We appreciate your feedback on this case and you make a good point. Props that are going to be a nightmare grading fairly should not be hung in the first place, but here we are. Regarding any prop bet graded as a loss that was worded similarly to the original issue, BetOnline is currently reviewing. Anyone who hasn't already provided their info should shoot in a complaint form.
-
We appreciate your feedback on this case and you make a good point. Props that are going to be a nightmare grading fairly should not be hung in the first place, but here we are. Regarding any prop bet graded as a loss that was worded similarly to the original issue, BetOnline is currently reviewing. Anyone who hasn't already provided their info should shoot in a complaint form.Comment -
LOL i knew this is what they'd do in hopes of putting the issue to bed. So they are going to cancel the handshake wagers they took no loss on and do nothing about the phrase props they got killed on? That is so transparent on every level. They only way to really put this to bed would be paying phrases and compensating the wagers they actually got beat on.Comment -
I'm sure OP is going to be thrilled about this.Comment -
Unbelievable.. Cancelling the handshake wagers and doing nothing about the phrases I won fair and square would be a gigantic slap in the face.. Just astonished and appalled that Betonline has refused to reach out to me to make this right..or even attempt to.. $6,000 may be a small amount of money to many of you but it is a lot to me. And according to the rules Betonline posted for the wagers, I won every single one...Comment -
Ok am I missing something here?? I took their message that they were in essence reopening this dispute since they referenced the initial dispute (Yes/No Phrases being said).
I took this as good news for the initial player but you guy obviously read something more sinister into it.Comment -
The concern is rather than actually awarding him a win in the disputed bets, there's a chance they may just cancel the bet they graded where he lost and refund his money. I'm assuming he'd rather they keep the one bet as a loss but award him a win in the disputed bets since he'd likely end up ahead.Comment -
OP had nothing on handshake bets. The handshake bet posted by jbayko just proves the point further of wrongdoings by betonline, as they cancelled the wagers they stood to lose a ton on but actioned others they didn't have a one sided handle on. Cancelling the handshake bets doesn't fix this by a longshot.Comment -
Where exactly does the "nightmare" come in here? They posted a set of rules for the wagers and according to those rules, the "not said" selections are the winners. Exactly what type of meeting would have qualified for action? One where betonline would have profited?
Seriously, what EXACTLY would have needed to happen where betonline would have ruled that it was good enough to constitute a meeting? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? A certain time for the meeting to last? None of that was in the rules. The precedent they are setting by doing this is absolutely terrifying for any player who currently plays there or is thinking about playing there in the future.Last edited by rangerz2478; 09-23-17, 04:59 AM.Comment -
I can agree with the fact this was a market that should not have been posted to begin with. It seems as if betonline/sbr has admitted as such. But it WAS posted and they have to deal with the consequences. Why are they not accepting responsibility and paying the players who fairly won? They and other books have done so in the past where they made a mistake. The only reason I can think of why they aren't in this case is due to the amount at hand they would have to pay out.
I have no dog in this fight but this thread makes me want to pull my hair out for those who stood to profit from these markets. For a bookmaker to post something like this, get beat, and then cancel wagers because they took a loss just isn't right. Betonline has no grounds to cancel these wagers based on the rules they put forward and I will continue to fight for jsgreen1, jbayko, and all others who were wronged in this case. Hopefully betonline will eventually do the right thing.Comment -
Thank you SBR Forum for at least acknowledging our viewpoint finally and seeing where the majority of this forum was coming from. I appreciate optionals assistance as well. But when JBayko posted that screenshot showing the wording was almost verbatim with exception of seen/heard difference this should have at the very least been revisited. BOL is a very good book and I have no idea whether this was intentional, but to void one prop of a bet and then honor another based on same criteria is a very very bad look. Hopefully BOL makes the decision to honor both sides as it seems to be their responsibility to research and be clear before posting prop. This wasnt a line in error, and they committed to the validity in their eyes of these stupidass props when they graded the handshake. Glad at least that its been reopened. good luck to all involved. But BOL seems to have been pretty obstinate to this point doubt anything more than a void of the handshake wager will come from this. Shakes me a bit when you count on a place that has your money to show integrity and stand by what they offered, and i know its gambling but still honor among thieves right. lol. Perception is what matters and it sure seems perceptually that BOL would not have done anything with this prop except that they took a loss they thought they could rectify with a "grey area" that they self created.Comment -
this is excellent that SBR has discussed this with BOL and reopened this case of grading.
excellent use of a sportsforum watchdog and ratings forum.
lets give them time to settle this one correctly and not pile on during this rethink time
can we "handshake" on that.Comment -
I'm glad I had nothing to do with writing those props. My old boss would have ripped me a new one. What a mess!Comment -
well its a process, we start with this, SBR monitoring knows BOL did now grade the no action props wrong based on grading same event same rules differently.
they are looking at things. but this a good step.
SBR now has something obvious and more concrete to now base a legitimate grading downgrade on and BOL if they stand pat, and BOL knows that. so let it play out some.
they graded a winning wager as a non winning wager (cancel), and on the same event and rules graded a prop as a loss all the same day.
its a process, you hit it hard with true comments and alerts and pressure when there is an impass, but now when the door opens a crack (dont worry about a word here or there that SBR typed in a thread, they cant always say everything, there is a relook at the situation going on) good minded people at BOL and SBR have many times moved the needle and got mistake decisions by the books eventually graded correctly for all players.
that is what Im suggesting.
this one should be taken care of in a week or so dont meed more time that that with all the facts on the table now.Comment -
they have a huge facebook presence, friend them and send some "updates" of your no pay situation there. Dave Manson seems to post there often
Comment -
-
they love the face book marketing hype. nothing about not paying winners but they do show this
BetOnline AG
September 30 at 12:39pm ยท
The BetOnline AG #Poker Bad Beat Jackpot is currently standing at a life-changing $452,276.
What would you spend your cut on if you dropped it?Comment -
if that is what they meant by active then why wouldnt they just say he must play at least one snap like how the other rules are worded. i would interpret active as who is legally available to play in a game but i am too lazy to look though the nfl rulebook.
i dont see how anyone can defend grading the handshake and not the phrases since they both are from the same meeting or how you can dispute that was a meeting. obviously any meeting recorded for the public would be pr only and no real policy talk.Comment
