to the BetPhoenix staffing cuts for budget reasons. The sportsbook lines staff is said to be at its lowest in years and to be stretched with added responsibilties.

[HedgeHog]

gotta love a thread where someone wishes another person gets shot to wishing them good luck.

Actually I'm just glad the OP decided to file a complaint and I'm interested to see how this all turns out. Looks like we'll hear all the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

[Bill Dozer]

It looks like a lot of the plays were on the same team twice (2 team) vs two independent plays within the same game. Obviously a bettor shouldn't be able to take a 4 teamer four times...first hlf ML, full game ML, full game spread and first half spread. If this was parlaying, say, the total with the spread, like Sportsbook.com arbitrarily canceled, he'd have a strong case. We need to go through the plays and find out what is the best result for the player. If we backed out all of the same play parlays or regraded them as individual bets, he'd probably be a big loser.

I agree with the news wire. With Phoenix staffing so lite, they are open to competency issues. It's not as if these were $25 parlay bets on Argentinian couples tennis.

[bigboydan]

09.13.2011 (03:09 PM CST)

BetPhoenix correlated parlays wagering dispute update

On September 7th, SBR reported that a BetPhoenixplayer's account was frozen. The player held a balance of $7,226 with the sportsbook. The winnings were derived from correlated parlay play; BetPhoenix (SBR rating C) was accepting IF Bet wagers for Major League Baseball that gave the player an overwhelming edge against the house. Correlated parlays typically involve a number of high expectation combinations, sometimes including obvious errors like the ability to bet the same team for the first half and game. While the player was unwilling to disclose his complete balance history, he did concede having withdrawn more than what was lost placing the correlated wagers; most recently depositing $326 and withdrawing $850.

BetPhoenix confirmed that the player's balance account was frozen and then negatively adjusted to account for the play. The mistake and the inability to identify the error are believed to be attributed to a large reduction in staff for budget reasons. The BetPhoenix lines staff is said to be smaller than its been in years.