Interesting dispute re: past post

[Justin7]

Player places a normal sides bet on Bulls -8.5, claiming he didn't know the game had already started (it was not an in-game bet). Player made a deposit to place bet, also after the game had begun.

At the time the wager was placed, the Bulls were up by 16.

The sportsbook did not catch the mistake until the game was over. The book's rules allow the book to void past-posted bets at "Its discretion".

The Bulls ultimately failed to cover, despite the huge equity it had when the wager was placed.

Player complains that the book should have voided his past-posted losing wager.

How should this dispute resolve?

[Santo]

Very tricky one this..

I doubt people bet on the other side because of the lop-sided score, so book probably had a freeroll on him, but at the same time I don't believe he didn't know it was in action when he deposited.

I'd void, and close his account, notifying any partner books of the player's behaviour.

[noyb]

book should definitely void, nobody can possibly argue late-bets should be void when won, and stand when lost. whatever the book wants to do with the player after this is up to them though.

[Casi]

Why everyone should check starting times carefully, books can always take a shot at you in those situations. That being said, very bad behaviour by the book. Would have been voided 100% if it won.
They should pay him the amount he risked, no doubt for me. It is their fault if they keep the line up too long.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Justin,

IMO, The bet should stand. He took a shot(Probably is lying to you that "He didnt know") and now wants his money back. Its just like a scam artist. Unreal how some guys try to cheat the system and then have the balls to contact sbr.

[Santo]

I'd also be inclined to check his past history at the book and see if he's past-posted and got away with it before.. it seems a strange thing to do unless he had some inclination he'd be paid if they won

[Casi]

Well they can close his account and boot him, but not refunding is scam book behaviour.

[Santo]

Only way I wouldn't refund him is if he's been paid on a past-post in the past.

[AgainstAllOdds]

If people take shots at books, they deserve to lose. This may be a little harsh for some people but they are scammers and should be treated as such.

[Mudcat]

Void bet. Fix whatever it is in the system that allowed a bet to be accepted so long after an event has begun that one team has a 16 point lead.

Radical idea: take games off the board when they start.

[Casi]

If people take shots at books, they deserve to lose.

The problem is..there is no way to tell if he took a shot, or if he mixed up times i.e.
Happened to me before.

This would work the other way round too..books could keep lines up after the games started, and if action is coming in they can void the winners and "honor" the losers

[Dark Horse]

Player places a normal sides bet on Bulls -8.5, claiming he didn't know the game had already started (it was not an in-game bet). Player made a deposit to place bet, also after the game had begun.

At the time the wager was placed, the Bulls were up by 16.

The sportsbook did not catch the mistake until the game was over. The book's rules allow the book to void past-posted bets at "Its discretion".

The Bulls ultimately failed to cover, despite the huge equity it had when the wager was placed.

Player complains that the book should have voided his past-posted losing wager.

How should this dispute resolve?

The player can't have it both ways. His team was up by 16, so he got the best of the deal. Up by 16 points, or void bet?

As far as knowing if the game had started. If is both the player's responsibility as the book's. No excuse there. Even if the book was taking a shot at the player, the player in this case was taking the bigger shot at the book.

I'm also inclined not to believe the player. Most likely he did know. If the situation were reversed, and the book took the wager with 16 pts in its favor, people would be all over the book.

A compromise could be to give the player the money back for the value of his bet at the specific time. Spread -8.5, Bulls covering by 7.5. You do the math.

[tomcowley]

Two technical questions- What starting time did the book have for the event, and what time did they take it off the board? In other words, did it take human intervention to get the game OTB when it did finally go OTB, or did it naturally expire at the wrong time? If a human had to take it OTB, there's zero excuse for not voiding- the book knew about the past-post market before it was decided, so there was zero chance they could lose money to it, so they can't even pretend to have a right to win from it. The same goes when they are told about a past-post market- the probability of them losing money to it immediately goes to 0 (because they'll go back and check), so they have no right to win from it.

In a more general sense, the player takes a shot and hopes the book doesn't notice (and that happens occasionally, even at A-level books), trying to freeroll the book. The book gets 1-sided action and voids the past-post market (I'll assume they didn't void losers that were bet when the score was 2-0 or something.. if they did, it's easy) if and only if they would lose money on it, freerolling the player. The problem is that once the book is aware of the past-post, and they don't void, they are never innocent. There's no question that they would void if they were aware of the past-posting and lost money to it. The player placing the bet might be innocent (although in this specific case, that's really unlikely).

The problem is that if the book's decision is allowed to stand, then books can intentionally run this scam as often as they want to- leave a line up late, take 1-sided action, void if and only if it wins- and that's a terrible result for players, and it's guaranteed to trap innocents at some point. It's clearly the book's responsibility to both the players and themselves to have the right games on the board, and they shouldn't be allowed risk-free profit (by doing it intentionally) from shirking that responsibility.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Regardless of anything else, a past-post bet is invalid and thus void. That's a cast-iron rule of sportsbetting imo.

[Dark Horse]

Instead of getting into this whole web, I would just give the player the choice. Lose the money and continue to bet, or take the money back and get the hell out. The player sounds like a real a-hole to me, because it's just one bet and he had the advantage. Why is he making such a big deal about it? Does that sound like a honest player or a shot taker?

[turnip]

Regardless of anything else, a past-post bet is invalid and thus void. That's a cast-iron rule of sportsbetting imo.

I second this.

[Casi]

The player sounds like a real a-hole to me, because it's just one bet and he had the advantage.

He had no advantage. Very rare that books do not notice such mistakes.

[roasthawg]

Can't have books taking action and voiding only if they lose...all past-post bets are void regardless of the outcome.

[VegasDave]

Regardless of anything else, a past-post bet is invalid and thus void. That's a cast-iron rule of sportsbetting imo.

I agree.

If this software allowed for this to happen so late after the game started, I'd venture a guess and say this isn't the first time this has happened. What is the book's policy on past-post bets? I imagine it is to void them, this case shouldn't be special.

[Dark Horse]

It's simply not true that past posting is not allowed by all books. When a book does allow it, it would be helpful to have a record of how it deals with it, to avoid shot taking. SBR could list the books that allow past posting and will honor such bets.

[Frank]

My first take, without knowing all the details, is the player is a shot taker.

Its the NBA where start times are pretty consistent.

Its not like an NCAA tourney game which follows a previous game on the same court or a tennis match with a varying time start depending on previous matches.

[big joe 1212]

I had this situation a while back. I played a boxing match after it had already started, and I was really unaware! After placing the wager I turned on HBO and seen it was in the 4th round and my guy was getting his ass kicked. I called the book and they told me I was a wise guy and they would not void the bet! I thought it was unfair cause I called them immediately, and if I was a wise guy, I would have wagered for the guy winning. I just took it in the ass and never used the book again. I never complained other than ripping CS for being called names for no reason! I accepted the loss and would have not been mad if they didnt accuse me of being a wise guy. (never played there again)
If this guy didnt know it had already started, and never knew at all until after the game, he is lying! But all wagers should be canceled no matter the outcome, if placed after the tip!

[Justin7]

The book had the wrong time entered for the start of the game. It was off by 30 minutes.

[big joe 1212]

The book had the wrong time entered for the start of the game. It was off by 30 minutes.

Do you know if they canceled all the wagers (winners and losers)?
Did this guys wager on the Bulls exceed his normal wager size?

[Dark Horse]

The book had the wrong time entered for the start of the game. It was off by 30 minutes.

I don't know the rest of the story, but it is interesting that the player also deposited at the same time. Looks like he identified the 30 minute mistake, and wanted to take advantage. Definitely a shot taker.

[Dark Horse]

And now he's using SBR as his insurance policy.

I'd tell him to get lost, instead of wasting another second on him.

[BouncedCheck]

It's the book's responsibility to take events off the board whenever they decide to take them off. Some books do accept bets after the event starts, so if any book is taking bets, they should honor those bets regardless of the outcome and regardless of when the bets are placed. Theoretically, the same obligation should apply to the player, meaning the bet in this case should stand.

However, since we know most books will take one-sided bets and only cancel bets when it works in their favor, they lose all credibility and any rules of honor are out the window. That's why there's basically chaos in cases like this and it's clear that everyone is out for himself.

The player was probably taking a shot at the book, but it's hard to feel sorry for the book, even if it's a known certainty that the player is a stiff. The books should have more honor and then it would be easier to support them in disputes like this. They're really asking for a double standard to be applied, since they don't hold themselves to the same standards they want applied to their players. To me, that means there are no standards, and anarchy is king.

We have to keep in mind that the player/sportsbook relationship is not an equal one. The player risks money, but the book gets to decide whether to honor the bets. This is kind of like a college professor having sex with a 21-year old undergrad. The student is not underage, so no law has been broken, but the university policy prohibits it, since the professor/student relationship is not equal. Since the professor determines the student's grade, the professor is held to a higher standard of behavior than the student. If the student tries to initiate a sexual bribe for a better grade, it's the professor's responsibility to resist. If the professor initiates it, that's sexual harassment. Because this industry is totally unregulated, most books fail to meet the higher standard.

The question always becomes what would have happened if the outcome of the event had been the opposite? The bet likely would have been canceled by the book. Therefore, the player should get his risk money returned.

I agree with Santo, the only way he shouldn't get his risk money back is if he's previously been paid on a winning past-post bet. A key piece of information for me is that the book didn't catch the error until after the game was over. If they'd canceled the bet during the game, that would be different, but since they're trying to "honor" the bet and not cancel it, they'd never admit it even if that's the way it happened.

As for whether the player actually didn't know the game had started, how did he know the Bulls were up by 16 at the time the bets were placed? That doesn't seem like a bit of information that the book would share with him under the circumstances. I have a hard time believing he didn't know. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because all the other issues are more important.

[Dark Horse]

In general I would agree that past posting, unless it is part of the book's makeup, should result in canceled wagers. This is to protect both the player and the book.

But there's an exception. If it can be clearly established that one of the parties -player or book- is taking a shot, then the guilty party should not be rewarded by a cancellation. If someone is taking a shot, they waive the right to protection, in my opinion.

Sometimes it may not be clear, and both parties may be equally 'guilty'. In this case, based on the available information, the player took the shot. His intent was to take advantage of a mistake by the book. He had to get his deposit and bet in at the same time! And he got 16 free points for his effort. It would be interesting to have a more precise timeline of the scoring in the game and the times of the deposit and bet.

Typical case of having your cake and eating it too. Had Chicago been behind, he would have bet the other side. Had he won the bet, and the wager was canceled, he would have come crying here as well. So we have a dishonest player (also told Justin he didn't know game had started) who is using SBR to clean up his mess, after knowingly creating that mess.

[Peep]

This is the Beantownjim vs Cascade debate of a few years back. Cascade at the time had a policy of "if we take a bet, we honor the bet". So they counted the bet.

Beantownjim whined and whined saying poor me, I bet a game in progress (where I was way ahead at the time, but ultimately lost, boohoo boohoo), he finally got some other books to pay him with free plays lol.

[Justin7]

For the record, the book was Fubo (under the SIA brand). They paid the player - I'm not sure my involvement mattered because the decision was changed so fast.

[Wheell]

The issue isn't what the book did here, the issue is what should happen in the case of a player obviously taking a shot and getting caught red handed. Good books have to cancel the wager regardless of result and ban the player. Lesser books can get away with punishing shot takers by letting the bet stand if the player loses, or in the extreme cases of the very low quality level books, steal the player's entire bankroll. If you try to take a shot at a D level book my advice is don't get caught.

[Justin7]

If you try to take a shot at a D level book my advice is don't get caught.

Well said.

[HedgeHog]

Who called Foul? If the Shot-Taker/ Bettor wanted a refund after a huge advantage bet went south then screw him. If on the other hand, the Book is dumb enough to call him on a late bet, even after they won, then the past post bet should be voided.

Actually it should be a no-bet regardless. I just hate that someone exploits a huge advantage, and then wants the bet erased when it loses. In this case, the bettor had no risk whatsoever.

I've looked at it from every angle...bet should not have been accepted regardless of the score when placed. Past posted = no play regardless of the score at the time of the bet.

[reno cool]

Do you ever see cases of books honoring a late bet that wins? I would prefer they let all bets stand.

I wonder what % of their money these books make off of freerolling players, refusing to pay on technicalities, and outright stealing?

[curious]

Before getting involved in sports betting I was a long time blackjack and craps player. In that world a bet accepted must be graded, no exceptions. Now, in craps you have to make sure that one of the crew yells out "you have a bet" but I always make sure of that, even if I have to ask 3 or 4 times.

I think the same thing should apply to sports betting. A bet accepted must be graded. Period.