[Blondie]

Player vs Sportsbetting.com, Super Bowl wagers dispute

A Sportsbetting.com (SBR rating C) player submits a wagering dispute.

The dispute
The player placed three bets on potential Super Bowl matches. Bet one was the over in a New England vs San Francisco SB. Bet two was the New England pointspread against the 49ers. Bet three was the over in a Super Bowl of Baltimore vs San Francisco. After the conference championship weekend, New England and New York advanced to the Super Bowl.

The player expected his wagers to be voided, as the outcome of the conference championship weekend eliminated Baltimore and San Francisco from the playoffs. He claims to have placed the same future Super Bowl match bets elsewhere, and claims that he was credited his wager amounts back since the teams he bet on would not actually play in the game.

The sportsbook's position
A Sportsbetting.com representative advised the player that since the teams he wagered on will not be playing, that his wagers would be graded as losses following the Super Bowl.

SBR is following up with Sportsbetting.com management to confirm the accuracy of the sportsbook rep's statement. Players that also wagered these Super Bowl bet types are advised to write to SBR.

UPDATE: The player has confirmed that Sportsbetting.com credited his account tonight with the $420.

[durito]

Are you ******* kidding?

The player was paid the same day of the issue. You guys really have a hard on for this book don't you.

[macb]

Blondie, get a clue before u post this sh*t.

[sharpcat]

This is pathetic on SBR's part starting a thread about a complaint that not only has SBR not spoken with the book about yet but the issue has already been resolved without the assistance of SBR.

just logged back in my account and the funds were there
anyway glad they realized their error

hopefully everyone else who made these bets that will not occur will get these funds back
i have been wagering offshore for over 10 years, first time something like this has happened to me

[alviskleen]

I think the whole post was a waste of space and time.
She should have checked before making such a long post and wasting her own time and energy as well. :/

[skrtelfan]

Missed this the first time but wow. Does not make SBR look very good when valid complaints about books like BetOnline's poker nonsense get ignored after they've been "investigating" for weeks but this stuff gets a special thread when they resolved the problem within a day. Can SBR go any more downhill?

[SBR Lou]

This is pathetic on SBR's part starting a thread about a complaint that not only has SBR not spoken with the book about yet but the issue has already been resolved without the assistance of SBR.

It's titled Player Vs...

That means it's a preliminary report that will be updated. If it never gets published, folks that also had bets voided may not read the story from Google and realize they have an outlet to write in.

I know the silly troll theories are more popular than Tim Tebow jerseys, but SBR's main objective is to always help players. And, that BetOnline situation WAS in fact published.