Betonline cancels political wagers that go against them

[jsgreen1]

I'm confused, what exactly was the bet? Him taking a snap? Did they grade the bet as a loss?

The bet was placed last February, multiple players were posted with a list of teams for each.. which team will the player play for in the 2017 season.. They're keeping it pending to see if he takes a snap..

Bottom line they continue to try to weasel out of paying any winning wager if there is any possibility of the crooks getting away with it..

[Alfa1234]

The bet was placed last February, multiple players were posted with a list of teams for each.. which team will the player play for in the 2017 season.. They're keeping it pending to see if he takes a snap..

Bottom line they continue to try to weasel out of paying any winning wager if there is any possibility of the crooks getting away with it..

From their rules:

Proposition Rules (Player or Team)

• [*=left]All players must play in the game for wagers to have action (Including Matchups).
  [*=left]For season long props, players must be active (as per the official NFL/NCAAF Game Book) in the first game of the season for wager to have action.
  [*=left]For Props involving statistical totals for a single game, the game must go 55 minutes for wagers to have action, regardless whether the total has been reached or not.
  [*=left]Quarterback props are based on gross passing yards gained.
  [*=left]Field Refers to any player not listed in a prop.
  [*=left]Overtime Does Not Count on the Following Props:
  • [*=left]Double result – Graded as per the results at half-time and end of regulation time.
    [*=left]Highest scoring half – Push rule applies.
    [*=left]Team with Highest Scoring Quarter - Push rule apply.
    [*=left]Highest Scoring Quarter – Dead heat rule applies.
  
  
  [*=left]Overtime Does Count on the Following Props:
  • [*=left]Make Field Goal - Winning bets must predict whether the player attempting a field goal is successful or not. This bet is only valid on a field goal attempt where the ball is actually kicked. Fake field goals, bad snaps, penalties or other plays that do not result in an attempted field goal will be deemed void (No Action).
    [*=left]Score 3 Unanswered Times - Forecast whether either team will score 3 consecutive times during the game. A Score excludes any PAT's (point after touchdown or 2 point conversions).
    [*=left]Odd or Even Totals – A score of zero or number ending in zero by a team will count as even.
    [*=left]Score 1st Wins – Will the team that scores first in the game also win the game?
    [*=left]Winning Margin - Predict the scoring band within which the result falls.
    [*=left]First Scoring Play - predict whether the first/next scoring play is a touchdown, field goal or safety. PATs (Point After Touchdown) do not count.
    [*=left]To Score Last – PATs (Point After Touchdown) do not count.
    [*=left]Longest/Shortest Field Goal – Graded as per longest/shortest made unless specified otherwise.
    [*=left]Kickoff/Interception/Fumble returned for a Touchdown – Must be returned on the same play to win.
  
  
  [*=left]For player head to head matchup up prop bets, or single player statistic’s based prop bets, all the quoted players must start or play in at least one play in the game for bets to have action.

This seems pretty clear to me.

[Optional]

"NFL Regular Season - Jimmy Garoppolo - 1st Regular Season Game of 2017 - New England Patriots +500 "

Any thoughts on this Optional or anyone else? I will make a new thread and file a new complaint obviously, but would love thoughts.. Betonline says they will pay when he takes a snap.

Is this a joke or simply a criminal organization? I lean toward criminal and tend to believe SBR is as well.

Not sure why I am even answering this stupid nonsense.


Why do YOU think they have not graded it yet? Could it be that he hasn't played in reg season yet? Like they told you.

Seems pretty bloody obvious to me... you people in here lose me more with every stupid attack you try to make up.


I notice no one made comment on jbayko's screenshot as suddenly it does not support the narrative that BOL did something wrong.

Get back in your boxes the lot of you.

And don't ask me for any more opinions... I don't care about this thread or the unreasonableness of people attacking in it. This is nothing to do with me. I think you are all totally unreasonable. Thats all I think or will say further. Email Matt back if you actually REALLY THINK you have any sort of real problem here.


EDIT: And BTW.... go and get good and rooted calling SBR a criminal organization based on YOU NOT READING THE RULES and then doubling down by calling the book and SBR criminal even after they explained the grading terms of the bet!!!

You made a mistake. Will you own that or back track at all? Dumb question eh

[Alfa1234]

Basically, he didn't play in the first game so technically they would be well within their rights to grade this as a void...you should be very happy they are still waiting for the player to play in a game so you have a chance at a win, if that's what they told you.

Maybe you should start by reading sports rules before accusing them and SBR of being a criminal organisation.

[jsgreen1]

It was not any of these was it?

The bet was which team will the player be on for the 2017 season.

[Optional]

It was not any of these was it?

The bet was which team will the player be on for the 2017 season.

Knew there would be zero back peddle. Scumbags with no honor calling other people crims ROFLMAO.


You know why you assume every move BOL makes is to cheat you? Because you are the sort of person who would cheat others at any opportunity so you make the error of imaging everyone thinks like you do.

[Alfa1234]

It was not any of these was it?

The bet was which team will the player be on for the 2017 season.

My God...it was a season prop bet on a player. Stop being an idiot or trying to justify you being wrong here.

[jsgreen1]

Optional, little sensitive eh buddy?
So damn mean..


A season prop bet on a player is total rushing yards on the season or what not, not which team will the guy be on for the season..
But alrighty then my bad guys, my fault .. I'm wrong my apologies

[jbayko]

I notice no one made comment on jbayko's screenshot as suddenly it does not support the narrative that BOL did something wrong.

What??? It doesn't? I specifically made that post because it shows they did something wrong. Care to explain?

[trytrytry]

I took a look at the screen shot , ill look at it again. To me the grading of other BOL props that day are not relevant to the props that they did not grade as winners per their rules. they Wrote very clear criteria rules and those would be easy to grade. They chose not to grade those winners.

but didn't the screen shot show they cancelled PROP wagers as discussed already here. but we already knew they did that so why would anyone comment?

and in one case they chose to grade a prop handshake over under time which was done on tape (same tape) during the same meeting/interaction they claim did not happen; which is why they could not grade these props?


As for the guy ranting on a player playing for New England hes nutz to complain and not understand the rules. very poor of him. very poor use of SBr forums and trash talking a sponsor for that. Although I see he apologized. On that NFL prop rules again betonline again created easy to read and understand rules for grading purposes. Just another case they really do know how to write a prop wager and give the criteria needed for grading wins and losses.

[Optional]

Optional, little sensitive eh buddy?
So damn mean..


A season prop bet on a player is total rushing yards on the season or what not, not which team will the guy be on for the season..
But alrighty then my bad guys, my fault .. I'm wrong my apologies

"Is this a joke or simply a criminal organization? I lean toward criminal and tend to believe SBR is as well."

Yeah I can get a little sensitive when people throw out attacks like that.

Was it a bit awful having someone you unfairly attacked come back at you in a similar way?

And still no back peddle? You have zero honor and no credibility left now.

[jsgreen1]

Ok, thanks

[rangerz2478]

@rangerz2478 @4nic8ing @trytrytry

Sorry it took so long. I haven't visited since my last post. Here are all of the wagers I placed. Notice that the "won't say" wagers were all cancelled while the handshake was counted as a loss.

Wow.

So they cancelled all bets that went against them and ACTIONED the wagers that benefit them.

If this isn't proof that betonline acted improperly, I don't know what is.

[rangerz2478]

Not sure why I am even answering this stupid nonsense.


Why do YOU think they have not graded it yet? Could it be that he hasn't played in reg season yet? Like they told you.

Seems pretty bloody obvious to me... you people in here lose me more with every stupid attack you try to make up.


I notice no one made comment on jbayko's screenshot as suddenly it does not support the narrative that BOL did something wrong.

Get back in your boxes the lot of you.

And don't ask me for any more opinions... I don't care about this thread or the unreasonableness of people attacking in it. This is nothing to do with me. I think you are all totally unreasonable. Thats all I think or will say further. Email Matt back if you actually REALLY THINK you have any sort of real problem here.


EDIT: And BTW.... go and get good and rooted calling SBR a criminal organization based on YOU NOT READING THE RULES and then doubling down by calling the book and SBR criminal even after they explained the grading terms of the bet!!!

You made a mistake. Will you own that or back track at all? Dumb question eh

What?!?!?

It EXACTLY proves the narrative that betonline did something wrong. Confused on your comment here?

[rangerz2478]

What??? It doesn't? I specifically made that post because it shows they did something wrong. Care to explain?

I think Optional was confused on the point we were trying to make. I would hope.

[rangerz2478]

From their rules:

Proposition Rules (Player or Team)

• [*=left]All players must play in the game for wagers to have action (Including Matchups).
  [*=left]For season long props, players must be active (as per the official NFL/NCAAF Game Book) in the first game of the season for wager to have action.
  [*=left]For Props involving statistical totals for a single game, the game must go 55 minutes for wagers to have action, regardless whether the total has been reached or not.
  [*=left]Quarterback props are based on gross passing yards gained.
  [*=left]Field Refers to any player not listed in a prop.
  [*=left]Overtime Does Not Count on the Following Props:
  • [*=left]Double result – Graded as per the results at half-time and end of regulation time.
    [*=left]Highest scoring half – Push rule applies.
    [*=left]Team with Highest Scoring Quarter - Push rule apply.
    [*=left]Highest Scoring Quarter – Dead heat rule applies.
  
  
  [*=left]Overtime Does Count on the Following Props:
  • [*=left]Make Field Goal - Winning bets must predict whether the player attempting a field goal is successful or not. This bet is only valid on a field goal attempt where the ball is actually kicked. Fake field goals, bad snaps, penalties or other plays that do not result in an attempted field goal will be deemed void (No Action).
    [*=left]Score 3 Unanswered Times - Forecast whether either team will score 3 consecutive times during the game. A Score excludes any PAT's (point after touchdown or 2 point conversions).
    [*=left]Odd or Even Totals – A score of zero or number ending in zero by a team will count as even.
    [*=left]Score 1st Wins – Will the team that scores first in the game also win the game?
    [*=left]Winning Margin - Predict the scoring band within which the result falls.
    [*=left]First Scoring Play - predict whether the first/next scoring play is a touchdown, field goal or safety. PATs (Point After Touchdown) do not count.
    [*=left]To Score Last – PATs (Point After Touchdown) do not count.
    [*=left]Longest/Shortest Field Goal – Graded as per longest/shortest made unless specified otherwise.
    [*=left]Kickoff/Interception/Fumble returned for a Touchdown – Must be returned on the same play to win.
  
  
  [*=left]For player head to head matchup up prop bets, or single player statistic’s based prop bets, all the quoted players must start or play in at least one play in the game for bets to have action.

This seems pretty clear to me.

Dude, the second rule here says the player must be ACTIVE for season long props, and he was. The rest of the rules don't apply to this kind of wager. Of course on a game bet, a player must play for action, no one is debating that. But this is something entirely different.

I think it's debatable whether the Garoppolo prop should have action. The wager does not say which team will he play his first game for? It says 1st regular season game of 2017. And whether he plays or not, his first game was with the Patriots. If there was a game prop for him, he obviously needs to take a snap.

Op was clearly frustrated with his comment about BOL/SBR, but it doesn't change the fact there is now PROOF they acted improperly on the original point of the thread. I would love to hear the response from betonline/sbr on the screenshot jbayko posted. How in the world can they decide to grade one wager but not the rest?

[Alfa1234]

Dude, the second rule here says the player must be ACTIVE for season long props, and he was. The rest of the rules don't apply to this kind of wager. Of course on a game bet, a player must play for action, no one is debating that. But this is something entirely different.

I think it's debatable whether the Garoppolo prop should have action. The wager does not say which team will he play his first game for? It says 1st regular season game of 2017. And whether he plays or not, his first game was with the Patriots. If there was a game prop for him, he obviously needs to take a snap.

Op was clearly frustrated with his comment about BOL/SBR, but it doesn't change the fact there is now PROOF they acted improperly on the original point of the thread. I would love to hear the response from betonline/sbr on the screenshot jbayko posted. How in the world can they decide to grade one wager but not the rest?

I disagree, it says "player must be active IN the first game...". He did not play...so he was not active.

[rangerz2478]

I disagree, it says "player must be active IN the first game...". He did not play...so he was not active.

Simply not true. A player can be "active" and not play. A player is active if he dresses and is available for the game. A player is inactive if he did not dress.

Regardless, I'm not here to debate this one. What jbayko posted is the issue, and is something that should be terrifying for any betonline player.

[Alfa1234]

Simply not true. A player can be "active" and not play. A player is active if he dresses and is available for the game. A player is inactive if he did not dress.

Regardless, I'm not here to debate this one. What jbayko posted is the issue, and is something that should be terrifying for any betonline player.

Still disagree. There are plenty of examples where I've placed bets on players to score a goal or whatever and they were on the bench and did not play in the game. Not in 1 of those instances have they been considered "active in the game" by the bookie. Being dressed and available is not the same as being active in the game.

[rangerz2478]

Still disagree. There are plenty of examples where I've placed bets on players to score a goal or whatever and they were on the bench and did not play in the game. Not in 1 of those instances have they been considered "active in the game" by the bookie. Being dressed and available is not the same as being active in the game.

I said twice earlier that a bet on a game is obvious, there would be no action unless the player plays. But this was not on a game, its what team the player will be on. You are giving examples that don't apply to this kind of wager and don't seem to understand the difference. A "season long prop" as quoted by betonline themselves is not the same as a bet on a player to score a goal in a game. Apples and oranges.

[Alfa1234]

I said twice earlier that a bet on a game is obvious, there would be no action unless the player plays. But this was not on a game, its what team the player will be on. You are giving examples that don't apply to this kind of wager and don't seem to understand the difference. A "season long prop" as quoted by betonline themselves is not the same as a bet on a player to score a goal in a game. Apples and oranges.

Not true. It's a prop bet and the rules clearly state the player needs to be active IN the game. It's not apples and oranges. You cannot argue the meaning of "being active in a game" first and then say it doesn't apply to this wager while the rules clearly state that it does. The rules state the bet will be graded if the player is active in the first game (player prop season rule). Player was not active in the game (by any definition, being dressed and benched is simply NOT being active) so bet should not have been graded yet.

Betonline does not make any distinction and it's clearly stated in the rules.

Mind you I'm not saying I kinda don't disagree about it being a bad rule...as it's somewhat implied in the wager that it's a bet on what team the player signs for and IMHO it should be a win. If he gets injured or something and doesn't play in any game this season that still doesn't mean the bet should lose because after all, he did pick the team that player signed for correctly...but rules are rules and they are clearly stated here.

If I had a bet on Neymar being at PSG this season and I had to wait for him to play on a game for the bet to be graded (say he breaks a leg pre-season and doesn't play...?) I'd be pretty pissed off too if it wasn't graded as a win...but again, the rules are clear.

[rangerz2478]

Not true. It's a prop bet and the rules clearly state the player needs to be active IN the game. It's not apples and oranges. You cannot argue the meaning of "being active in a game" first and then say it doesn't apply to this wager while the rules clearly state that it does. The rules state the bet will be graded if the player is active in the first game (player prop season rule). Player was not active in the game (by any definition, being dressed and benched is simply NOT being active) so bet should not have been graded yet.

Betonline does not make any distinction and it's clearly stated in the rules.

Mind you I'm not saying I kinda don't disagree about it being a bad rule...as it's somewhat implied in the wager that it's a bet on what team the player signs for and IMHO it should be a win. If he gets injured or something and doesn't play in any game this season that still doesn't mean the bet should lose because after all, he did pick the team that player signed for correctly...but rules are rules and they are clearly stated here.

If I had a bet on Neymar being at PSG this season and I had to wait for him to play on a game for the bet to be graded (say he breaks a leg pre-season and doesn't play...?) I'd be pretty pissed off too if it wasn't graded as a win...but again, the rules are clear.

Look at the last rule you posted above. It says:

• [*=left]For player head to head matchup up prop bets, or single player statistic’s based prop bets, all the quoted players must start or play in at least one play in the game for bets to have action.

This is completely different from a player being "active" they are two separate rules. But lets just agree to disagree on this one, I have no interest further debating the Garopolo prop, just the political ones.

[Alfa1234]

I agree the wording is different. But that still doesn't mean being "active" isn't the same as having at least a play or simply play in a game. It also would come down to whether or not Betonline considers this wager a "player statistic prop bet" or a "season long player prop bet".

Either way, it's their responsibility to avoid any ambiguity in the interpretation of the sports rules. A slight change or clarification may be in order here.

Same goes for the soccer rule where "own goals don't count toward goals scored for the opposing team" rule. Which they initially quoted to me as being in place...and afterwards corrected as being an error and not being in place. I sent a mail to them to clarify this rule on the sports rule page and also sent an SBR complaint about it...but nothing has been done and it's been several weeks now.

[4nic8ing]

I notice no one made comment on jbayko's screenshot as suddenly it does not support the narrative that BOL did something wrong.

Get back in your boxes the lot of you.

LOL.....not everyone here is a Moderator so just because we don't post within 5 hours of a screenshot it doesn't mean we have been "outed".

I don't really see how that screenshot bolsters your stance with their grading of the prop. Every prop was a strict Yes/No or Over/Under with regards to the meeting. Seems strange that where they had the most liability those bets were canceled because it didn't classify as a meeting. I guess it was just a "handshake" meeting.

[jbayko]

Still really upset with this BOL decision. I tried reasoning with them, asking why the Putin handshake wager counted when it was in the exact same meeting they said didn't count.

But it was like talking to a wall. I just gave up. Didn't file complaint here because I like using BOL for a lot of other things and any risk of retribution - no matter how small - wasn't worth it to me. Besides, I haven't seen a formal complaint at one of the major books be settled in the bettor's favor in quite a while. So it seemed like high risk, low reward.

[jsgreen1]

Dude, the second rule here says the player must be ACTIVE for season long props, and he was. The rest of the rules don't apply to this kind of wager. Of course on a game bet, a player must play for action, no one is debating that. But this is something entirely different.

I think it's debatable whether the Garoppolo prop should have action. The wager does not say which team will he play his first game for? It says 1st regular season game of 2017. And whether he plays or not, his first game was with the Patriots. If there was a game prop for him, he obviously needs to take a snap.

Op was clearly frustrated with his comment about BOL/SBR, but it doesn't change the fact there is now PROOF they acted improperly on the original point of the thread. I would love to hear the response from betonline/sbr on the screenshot jbayko posted. How in the world can they decide to grade one wager but not the rest?

Man, Optional proved wrong and radio silence.. same thing he accused people in here of doing, fascinating..

[jsgreen1]

Still really upset with this BOL decision. I tried reasoning with them, asking why the Putin handshake wager counted when it was in the exact same meeting they said didn't count.

But it was like talking to a wall. I just gave up. Didn't file complaint here because I like using BOL for a lot of other things and any risk of retribution - no matter how small - wasn't worth it to me. Besides, I haven't seen a formal complaint at one of the major books be settled in the bettor's favor in quite a while. So it seemed like high risk, low reward.

Agreed, no win situation with them.

[jsgreen1]

Simply not true. A player can be "active" and not play. A player is active if he dresses and is available for the game. A player is inactive if he did not dress.

Regardless, I'm not here to debate this one. What jbayko posted is the issue, and is something that should be terrifying for any betonline player.

Thank you!

[Alfa1234]

You are very good at pointing out things that agree with you and ignoring everything else. Kudos.

[evo34]

Moral of this sad story: never ever play props that rely on interpretation. I learned this 20 years ago.

[rangerz2478]

Still really upset with this BOL decision. I tried reasoning with them, asking why the Putin handshake wager counted when it was in the exact same meeting they said didn't count.

But it was like talking to a wall. I just gave up. Didn't file complaint here because I like using BOL for a lot of other things and any risk of retribution - no matter how small - wasn't worth it to me. Besides, I haven't seen a formal complaint at one of the major books be settled in the bettor's favor in quite a while. So it seemed like high risk, low reward.

I have thought since the start of the thread they should have paid with no other information provided than what OP posted in post 1.

Then OP posted the wagers which showed the tremendous one sided action they had on these props which bolstered the case of BOL wrongdoing.

Then we had the rules clarified because there was some confusion for some reason and the rules posted by betonline themselves bolstered the case the wagers should have action.

Then you posted the fact they DID grade a wager they profited on and still cancelled the rest of the market they stood to lose on. How its humanly possible for betonline to grade the handshake of the "meeting" but then throw their hands up in the air and say they have a right to cancel the rest of the wagers on the EXACT SAME MEETING is beyond me.

I don't know how anyone can view this thread objectively and reach any conclusion other than that betonline should be paying those who stood to make money on these props.

[Optional]

Man, Optional proved wrong and radio silence.. same thing he accused people in here of doing, fascinating..

But I . Starting to feel like . We aren't going to agree when the same thing I think shows one thing, you think shows the opposite. But it's all good.

[rangerz2478]

But I . Starting to feel like . We aren't going to agree when the same thing I think shows one thing, you think shows the opposite. But it's all good.

What is your opinion on betonline grading the handshake wagers and cancelling the others on the same exact meeting?

[Optional]

What is your opinion on betonline grading the handshake wagers and cancelling the others on the same exact meeting?

That it is a different bet and not dependent on an official bilateral meeting being broadcast. So has no bearing on the issue.

When assessing bet gradings you cant just look at one side of the bet. For the handshake, it would not be fair to people who bet Under on the handshake to void that market which is not dependent on an official meeting being televised. Just on them greeting each other preceding that meeting.

I get you dont see it that way but am just not up for further argument.

I started out trying to explain why BOL might have graded this the way they did. I didn't really want to pushed into defending their position to the death. You know what I think. No need for me to keep pushing it in the thread.

[rangerz2478]

Posted this earlier in the thread but I feel like it needs to be repeated, especially with the latest facts we have in this case....


Scene: Same sit down press conference as posted video.


Trump: "We are having very productive meetings, with NATO being a focal point."

Putin: "It is nice to see America with such a great leader. We hope to improve relations with America. Great job Donald."


So let me get this straight, they actioned the handshake wagers on the meeting based on the screenshot posted by jbayko. And it's entirely possible that something to what I posted above COULD'VE happened, with the specific phrases being mentioned, even if only in a short press briefing.

I can't imagine there is a single person in here who believes the wagers would've been cancelled under that scenario. And that is just flat out wrong.