Betonline cancels political wagers that go against them

[rangerz2478]

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.

I get the point you are trying to make but you have to agree it's an incredibly dangerous precedent for a sportsbook to pick and choose which wagers they will action/cancel based on their own ambiguity when writing the rules. I believe every single wager including the handshake bet mentioned the "official bilateral meeting." It has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread by myself and others but unless they clarified in the rules what constitutes a meeting, then two people sitting down, shaking hands (a graded wager) and proceeding to discuss the relationship is a meeting. And I know deep down you agree with me that had the above phrases been said in that meeting took place, all would've been actioned.

Dangerous.

[Optional]

I get the point you are trying to make but you have to agree it's an incredibly dangerous precedent for a sportsbook to pick and choose which wagers they will action/cancel based on their own ambiguity when writing the rules. I believe every single wager including the handshake bet mentioned the "official bilateral meeting."

Wrong, just wrong.

There would not be multiple people in here questioning it so much if it was clear either way. So I am not saying I am just right and you are just wrong. It's questionable for sure.

But they have been so good and fair minded in recent years, that personally I am prepared to accept that they are acting in good faith. I dont know how clouded by personal bias that might be but it's genuinely how I feel. I am not just trying to be protective of a sponsor but to be fair to all sides of the argument if possible.

[Wohlford]

@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.

Interesting. So, for BOL's purposes, it was enough of a "meeting" to start the stopwatch on the handshake, but not enough of a "meeting" to start grading the actual words uttered.

This is bullshit. BOL is stealing and Optional is covering for them.

[rangerz2478]

There would not be multiple people in here questioning it so much if it was clear either way. So I am not saying I am just right and you are just wrong. It's questionable for sure.

But they have been so good and fair minded in recent years, that personally I am prepared to accept that they are acting in good faith. I dont know how clouded by personal bias that might be but it's genuinely how I feel. I am not just trying to be protective of a sponsor but to be fair to all sides of the argument if possible.

I believe OP himself even said in the beginning of this thread that betonline has acted fairly in many past cases.

I personally have seen them do their best to try to rectify situations where they may have made a mistake and did what they could to make the situation right. But that shouldn't give them a pass in a situation where they clearly acted wrong. I am just amazed they have done nothing whatsoever to try and make this right, with all the facts pointing in one direction.

[jbayko]

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.

Exactly! They obviously free rolled these wagers. The "handshake" decision proves it.

[jbayko]

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

I don't believe this is a good generalization. I actually make pretty good money on these stupid types of props. Sure, every once in a great while I get burned, but 99% of the time, the books grade them in a fair manner.

The trick with these types of props is to try to foresee what kinds of "gotchas" might come up given the detailed stipulations (or lack thereof) that the book places on each bet, and factor that in to determine if the odds are still worth it. They often are.

[jbayko]

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.

Sorry, but this is wrong. I just found these screen shots. They used the exact same wording in the stipulations behind each of these wagers. Either all of them should have had action or none of them should have had action. Either the meeting counts or it doesn't.

The evidence is clear. They chose to cancel the "won't say" wagers because they did a terrible job of handicapping the initial odds, and that led to highly uneven money, and they actioned wagers that graded in their favor.





Seriously, if you're still defending BOL's decision at this point, then I feel you're stubbornly dug into a position for whatever reason. I won't necessarily accuse you of taking a sponsor's side. Maybe it's natural human cognitive biases at work. For example, no one likes to have their initial instincts proven wrong. Their decision is simply indefensible IMO.

If you are still convinced that BOL is in the right, then I'd like to ask you the same question I asked BOL. Do you really expect that live cameras would be allowed into the bilateral meeting where Trump and Putin talk about strategy in Syria, Ukraine, North Korea, piss tapes, and who knows what else? Because that's what one has to believe in order to give BOL a pass here. You'd have to believe that they expected a meeting that has literally never been televised in any previous years would suddenly be televised this year, exposing normally private leader-to-leader conversation and negotiation to the entire world for some strange reason. And that what we saw on the live feed doesn't count as an "official" meeting. (And even this ignores the "handshake" wager inconsistency)

[evo34]

If you are still convinced that BOL is in the right, then I'd like to ask you the same question I asked BOL. Do you really expect that live cameras would be allowed into the bilateral meeting where Trump and Putin talk about strategy in Syria, Ukraine, piss tapes, and who knows what else? Because that's what one has to believe in order to give BOL a pass here. You'd have to believe that they expected a meeting that has literally never been televised in any previous years would suddenly be televised this year, exposing normally secret leader-to-leader conversation and negotiation to the entire world for some strange reason. And that what we saw on the live feed doesn't count as an "official" meeting. (And even this ignores the "handshake" wager inconsistency)

Exactly. It's not the first or the last time a book has stolen money. But the hand-waving by Optional in this thread is awkward, at best.

[rangerz2478]

Sorry, but this is wrong. I just found these screen shots. They used the exact same wording in the stipulations behind each of these wagers. Either all of them should have had action or none of them should have had action. Either the meeting counts or it doesn't.

The evidence is clear. They chose to cancel the "won't say" wagers because they did a terrible job of handicapping the initial odds, and that led to highly uneven money, and they actioned wagers that graded in their favor.





Seriously, if you're still defending BOL's decision at this point, then I feel you're stubbornly dug into a position for whatever reason. I won't necessarily accuse you of taking a sponsor's side. Maybe it's natural human cognitive biases at work. For example, no one likes to have their initial instincts proven wrong. Their decision is simply indefensible IMO.

If you are still convinced that BOL is in the right, then I'd like to ask you the same question I asked BOL. Do you really expect that live cameras would be allowed into the bilateral meeting where Trump and Putin talk about strategy in Syria, Ukraine, North Korea, piss tapes, and who knows what else? Because that's what one has to believe in order to give BOL a pass here. You'd have to believe that they expected a meeting that has literally never been televised in any previous years would suddenly be televised this year, exposing normally private leader-to-leader conversation and negotiation to the entire world for some strange reason. And that what we saw on the live feed doesn't count as an "official" meeting. (And even this ignores the "handshake" wager inconsistency)

Wow.

[rangerz2478]

At this point, it's literally impossible to make a legit defense of betonline's actions outside of saying "they've treated people well in the past." (which is something I wouldn't argue against and would even agree with.)

In this case, they flat out stole.

[Wohlford]

This seals it, again.

There is no wiggle room.

BOL stole and Optional is condoning it.

[jbayko]

So is SBR going to do anything about this?

The evidence is incontrovertible. If they won't adjust the rating, I'm fine with that. BOL is a great book in most aspects. However, I wouldn't mind them making contact and at least trying to negotiate on behalf of the players who were wronged here (at least the 2 we know of). The "won't say" wagers should be honored. At the very least, the Putin handshake losses should be cancelled.

[rangerz2478]

So is SBR going to do anything about this?

The evidence is incontrovertible. If they won't adjust the rating, I'm fine with that. BOL is a great book in most aspects. However, I wouldn't mind them making contact and at least trying to negotiate on behalf of the players who were wronged here (at least the 2 we know of). The "won't say" wagers should be honored. At the very least, the Putin handshake losses should be cancelled.

Cancelling the putin handshake wagers as a way of ending this doesn't make much sense from the players standpoint, only to betonline's benefit. I'm sure that was pennies in comparison to the losses on phrases. I wouldn't think the action one that one was nearly as one sided, it just offers more proof they are in the wrong.

[jbayko]

Cancelling the putin handshake wagers as a way of ending this doesn't make much sense from the players standpoint, only to betonline's benefit. I'm sure that was pennies in comparison to the losses on phrases. I wouldn't think the action one that one was nearly as one sided, it just offers more proof they are in the wrong.

Yeah, you're right. I agree that it's not the best resolution. The just resolution is for BOL to grade all these markets fairly, and that's what should be done here.

The suggestion that they cancel the handshake wager is a selfish one, since it would benefit me. As an individual, it would be a fair compromise because I should have won a lot of money overall instead of coming out negative with an 0-1 record. It would not benefit others who were wronged (but it would at least be consistent with their other actions).

[mrpapageorgio]

IMO, If the handshake and lauguage bets used the exact same parameters (And from post #182, the first sentence giving the general parameter is identical to both wagers along with the requirement that it be heard on live feed), then you either cancel all of the bets from the onset or none of them. Because they chose to grade the handshake wager, they should have graded the other wagers as well and should be paying the OP.

[Optional]

IMO, If the handshake and lauguage bets used the exact same parameters (And from post #182, the first sentence giving the general parameter is identical to both wagers along with the requirement that it be heard on live feed), then you either cancel all of the bets from the onset or none of them. Because they chose to grade the handshake wager, they should have graded the other wagers as well and should be paying the OP.

The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot.

[4nic8ing]

The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot.

Awesome!! Do we have the rules from Betonline to clearly show what constitutes a meeting now? I know at the beginning of the thread we just had the headers clearing asking if the phrases would or wouldn't be said. They didn't go into great deal on what threshold had to met for it to be classified as a "meeting".

[Optional]

Awesome!! Do we have the rules from Betonline to clearly show what constitutes a meeting now? I know at the beginning of the thread we just had the headers clearing asking if the phrases would or wouldn't be said. They didn't go into great deal on what threshold had to met for it to be classified as a "meeting".

*Sigh*

tough to help people without the power of common sense.


The handshake grading is obviously correct and 'proves' nothing but some people want to be angry and attack no matter what is right or wrong.

Anyways, mrpapagergeorgio deserved a response so that post was for him.

Everyone else can just ignore it and keep up the good fight.

[jbayko]

The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot.

I'm really surprised you're sticking with this reasoning after seeing that the language for both bets are the same. What specific language in those 2 wagers is different which would make one actionable and not the other? The only difference is "must be seen clearly" vs. "must be heard clearly", and the men were both seen clearly and heard clearly in that feed.

I'd really love for you to address my posts at some point. For example, the question I asked you in bold above is an aspect of their decision that stands out as particularly unreasonable to me:

"Do you really expect that live cameras would be allowed into the bilateral meeting where Trump and Putin talk about strategy in Syria, Ukraine, North Korea, piss tapes, and who knows what else? Because that's what one has to believe in order to give BOL a pass here. You'd have to believe that they expected a meeting that has literally never been televised in any previous years would suddenly be televised this year, exposing normally private leader-to-leader conversation and negotiation to the entire world for some strange reason."

[Optional]

^^^ OK, as you asked so nicely. You are putting forward a premise you think has some relevance which I do not see. And I'm not willing to go off on a tangent discussing it, so have ignored the question each time it's been put.

Grading of the handshakes and what any of us expect happens during official bilateral meetings, and dictionary definitions of the single word "meeting" are all just strawman arguments.


The only question is if what we see in the video posted on page 1 constitutes what was described in the prop.

Betonline say it does not. I can see why they think that.

The OP says it does. I can see why he thinks that.

It's a marginal call either way. It's not clear enough to make demands over.


Sometimes marginal decisions don't go our way. If it was me, I'd be disappointed just like the OP. But just like the OP once I could see I wasn't going to win the argument I'd suck it up and deal with it.

Some of you other posters could take a lesson in class from the OP!

EDIT: In fact if I was BOL I'd probably reach out and give him a goodwill payout now. Simply because he has remained as fair minded as he has, despite the overwhelming encouragement from the peanut gallery to not stay that way. (and because it would be good PR for them too of course)

[jbayko]

^^^ OK, as you asked so nicely. You are putting forward a premise you think has some relevance which I do not see. And I'm not willing to go off on a tangent discussing it, so have ignored the question each time it's been put.

Grading of the handshakes and what any of us expect happens during official bilateral meetings, and dictionary definitions of the single word "meeting" are all just strawman arguments.


The only question is if what we see in the video posted on page 1 constitutes what was described in the prop.

Betonline say it does not. I can see why they think that.

The OP says it does. I can see why he thinks that.

It's a marginal call either way. It's not clear enough to make demands over.


Sometimes marginal decisions don't go our way. If it was me, I'd be disappointed just like the OP. But just like the OP once I could see I wasn't going to win the argument I'd suck it up and deal with it.

Some of you other posters could take a lesson in class from the OP!

EDIT: In fact if I was BOL I'd probably reach out and give him a goodwill payout now. Simply because he has remained as fair minded as he has, despite the overwhelming encouragement from the peanut gallery to not stay that way. (and because it would be good PR for them too of course)

Not to call out OP, but you mean the one that was just replying a couple days ago? We are both understandably upset about this screw job. I sucked it up long ago, just as he did. But when you discover that there are other victims who can actually relate to what you went through, you tend to want to vent a little.

I'll never come around to your way of thinking since the language in both types of bets is identical. And I don't believe it's a straw man argument to wonder, if that wasn't the meeting they had in mind, then what the heck DID they think was going to take place? But we're obviously at an impasse.

[mrpapageorgio]

The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot.

I would disagree on the meeting being broadcast part since they used the same parameters for both bets, it's safe to interpret that the handshake would happen at the meeting.

You're also assuming that that wasn't considered the meeting when they shook hands. The problem is, they never clearly defined what the meeting was. Personally, since they decided to grade the handshake with same parameters as the words, they should consider those parameters to the words as that was the meeting.

If I were arbitrating, I would apply contra proferentem against BetOnline, which is a legal doctrine basically saying that if there is an ambiguous term in a contract, the term is given interpretation least favorable toward the drafter. BetOnline created those rules, they made it ambiguous by not clearly defining what constitutes a meeting. Therefore, any interpretation in what constitutes a meeting should be the definition least favorable toward BetOnline. In that case, what happened on camera/audio was the meeting and since those words weren't said, as Teddy (John Malcovich) in Rounders said, "pay dat man his money."

[RudyRuetigger]

I really dont agree at all with any forum having that as a final finding in support of a book (sponsor or not) towards a post up player risking funds, playing and winning a clear PROP. Why? Well this is part of it

They BOL are obvioulsy only making a PROP on something that can be seen and it viewed. they make these all the time.

For the superbowl or state of the Union speech they dont make a PROP that reads first thing the winning coach says to his wife at home. WHY? Well because they have no way of knowing so guess what THEY DONT MAKE THAT PROP. As in never... And they know not to make that Prop. Is SBR saying An A rated book does not understand bookmaking and PROP writing? Seems like a C- type book then right? Either for stiffing the player here or just not having a clue either way I suppose C- but I prefer keeping them at A and paying winning players after some honest respectful dialogue between players, forums and sportsbook. This can be fixed easily.




I Dont think they are stupid in fact I know they are not stupid they are top notch in lines and matchups and Props. I've seen them write hundreds, not hundreds, thousands, maybe Tens of thousands of Props over the years and they are clever, solid lines, unique stuff at times, keep the vig high like all props and seem to watch limits etc. They know what they are doing like they did here. In this case Did they have them up soft line based on their guess at the length of time the meeting might go on, or some special format they thought likely and set the lines off that, perhaps, but the Post up player thinking thought different and thought maybe some value here. Play away. thats the classic battle of Props .



they knew there was a meeting that would be covered, there was a meeting, and it would be covered, live video and audio was covered, Clip a pretty long one of the meeting, it was not a photo OP just smile for camera. (were some words said off camera before or after like a coach and wife after the Super bowl, of course nobody is saying they were not). But the political meeting happened and was taped and shown to the world had some discussions and banter and words (there were words) . The special words were not said, and grade it as it was.

I think this is a win for the player, many others also do. Im a bit surprised so little chatter on this here or on forums. When you think the pages of discussion and even months of discussion and opinions that Coreys Mom issue had on the forums... this one is like 3 guys kicking it around.

Well Really hope good dialog is continuing.

solid post

[rangerz2478]

Here is the problem with Optional's argument...


He is trying to interpret what they meant by meeting. He has his opinion and that's fine. We can obviously disagree on this and there is no reason to debate it. Here is the official definition of a "meeting"

• 1.
  an assembly of people, especially the members of a society or committee, for discussion or entertainment.
• 2.
  a coming together of two or more people, by chance or arrangement.
  [

The video posted meets the official definition of a meeting. If betonline required a specific interaction to be filled in order for the wager to have action, it needed to be stated in the rules. It did not. There was a meeting, there was a live feed. Based on the rules the wager should have action. Our argument is based on the rules, and Optional's is based on his opinion of what was meant by the rules. Which is the better argument?

With the facts at hand, this is as cut and dry as it gets.

[rangerz2478]

^^^ OK, as you asked so nicely. You are putting forward a premise you think has some relevance which I do not see. And I'm not willing to go off on a tangent discussing it, so have ignored the question each time it's been put.

Grading of the handshakes and what any of us expect happens during official bilateral meetings, and dictionary definitions of the single word "meeting" are all just strawman arguments.


The only question is if what we see in the video posted on page 1 constitutes what was described in the prop.

Betonline say it does not. I can see why they think that.

The OP says it does. I can see why he thinks that.

It's a marginal call either way. It's not clear enough to make demands over.


Sometimes marginal decisions don't go our way. If it was me, I'd be disappointed just like the OP. But just like the OP once I could see I wasn't going to win the argument I'd suck it up and deal with it.

Some of you other posters could take a lesson in class from the OP!

EDIT: In fact if I was BOL I'd probably reach out and give him a goodwill payout now. Simply because he has remained as fair minded as he has, despite the overwhelming encouragement from the peanut gallery to not stay that way. (and because it would be good PR for them too of course)

Missed this part before my last post but would have to agree.

When the consensus is overwhelming from countless experienced posters that they are in the wrong here, I am amazed they haven't done this yet. Just admit you screwed up, pay the players and move on. My only guess is they haven't done it yet due to the amounts at hand. OP is owed 6k (he claims) along with whatever else would be on top of that from jbayko and others but it seems like the obvious move.

[rangerz2478]

I would disagree on the meeting being broadcast part since they used the same parameters for both bets, it's safe to interpret that the handshake would happen at the meeting.

You're also assuming that that wasn't considered the meeting when they shook hands. The problem is, they never clearly defined what the meeting was. Personally, since they decided to grade the handshake with same parameters as the words, they should consider those parameters to the words as that was the meeting.

If I were arbitrating, I would apply contra proferentem against BetOnline, which is a legal doctrine basically saying that if there is an ambiguous term in a contract, the term is given interpretation least favorable toward the drafter. BetOnline created those rules, they made it ambiguous by not clearly defining what constitutes a meeting. Therefore, any interpretation in what constitutes a meeting should be the definition least favorable toward BetOnline. In that case, what happened on camera/audio was the meeting and since those words weren't said, as Teddy (John Malcovich) in Rounders said, "pay dat man his money."

Well said.

If anyone watches Big Bang Theory, this reminds me of Priya telling Sheldon that ambiguity in the roommate agreement benefits the party that didn't draft it.

[ichiro4thehall]

This thread really saddens me.

It is 100% crystal clear BOL cheated OP.

OP I have a hunch from the way this thread is moving you might get a goodwill payment or else they might refund the loss on the handshake length. SBR would then make sure in big bold type that this thread is marked problem resolved. Obv that is your call to accept, but I know I always check SBR for dispute threads on any book before signing up and hopefully this thread stops at least one person opening an account and risking therir money with a D-list book.

Optional, I respect your opinions a lot and we all make mistakes but this is a big error of judgement on your part.

[Brian891]

"The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot."

Handshake prop does involve a visual feed from same exact worded event by bol as the spoken words props.
I can see both sides of this but for some reason i cannot grasp why one wager would be graded and not the other. The handshake prop clearly states it will be at the meeting. Does the verbiage "how long will they shake hands before letting go in greeting each other?" somehow change the fact that this handshake was taking place at the meeting? Because the verbiage used before that line is identical. doesnt it imply that this handshake had to take place at the bilateral meeting? Since the footage was used to grade that doesnt it seem same said footage should also be used to grade the other wagers involving statements? Just curious as it seems BOL was subjective and unfairly selective to use it for one and not the other. Either grade all or void all. Any well stated opinions that reject this premise are welcome. all of this has probably been beaten to death already so sorry for any rehash. Id be frustrated if i was op but at least it wasnt money wagered and lost. I think id be even more frustrated by the handshake grade as these props sure look like they were connected to the same event from the wording. if the event happened for the handshake, didnt it happen for the phrases?

[4nic8ing]

I am shocked Optional didn't come in here with another ***Sigh*** and claim you have zero common sense Brian. Optional wants to look at this through his Betonline glasses like it is so obvious between both props (one graded and one not). We all get the concept of "Starter" props (taken from Betonline rules):

Team to score first: Becomes official once a team has scored.
Will there be a score in the 1st inning: First inning must be completed to have action.

They also list the rules letting bettors know what constitutes action for a game in the varying sports:

FOOTBALL - Bets are considered official after 55 minutes of play.
BASKETBALL - For NCAA, WNBA and European Matches the game has to go at least 35 minutes for wagers to have action. In the case of NBA matches, the game must go at least 43 minutes.

Here is the rule they list for "Specialty Props"

We will cover a wide variety of special events ranging from specials to entertainment, political, and other non-sporting events. Rules for each individual market will be displayed on our web site.

So according to Betonline and you the Handshake falls under the starter prop rule I assume. So they agree it was indeed a meeting and fulfilled their rules to grade it. Now when you get to the Phrases it somehow falls under a grey area and it is canceled. When you read the rules that they listed for each phrase it spelled it out as a simple YES or NO will the phrase be said ; If they weren't said then NO is the winner. The argument that if you bet YES has no relevance according to the rules listed by Betonline. The burden would be on the individuals who bet on YES to prove that it was said or take the loss on the wager.

Go ahead and keep entrenching yourself into your position when it makes zero sense how this has drug on this long.

[Brian891]

I agree. I wanted to see if a better explanation could be given as i have no dog in the fight and i am just trying to see why betonlines decision was madeand if with the graphics I showed from a rational perspective with no sniping from a long time bettor whether or not SBR would be willing to elaborate. Im sure jbayko would agree from a purely objective perspective that he should have lost his over bet and won the others. My concern with optionals explanation is the wording of both props is essentially the same. it definitely specifies meeting in the handshake prop. I recognize that optional is merely an arbitrator here. It sucks when money is taken from anyone but no vitriol needed. Im just not certainwhy the posting of the wording in both bets and the fact that one was graded and one wasnt is not relevant or acknowledged by SBR. Has anyone heard if the OP was given any compensation? Im not concerned with anything being swept under the rug Id more like to know why SBR's position is so adamant against recognizing both these props depended on the same meeting happening. If it was considered a meeting for the grading of the handshake, shouldnt it be considered a meeting for the audio? And if it wasnt considered a meeting for the audio, shouldnt it not be considered a meeting for the handshake? according to the way the props were both written,

The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot is not an acceptable answer to this query. i believe most bettor or objective party for that matter would see that these two props are tied to the same meeting. My only question here is why didnt BOL come down on one side for both wagers. It is inconsistent and worrisome. In no way implying anything about BOL. Just wondering why SBR wouldnt ask this question with evidence that one prop was graded as a meeting and the other was not. Unless the claim is that the wording is irrelevant. Which is weird in itself.

[jsgreen1]

I agree. I wanted to see if a better explanation could be given as i have no dog in the fight and i am just trying to see why betonlines decision was madeand if with the graphics I showed from a rational perspective with no sniping from a long time bettor whether or not SBR would be willing to elaborate. Im sure jbayko would agree from a purely objective perspective that he should have lost his over bet and won the others. My concern with optionals explanation is the wording of both props is essentially the same. it definitely specifies meeting in the handshake prop. I recognize that optional is merely an arbitrator here. It sucks when money is taken from anyone but no vitriol needed. Im just not certainwhy the posting of the wording in both bets and the fact that one was graded and one wasnt is not relevant or acknowledged by SBR. Has anyone heard if the OP was given any compensation? Im not concerned with anything being swept under the rug Id more like to know why SBR's position is so adamant against recognizing both these props depended on the same meeting happening. If it was considered a meeting for the grading of the handshake, shouldnt it be considered a meeting for the audio? And if it wasnt considered a meeting for the audio, shouldnt it not be considered a meeting for the handshake? according to the way the props were both written,

The greeting handshake for the meeting does not require an audio feed or the actual meeting to be broadcast. That's why it can be graded when the spoken word props cannot is not an acceptable answer to this query. i believe most bettor or objective party for that matter would see that these two props are tied to the same meeting. My only question here is why didnt BOL come down on one side for both wagers. It is inconsistent and worrisome. In no way implying anything about BOL. Just wondering why SBR wouldnt ask this question with evidence that one prop was graded as a meeting and the other was not. Unless the claim is that the wording is irrelevant. Which is weird in itself.

Negative on the compensation sir, and you're absolutely correct it should be based on the way both props were written.. I feel as though I'm entitled to the entire 6k I "Won", if not even more compensation for having to go through all of this on such a clear and straightforward issue.. but have not been offered a penny..

[gojetsgomoxies]

I get why you are asking the question but if there is no video of a meeting I can't see any other option than voiding the market.

grunching but that's my thought too...... books should be offering lines on stuff like this.. even if there is a transcript of the meeting i would think there's still leeway unless it's "will trump use the word XXXXX??". otherwise, you becomes analogous to jeopardy's completely horrible inconsistent judgements on answers.

[jbayko]

but have not been offered a penny..

For the record, I have not either...but I only recently joined this party of the aggrieved.

[trytrytry]

Betonline still not paying the winning Political Prop wagers.


they are losing lots of post up money from SBR forum members

[PaperTrail07]

Post stupid lines w gray/grey area result possibilities....what could go wrong? lol