Interesting dispute re: past post

[Ortho]

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.

Yes, but if the bettor wasn't going to get paid, he didn't "exploit" anything. The book had no risk whatsoever either. It's just like betting a prop when the player in question is not going to play. The moral stuff doesn't change the correct outcome, it just clouds the analysis.

[SlappyWhite]

The book's rules allow the book to void past-posted bets at "Its discretion".

Based on that statement alone, player loses no mater what.

[Dark Horse]

Book did the smart thing. Not worth the drama.

But player is no good.

[Wheell]

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.

Of course not. Your position is absurd. Occasionally people typing in lines make typos. I have seen moneylines of +490000. If someone makes a typo and a player is able to make a quick bet before the sportsbook can correct the typo the bet cannot be simply allowed to stand. That is not the case we are discussing here but the statement that just because a computer system accepted the bet it must be allowed to stand is absurd and I feel that such an absurdity must be pointed out.

I can understand your desire for a black and white answer but unfortunately reality dictates that discression must be used in a variety of gray areas that connect to sportsbetting.