Betonline cancels political wagers that go against them

[Optional]

I doubt $6000 would be enough to entice BOL into taking a shot at a player. They simply believe they are correct here is all.

Just a few months back a player with multiple accounts was paid out a $130,000 jackpot the book could much more easily have denied payment on than this matter.

@Piterp... how many of those UK books people can sue would have paid out on that one do you think?

[Wohlford]

I doubt $6000 would be enough to entice BOL into taking a shot at a player. They simply believe they are correct here is all.

Just a few months back a player with multiple accounts was paid out a $130,000 jackpot the book could much more easily have denied payment on than this matter.

@Piterp... how many of those UK books people can sue would have paid out on that one do you think?

BOL really did take a shot though. Everyone here agrees that this was a clear (enough) win for the player. If anyone should learn a painful lesson from this, it's BOL for trying to make a market for a prop they didn't define according to their own intentions. That is NOT the player's problem.

It is the Book that writes these props and makes a market in them. If there is any ambiguity in a situation like this, it should ALWAYS resolve in the favor of the Player, and NEVER in favor of the Book.

SBR's credibility is on the line here. SBR is obligated to review this complaint in detail, render its own verdict, and then make a pronouncement laying out SBR's reasoning that either (a) BOL acted properly (It didn't) or (b) BOL simply confiscated a player's well-earned win for self-serving reasons.

Is SBR going to "Review" this shady action by BOL or not? Make your stance clear and unambiguous. Take a side.

[piterp]

@Piterp... how many of those UK books people can sue would have paid out on that one do you think?

I dont know but I prove here that sbr rhetoric that bookmakers have always right is not true.

[trytrytry]

The 6k Stolen here by Betonline.ag might not might not be 130,000 in total value but he still won the prop wagers. the fact BOL thinks that smaller amount is not important because they got pissed when having to pay a wining account 130,000 and can get away with stealing it is stunning.

[TheMoneyShot]

The 6k Stolen here by Betonline.ag might not might not be 130,000 in total value but he still won the prop wagers. the fact BOL thinks that smaller amount is not important because they got pissed when having to pay a wining account 130,000 and can get away with stealing it is stunning.

I haven't studied it in full detail like you Try. But nothing ever seems to rattle you.... so I'll take your word that it was a bad decision to not pay the player.

[rangerz2478]

BOL really did take a shot though. Everyone here agrees that this was a clear (enough) win for the player. If anyone should learn a painful lesson from this, it's BOL for trying to make a market for a prop they didn't define according to their own intentions. That is NOT the player's problem.

It is the Book that writes these props and makes a market in them. If there is any ambiguity in a situation like this, it should ALWAYS resolve in the favor of the Player, and NEVER in favor of the Book.

SBR's credibility is on the line here. SBR is obligated to review this complaint in detail, render its own verdict, and then make a pronouncement laying out SBR's reasoning that either (a) BOL acted properly (It didn't) or (b) BOL simply confiscated a player's well-earned win for self-serving reasons.

Is SBR going to "Review" this shady action by BOL or not? Make your stance clear and unambiguous. Take a side.

Stunning all around.

[HedgeHog]

I doubt $6000 would be enough to entice BOL into taking a shot at a player. They simply believe they are correct here is all.

Just a few months back a player with multiple accounts was paid out a $130,000 jackpot the book could much more easily have denied payment on than this matter.

@Piterp... how many of those UK books people can sue would have paid out on that one do you think?

Agree that 6k is not much to BOL. But why not pay out the winners on this ambiguous prop and chalk it up as a lesson learned? That's what an A Book would do. Bad move to void what looks to be winning bets. Just my two cents.

[Optional]

Agree that 6k is not much to BOL. But why not pay out the winners on this ambiguous prop and chalk it up as a lesson learned? That's what an A Book would do. Bad move to void what looks to be winning bets. Just my two cents.

Yes, it seems like that would be smart to me too. Which is why I figure they must really think they are correct. Exactly why has not been communicated very well though.

[evo34]

Yes, it seems like that would be smart to me too. Which is why I figure they must really think they are correct. Exactly why has not been communicated very well though.

More likely, they just thought they could swipe the $6k and nothing would happen. When they starting getting more and more heat here (all from posters, none from SBR, btw), they probably would have liked to go back in time and reverse the decision. But admitting wrongdoing after the fact and reversing course under pressure from posters would have made them look weak, so they just stuck to their guns and decided to wait it out.

[piterp]

But admitting wrongdoing after the fact and reversing course under pressure from posters would have made them look weak, so they just stuck to their guns and decided to wait it out.

Made mistake and fix it later not make company weak but canceling bets just because they want it is really weak and Im afraid it is not good sign for future.

[Alfa1234]

Proof they are not shot takers for me:

I bet on Tottenham VS Chelsea last night, both teams to score "NO".

Game ended in 1-2 so I was convinced I'd lost. They graded the bet as a win though...so I sent an email (being honest goes a long way) about it. Got a reply back the bet was graded correctly because the Tottenham goal was actually an own goal from a Chelsea player.

While I vaguely knew about this (weird) rule with them as I had read something about it here, they easily could have regraded my bet and I would have been ok with it.

[Wohlford]

Proof they are not shot takers for me:

I bet on Tottenham VS Chelsea last night, both teams to score "NO".

Game ended in 1-2 so I was convinced I'd lost. They graded the bet as a win though...so I sent an email (being honest goes a long way) about it. Got a reply back the bet was graded correctly because the Tottenham goal was actually an own goal from a Chelsea player.

While I vaguely knew about this (weird) rule with them as I had read something about it here, they easily could have regraded my bet and I would have been ok with it.

The fact that BOL graded your wager according to its rules doesn't mean shit when BOL is grading someone else's wagers according to its whim.

[Optional]

Proof they are not shot takers for me:

I bet on Tottenham VS Chelsea last night, both teams to score "NO".

Game ended in 1-2 so I was convinced I'd lost. They graded the bet as a win though...so I sent an email (being honest goes a long way) about it. Got a reply back the bet was graded correctly because the Tottenham goal was actually an own goal from a Chelsea player.

While I vaguely knew about this (weird) rule with them as I had read something about it here, they easily could have regraded my bet and I would have been ok with it.

There has been multiple instances of BOL being happy to bend rules to the players advantage.

Choosing to pay out 130k to a player with multiple accounts appears to carry no weight for the some here. They insist that BOL would definitely cheat a player over $6000 and these geniuses KNOW it for sure and certain!!!

Like they KNOW these bets should be graded winners for sure. Bunch of flippin idiot know nothings.

Just ignore them Alfa. Let them talk to themselves and keep attacking SBR/BOL in here alone. No one that matters cares.

The OP gets it. He may not be happy but gets it. And that's all that really matters.

[Wohlford]

There has been multiple instances of BOL being happy to bend rules to the players advantage.

Choosing to pay out 130k to a player with multiple accounts appears to carry no weight for the some here. They insist that BOL would definitely cheat a player over $6000 and these geniuses KNOW it for sure and certain!!!

Like they KNOW these bets should be graded winners for sure. Bunch of flippin idiot know nothings.

Just ignore them Alfa. Let them talk to themselves and keep attacking SBR/BOL in here alone. No one that matters cares.

The OP gets it. He may not be happy but gets it. And that's all that really matters.

Optional, I'm sorry, but you're being a coward here.

Answer just ONE question straight up:

Was BOL justified in confiscating OP's winnings or not? Give us a clear, unambiguous, un-hedged pronouncement and be done with it. JUST DO IT.

[Optional]

Wohlford... you're a troll who isn't very smart. I've explained what I think already but I do not think you are capable of understanding it or of being reasonable so I am not up for discussing it any further with you... but just for clarity;

I do not think there is enough information in this thread to be sure of a call either way.

I think BOL genuinely believe the required meeting did not take place and the market should be void.

If I was the OP I would be distressed about this decision too.

If Matt from SBR has tried to convince BOL to pay the OP and has been unsuccessful then I don't think anything more can be done.

Un-involved people like you attacking SBR like we are some sort of scammers unrelentingly for days, for simply not getting the result you think is right pisses me off more than just about anything else people do here.

So basically penetrate you mate. And have a nice day.

/end

[Wohlford]

Wohlford... you're a troll who isn't very smart. I've explained what I think already but I do not think you are capable of understanding it or of being reasonable so I am not up for discussing it any further with you... but just for clarity;

I do not think there is enough information in this thread to be sure of a call either way.

I think BOL genuinely believe the required meeting did not take place and the market should be void.

If I was the OP I would be distressed about this decision too.

If Matt from SBR has tried to convince BOL to pay the OP and has been unsuccessful then I don't think anything more can be done.

Un-involved people like you attacking SBR like we are some sort of scammers unrelentingly for days, for simply not getting the result you think is right pisses me off more than just about anything else people do here.

So basically penetrate you mate. And have a nice day.

/end

1. Name something I've said in this thread that was trolling and not rational argument. (Have a look at my post history. Mostly sports, but also commenting both for and against the actions of bettors/bookmakers in this sub-forum.)

2. The only information we need to evaluate BOL's actions are (a) the wording of the Propositions bet on and (b) the lack of the magic words being uttered in any of the media coverage of the specified event. Both conditions are met, so we have perfectly sufficient knowledge to conclude that BOL has unjustly confiscated OP's winnings.

3. We take note of SBR's refusal to even REACH A CLEAR CONCLUSION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

4. No one takes any comfort in your assurances that BOL "genuinely believes" they're in the right when, objectively, they're in the wrong.

5. A moderator escalating to profanity and troll accusations towards a member posting in earnest good faith is a bad look.

[Alfa1234]

1. Name something I've said in this thread that was trolling and not rational argument. (Have a look at my post history. Mostly sports, but also commenting both for and against the actions of bettors/bookmakers in this sub-forum.)

2. The only information we need to evaluate BOL's actions are (a) the wording of the Propositions bet on and (b) the lack of the magic words being uttered in any of the media coverage of the specified event. Both conditions are met, so we have perfectly sufficient knowledge to conclude that BOL has unjustly confiscated OP's winnings.

3. We take note of SBR's refusal to even REACH A CLEAR CONCLUSION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

4. No one takes any comfort in your assurances that BOL "genuinely believes" they're in the right when, objectively, they're in the wrong.

5. A moderator escalating to profanity and troll accusations towards a member posting in earnest good faith is a bad look.

1. You called him a coward 2 posts ago. Very rational argument. Definitely objective.

2. Confiscate winnings =/ having an argument about voiding bets. A void is not a confiscation...something has to have been paid to be able to confiscate winnings. And let's be honest, if someone was in here and had bet "Yes" on all those props, he would have been very pissed off if the bets had been graded a loss and you would be here right beside him to defend his case.

3. SBR reached out, conclusion reached was not in favour of OP despite their best efforts. Seems crystal to me. What exactly did you take note off?

4. Your "No one" seems to be a bit subjective as well...you are apparently among a rare few that doesn't take comfort in those assurrances.

5. Profanity? He told you penetrate off after giving rational reasons and responding to every comment in a pretty fair way, multiple times. If he gets impatient after a while, because some people simple won't listen to reason and keep pounding a dead cow I believe he's pretty justified in telling them to get lost. After all, there is nothing else to be said.

[Wohlford]

3. SBR reached out, conclusion reached was not in favour of OP despite their best efforts. Seems crystal to me. What exactly did you take note off?

The closest SBR has come to reaching a verdict is Optional's last post where he said, "I do not think there is enough information in this thread to be sure of a call either way."

That is not a conclusion either way, so please explain how what SBR did here is so "crystal" clear to you.

[Alfa1234]

The closest SBR has come to reaching a verdict is Optional's last post where he said, "I do not think there is enough information in this thread to be sure of a call either way."

That is not a conclusion either way, so please explain how what SBR did here is so "crystal" clear to you.

If Matt from SBR has tried to convince BOL to pay the OP and has been unsuccessful then I don't think anything more can be done.
/end

As I said. Crystal clear.

[Wohlford]

As I said. Crystal clear.

That is not clear at all.

1. It doesn't tell us whether SBR Matt tried to convince BOL to pay OP or not. It just says "if".

2. It completely fails to address the crux of the matter, which is: if even SBR Matt agrees that BOL should pay the OP and BOL is still refusing, why doesn't SBR "review" this action by BOL publicly and make an announcement of its conclusion? All I'm saying in this thread is that SBR should render its judgment publicly, which it has steadfastly refused to do.

[Alfa1234]

That is not clear at all.

1. It doesn't tell us whether SBR Matt tried to convince BOL to pay OP or not. It just says "if".

2. It completely fails to address the crux of the matter, which is: if even SBR Matt agrees that BOL should pay the OP and BOL is still refusing, why doesn't SBR "review" this action by BOL publicly and make an announcement of its conclusion? All I'm saying in this thread is that SBR should render its judgment publicly, which it has steadfastly refused to do.

The "if" in that sentence does not apply to whether or not Matt tried to convince them, but to the 2nd part of the statement about nothing more to be done. The if could have been left out there or simply have been replaced by the word "Because". It's a figure of speech. I believe you misunderstood what Optional implied there, Matt definitely tried to convince them.

2. SBR does not really make rulings but mediates between clients and bookies. As long as bookies remain fair and have reasons to act like they do in certain cases, SBR shouldn't condemn a bookie or "judge publicly". Betonline has shown a willingness to bend the rules slightly in favour of clients numerous times and it has been proven they are willing to listen to clients when that client feels he has been treated unfairly. Nowhere does it say Matt believes Betonline is in the wrong here, it merely says he tried to convince them to pay on behalf of the OP. I'm sure it happens all the time SBR does not agree with a poster here but still presents his case to the book in a fair way and as best as they can.

[Wohlford]

You're simply wrong.

SBR makes public pronouncements frequently. I found this one right from the front page in seconds: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/spo...-frozen-80515/

Why is SBR willing to go to the mattresses in one case but not the other?

[Alfa1234]

You're simply wrong.

SBR makes public pronouncements frequently. I found this one right from the front page in seconds: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/spo...-frozen-80515/

Why is SBR willing to go to the mattresses in one case but not the other?

Because 1xbet has literally dozens of complaints and unsolved cases against them..while Betonline has a good rep. And I see absolutely no judgement in that statement you linked, it merely states SBR has asked 1xbet for comment on a case that's described there. I'm not "simply wrong".

[piterp]

Proof they are not shot takers for me:

I bet on Tottenham VS Chelsea last night, both teams to score "NO".

Game ended in 1-2 so I was convinced I'd lost. They graded the bet as a win though...so I sent an email (being honest goes a long way) about it. Got a reply back the bet was graded correctly because the Tottenham goal was actually an own goal from a Chelsea player.

While I vaguely knew about this (weird) rule with them as I had read something about it here, they easily could have regraded my bet and I would have been ok with it.

You only proof that betonline have different rules for btts markets and nothing more and you are still fearless in bookmakers defending.

[rangerz2478]

There has been multiple instances of BOL being happy to bend rules to the players advantage.

Choosing to pay out 130k to a player with multiple accounts appears to carry no weight for the some here. They insist that BOL would definitely cheat a player over $6000 and these geniuses KNOW it for sure and certain!!!

Like they KNOW these bets should be graded winners for sure. Bunch of flippin idiot know nothings.

Just ignore them Alfa. Let them talk to themselves and keep attacking SBR/BOL in here alone. No one that matters cares.

The OP gets it. He may not be happy but gets it. And that's all that really matters.

So I guess myself and the countless others in this thread who have provided completely fair and unresponded to arguments for why OP should be paid "don't matter" huh?

[rangerz2478]

Let me get this straight, we have Optional split on the case here but openly stated he thinks the best solution is to pay the player. We have a poster who posted an irrelevant soccer wager as a defense of betonline. Then you have the rest of us, every other poster on here who has sided with the player. We have posted one sound argument after another as to why betonline has acted improperly, many of us have been on sports gambling forums for 10+ years. And we don't matter. If this is the side betonline decides to take then so be it. I wonder how much they'll lose out on this come football season deposits as a result. My guess is itll be far more than 6k. It is an undeniable fact that at the very LEAST betonline posted a market that was iffy on to begin with. (Hell, they admitted as such) They have taken zero responsibility for this and to my knowledge have offered the player nothing whatsoever to make this right. It is impossible to look at this thread objectively and think highly of betonline moving forward.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Wohlford... you're a troll who isn't very smart. I've explained what I think already but I do not think you are capable of understanding it or of being reasonable so I am not up for discussing it any further with you... but just for clarity;

I do not think there is enough information in this thread to be sure of a call either way.

I think BOL genuinely believe the required meeting did not take place and the market should be void.

If I was the OP I would be distressed about this decision too.

If Matt from SBR has tried to convince BOL to pay the OP and has been unsuccessful then I don't think anything more can be done.

Un-involved people like you attacking SBR like we are some sort of scammers unrelentingly for days, for simply not getting the result you think is right pisses me off more than just about anything else people do here.

So basically penetrate you mate. And have a nice day.

/end

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Justin7 would have ruled strongly in favor of the player on this case.

This forum jumped the shark when Justin left without adequate replacement.

What you don't seem to understand is BOL intent is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that you allegedly believe they didn't intent to scam the player because the end result is that they scammed the player.

[trytrytry]

betonline has made its own decision to steal the $6000+ from this post up player. In my opinion its really that easy.

the reason for stealing it is only known to them and as you can see here hard to know for sure. There are several different opinions on the reason Betonline would not pay these winning prop winning wagers, and yes some do feel that there is not a winning wager to pay or grade as they claim the meeting and audio video transcript coverage of such meeting dont exist or maybe better said did not happen in the meeting format the prop writer anticipated. is that reason to not grade these winning $6000 wagers is the key question.

Still very possible with dialogue and appropriate pressure and some behind the scene discussions to get the player paid.

if not you would very much hope forums including this great one would at least give a half unit rating down adjustment if not more.

Many other SBR sponsor books and other non sponsor nice books to consider posting up at pre football season, ranked here.

[jsgreen1]

There has been multiple instances of BOL being happy to bend rules to the players advantage.

Choosing to pay out 130k to a player with multiple accounts appears to carry no weight for the some here. They insist that BOL would definitely cheat a player over $6000 and these geniuses KNOW it for sure and certain!!!

Like they KNOW these bets should be graded winners for sure. Bunch of flippin idiot know nothings.

Just ignore them Alfa. Let them talk to themselves and keep attacking SBR/BOL in here alone. No one that matters cares.

The OP gets it. He may not be happy but gets it. And that's all that really matters.

I mean for sure, I've said all along that there are many instances BOL does the right thing and to the players advantage.. However, the only thing I get about this case is they stole winnings with no valid reason and no efforts of SBR to help me out.. I won $6,000.00 fairly and that's the bottom line. .

[jsgreen1]

I mean for sure, I've said all along that there are many instances BOL does the right thing and to the players advantage.. However, the only thing I get about this case is they stole winnings with no valid reason and no efforts of SBR to help me out.. I won $6,000.00 fairly and that's the bottom line. .

So, yeah.. With respect, Optional, you're correct about me not being happy about it.. but incorrect about 'getting it'.. I believe as the vast majority of others in here, that I should be paid..

Also must add, disappointed with SBR's effort..

[Optional]

So I guess myself and the countless others in this thread who have provided completely fair and unresponded to arguments for why OP should be paid "don't matter" huh?

Well yeah... if you're only argument is you don't agree and think the video is enough for the bets to be graded. That's a fair opinion to hold but not actually an argument. I haven't seen anyone say anything else tangible as an argument apart from that.

And I am not even saying you are wrong. Just that I think it's questionable and do not think you, me, or anyone else in this thread claiming they KNOW for sure has enough evidence to be demanding anything.

So, yeah.. With respect, Optional, you're correct about me not being happy about it.. but incorrect about 'getting it'.. I believe as the vast majority of others in here, that I should be paid..

Also must add, disappointed with SBR's effort..

I totally understand. I think you had a reasonable claim and was worth arguing for. I would have advocated for you to be paid just due to the ambiguity. What I meant by 'gets it' is that you appear to understand what went on and aren't screaming about stealing and obviously wanting to rort players over 6k like an unreasonable person.

It's not really my place to apologize but I am sorry if you feel like SBR didnt try hard enough. Matt is good but sometimes a book simply believes they are right and wont budge. I am sure he did do what he could. And if he felt like there was compelling evidence to push the issue harder, he would have. In my experience dealing with complaint cases I can see exactly why he ended up in the position he has though.

[trytrytry]

good post optional.

under what circumstance would SBR seeing a fuzzy very fuzzy situation choose to do a one partial rating decrease.

are they an A- now?

go to B+ and make a comment on what they did to their player base, B+ still super good, not catastrophic perhaps but a real reason to downgrade that small step.

if they go the next 12 months with no PROP screw ups or free rolling they can get it back. but a little something here?

[Wohlford]

Well yeah... if you're only argument is you don't agree and think the video is enough for the bets to be graded. That's a fair opinion to hold but not actually an argument. I haven't seen anyone say anything else tangible as an argument apart from that.
[...]

With respect, this is absolute nonsense. What other "argument" could possibly be relevant other than to say that the media coverage satisfies all of the conditions spelled out in the wording of the Proposition, and therefore the Player should be paid? That is the ONLY argument, and the player wins it.

Now SBR should recognize that the plain wording of the Proposition was satisfied and say publicly that BOL is acting unjustly by voiding a winning wager.

For some reason, SBR is not willing to go that far. Why???

[Optional]

good post optional.

under what circumstance would SBR seeing a fuzzy very fuzzy situation choose to do a one partial rating decrease.

are they an A- now?

go to B+ and make a comment on what they did to their player base, B+ still super good, not catastrophic perhaps but a real reason to downgrade that small step.

if they go the next 12 months with no PROP screw ups or free rolling they can get it back. but a little something here?

I am genuinely not involved at all with ratings. But unless the admin guys think like you that it is stealing then I doubt this sort of dispute would have much effect on the rating. A pattern of questionable decisions would have an effect but not just one I think.

I am probably biased toward BOL as I use them myself, like them, and more importantly I've seen them act fairly on a bunch of occasions over the last year or two. I know it doesn't matter to the OP how well they treat anyone else, and I really can empathize with how he would feel today, but I would also feel like an unreasonable ass if I refused to accept BOL ever disagreeing with SBR as well.

I don't know what more to say really. And what I say isn't like a "ruling" or decision anyway... it's just my opinion too. I only jumped back into the thread as I was getting sick of Wohlford attacking SBR mostly.

[rangerz2478]

Well yeah... if you're only argument is you don't agree and think the video is enough for the bets to be graded. That's a fair opinion to hold but not actually an argument. I haven't seen anyone say anything else tangible as an argument apart from that.

And I am not even saying you are wrong. Just that I think it's questionable and do not think you, me, or anyone else in this thread claiming they KNOW for sure has enough evidence to be demanding anything.




I totally understand. I think you had a reasonable claim and was worth arguing for. I would have advocated for you to be paid just due to the ambiguity. What I meant by 'gets it' is that you appear to understand what went on and aren't screaming about stealing and obviously wanting to rort players over 6k like an unreasonable person.

It's not really my place to apologize but I am sorry if you feel like SBR didnt try hard enough. Matt is good but sometimes a book simply believes they are right and wont budge. I am sure he did do what he could. And if he felt like there was compelling evidence to push the issue harder, he would have. In my experience dealing with complaint cases I can see exactly why he ended up in the position he has though.

So if we put aside the one sided action betonline received on this prop (post 20) and the clear incentive to cancel they had which benefited only them, grading the wager according to their exact rules doesn't qualify as a good enough argument? Its been stated in this thread 500 times by myself and others that it has to be betonline's responsibility to clearly state what qualifies as action. The rules state "meeting" and "live feed." They had a "meeting" on a "live feed." NOWHERE in the rules did it define meeting. Two people sitting down and shaking hands is a cut and dry meeting. Side note: was betonline stupid enough to think the entire interraction between trump and putin would be broadcasted live? Get outta here.