ASIAN ODDS problem

[Alfie White]

From my understanding, Singbet does not offer API for their odds so Molly (PT, SM) has to scrape their website. Having just one account for hundreds/thousands of clients is simply not possible so I don't know where you got that information from (1-3 accounts on SM). If I check my Betting History now, I can see at least 15 different account names (hashed) so I would say that you have stated that without any special proof to back that up.

As for Singbet, I would rather have them and accept the risk of voiding bets than not have them at all - as others have pointed out.

agentxxx, you have to live with the Voids if you want to have better odds/more markets displayed; this void is completely "normal" for Singbet, as much as it sounds stupid.

[Alfa1234]

Well, my Mollybet only has 4 accounts for Singbet in the last year or so. I don't see why it's not possible to use that few. Don't forget it becomes logistically much more difficult, the more accounts they use as they would all have to fund them and make sure there's enough money in them all the time. Those books don't work on credit.

All bookies in Mollybet gave permission to be in there.

Either way it doesn't matter...there is a risk of voids at every agent and every agent warns their clients about it. If they void your bets at 1 agent, there is no reason to believe it won't be the case at another as they won't like your action no matter where it comes from.

[Craig22]

Not on every game. By your logic, arbing/math value betting would no longer be possible.

A major market maker can move lines significantly, especially in horse racing, where one quick to the action could simply arb his bet every time and play the steam. Then again, corporate bookies like Bet365 limit so fast that it never lasts.

[ichiro4thehall]

This is an interesting thread. My solution would be never place another bet with Singbet and I was surprised this is not the unanimous opinion here, moreso that the 2 posters who support Singbet here I consider sharp posters.

Alfa and Ionnie, do you have a known, reliable figure based on a decent sample size for the percentage of bets Singbet voids? This would be the only way I could agree with your argument if you knew the void risk figure and it was comfortably less than your expected edge.

Also, I am always interested how in these discussions when arbers are mentioned it is always assumed it is easy for books to know which accounts are arbers. How can a book tell an arber from a line shopper? I agree there may be some techniques, with data sharing across books being one, and one could make an argument for stake size patterns. Of course, a line shopper might be considered by default to be sharp by some books so they don't want their action either and so treat them the same as any arber.

[Alfa1234]

This is an interesting thread. My solution would be never place another bet with Singbet and I was surprised this is not the unanimous opinion here, moreso that the 2 posters who support Singbet here I consider sharp posters.

Alfa and Ionnie, do you have a known, reliable figure based on a decent sample size for the percentage of bets Singbet voids? This would be the only way I could agree with your argument if you knew the void risk figure and it was comfortably less than your expected edge.

Also, I am always interested how in these discussions when arbers are mentioned it is always assumed it is easy for books to know which accounts are arbers. How can a book tell an arber from a line shopper? I agree there may be some techniques, with data sharing across books being one, and one could make an argument for stake size patterns. Of course, a line shopper might be considered by default to be sharp by some books so they don't want their action either and so treat them the same as any arber.

Hard to give a reliable number but it's far below 1% for me.

You can easily detect arbers because the majority of arbers will be betting steam, basically catching an odd right before it drops and only that. Line shopping does not equal steam betting.

[ichiro4thehall]

Hard to give a reliable number but it's far below 1% for me.

You can easily detect arbers because the majority of arbers will be betting steam, basically catching an odd right before it drops and only that. Line shopping does not equal steam betting.

Isn't a value price always steam since it is by definition temporary and should be bet down?

[Alfa1234]

Isn't a value price always steam since it is by definition temporary and should be bet down?

No. If the Pinnacle price of something is say 1.95 and it drops to 1.6, you'll be betting steam if you bet that price at a different bookie before it drops there as well.

If the Pinnacle price of something is 1.95 and it stays there, but you nonetheless find a price somewhere else of say 2.02 that 2.02 still has value but it's not a steam move. That bookie could potentially just be looking for your bet because it has a large exposure on the other side.

[Optional]

How can a book tell an arber from a line shopper?

Books that are anti-arber use software to scan for arbs against them.

You don't have to hit many arbs against them using the same book on the opposite side before it's statistically about 1000/1 you are not arbing.

Especially if you hit a few that only existed for minutes.

It would be tough to be tagged as an arber just chasing steam as so many of your bets would not be viable arbs there.

[lonnie55]

Alfa and Ionnie, do you have a known, reliable figure based on a decent sample size for the percentage of bets Singbet voids? This would be the only way I could agree with your argument if you knew the void risk figure and it was comfortably less than your expected edge.

I cannot give you exact numbers but I'd say the sample size is in a high three-digit range (maybe 4 digit) and the percentage of voided bets <1% as I said in #29

It's just not an issue at all for me. If it was an issue I probably would record those voided bets.

[ichiro4thehall]

Books that are anti-arber use software to scan for arbs against them.

You don't have to hit many arbs against them using the same book on the opposite side before it's statistically about 1000/1 you are not arbing.

Especially if you hit a few that only existed for minutes.

It would be tough to be tagged as an arber just chasing steam as so many of your bets would not be viable arbs there.

I still don't get the italics part. Are you assuming a line shopper is just someone who checks for the best price just before an event starts? I am assuming an active line shopper who checks prices from when they open till they close and bets only when he sees a price he likes. Unless a book has definite knowledge through data sharing of the player backing the other side of the bet I don't see how a line shopper can be separated from an arber from the books viewpoint.

What software do you mean? Iesnare for example? Or do you mean software that effectively looks for arbs for them where one of the prices is theirs? If they do this, which wouldn't be hard, I don't understand why they just don't adjust the price themselves when they find it. I suppose the fact som many books now use third parties to supply odds and software makes this more difficult.

[ichiro4thehall]

No. If the Pinnacle price of something is say 1.95 and it drops to 1.6, you'll be betting steam if you bet that price at a different bookie before it drops there as well.

If the Pinnacle price of something is 1.95 and it stays there, but you nonetheless find a price somewhere else of say 2.02 that 2.02 still has value but it's not a steam move. That bookie could potentially just be looking for your bet because it has a large exposure on the other side.

If the 2.02 price is value, won't it be bet down and therefore become steam?

[Alfa1234]

If the 2.02 price is value, won't it be bet down and therefore become steam?

No, a steam move would be all books dropping that odd because they are following the odd settor/sharp book (like Pinnacle). In this case it's just their odd that has value and would be bet down. Most books don't even care about balancing books anymore so it would be a non-issue.

[Optional]

I still don't get the italics part. Are you assuming a line shopper is just someone who checks for the best price just before an event starts? I am assuming an active line shopper who checks prices from when they open till they close and bets only when he sees a price he likes. Unless a book has definite knowledge through data sharing of the player backing the other side of the bet I don't see how a line shopper can be separated from an arber from the books viewpoint.

What software do you mean? Iesnare for example? Or do you mean software that effectively looks for arbs for them where one of the prices is theirs? If they do this, which wouldn't be hard, I don't understand why they just don't adjust the price themselves when they find it. I suppose the fact som many books now use third parties to supply odds and software makes this more difficult.

Whatever you assume (and however poorly I explained it) it's very very unlikely for a line shopper, or steam player, to be tagged as an arber.

In the years of doing this I have never once had a person accused of arbing come back to me say "I was just line shopping" once a book has come back with their evidence.

[Barrakuda]

Re: Singbet, if you hit a line repeatedly that's a bit off-market, will they void? Or is it more random than that?

[Alfa1234]

Re: Singbet, if you hit a line repeatedly that's a bit off-market, will they void? Or is it more random than that?

It it was that easy to predict, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[moojoo]

My stomach turn when read this about Singbet.
You have to bet 2 times to win. First your team to win and next is to hope they dont void regular game with regular odds. They are shame for industry same as 1xbet is.

[Alfa1234]

As said above, they also void losing bets every now and then. There are reasons to use them...you guys really shouldn't be so quick to condemn a book without actually using it.

[lonnie55]

My stomach turn when read this about Singbet.
You have to bet 2 times to win. First your team to win and next is to hope they dont void regular game with regular odds. They are shame for industry same as 1xbet is.

How is your experience with them?

[moojoo]

I dont use them,but from reading here im disgusted. People who play there must be masochist.
Maybe im over reacting but i just cant accept that bookie can void your bet after game end without obvious reason(bad line).

[72nova]

A few days back Singbet voided a losing ticket for me so it can work both ways. I guess it was on a smaller market in soccer but generally I try to avoid them.

[Barrakuda]

It it was that easy to predict, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Well, let me phrase it another way: if you hit mildly off-market lines (not necessarily arbs, but close) repeatedly, is it usually voided?

[Alfa1234]

Well, let me phrase it another way: if you hit mildly off-market lines (not necessarily arbs, but close) repeatedly, is it usually voided?

Same reply...there is no way to predict what they will void.

[Craig22]

just placed a bet through Singbet on a club friendly: Real Murcia 2.11 to win...etc. Odds hammered down to 1.4 on the same line. I have feeling I'm going to get free rolled by them, where they will never grade it as a winner anyway. I notice they like to refuse to payout bets that have a huge drop in odds that go in your favor.

[cashin81]

just placed a bet through Singbet on a club friendly: Real Murcia 2.11 to win...etc. Odds hammered down to 1.4 on the same line. I have feeling I'm going to get free rolled by them, where they will never grade it as a winner anyway. I notice they like to refuse to payout bets that have a huge drop in odds that go in your favor.

whens the murica game?

[Craig22]

whens the murica game?

3 hours.

[Craig22]

Two identical bets placed 5 seconds apart on SingBet. The second one gets voided. Game ended in a tie, thus both of my bets lose. Lines were hammered down to 1.4 from 2.1 within minutes after I place my bet, which is where I figured they would grade both bets as void.. aka "abnormal." However, if the second bet is voided, then surly the first one should also be considered void since it was placed literally 5 seconds before the second one. The fact that they do void "losing bets" is surprising. The point is that their grading system makes zero sense, nor has any structure to it imo. When emailing support at Asian Connect, you get the same answer that there is nothing they can do etc. Yet, I believe they made a legit error by not voiding both of them and just want them to speak with them about it, but they seem unwilling to do that. I'm confused on whether the second bet was voided based on the limits they had on the game ML, whereas I placed two bets at nearly identical odds that circumvented the limit, or if they void all bets where there is a major drop in odds that go against them right after the bet is placed. I'm thinking it is more of the latter, which means my first bet should of also been counted as void.

[Alfa1234]

It's not an "error", they probably voided it because in their logic you "overbet" the same line by betting it twice. They have a weird logic about these things but in their culture it's perfectly normal.

As mentioned above, they also void losing bets so they aren't out to scam anyone or freeroll you.

[Alfa1234]

Some proof Singbet happily voids losing bets as well:

https://gyazo.com/ae649e95588d898dea9516ba6a24fdfa

[Optional]

Some proof Singbet happily voids losing bets as well:

https://gyazo.com/ae649e95588d898dea9516ba6a24fdfa

Any idea why you got a void there?

[Alfa1234]

Any idea why you got a void there?

Not a clue. They were the only "asian" book to offer the game (besides 18bet) and the odds weren't off. It wasn't a limit bet and the odds didn't change. I didn't rebet the line to beat the limit, it wasn't steaming and it was pre-match.

Odds comparison (note at the time of the bet all books were around that odd, it even went up a bit after I placed the bet)

https://www.oddsportal.com/soccer/croatia/2-hnl-2018-2019/osijek-varazdin-r9FacAAq/

[lonnie55]

It happened to me on weekend that I bet on the same line at two different agents, SM and AC, and one bet stands while the other bet has been voided.

Same match, same line, almost same price.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Singbet do some pretty weird stuff, but I never got the impression they're unfair as such. They just dance to their own tune.

[qsgsg]

Take a step back and think as a crooked bookie(CB). Ideally for every match a CB wants to earn a profit. When the payout for winners exceed the the money they collect from losers for that match, what's the best way to deal with it? Obviously , it is to void the whole match! No loss, no profit is better than suffering a financial loss.

Well to make it more ambiguous, at times they would just partially void certain bets in a particular match. With this trick, they can still rake in a profit with proper calculations. Being ambiguous makes bettors think that they are "weird" rather than "a scammer" as some of you guys here have already mentioned in this thread. Being tagged as "weird" by the bettors will allow them to go on with their scams.

If you are a regular winner, definitely avoid this book as most of the bets void will be for matches that Singbet has lost money on. In the long term, you will definitely lose out betting with them.

However if you are just a recreational bettor, by all means go for it.

I dont usually like writing a long post but i cant's stand it when a scam betting company fools a sizeable chunk of the betting community.

[lonnie55]

If you are a regular winner, definitely avoid this book as most of the bets void will be for matches that Singbet has lost money on. In the long term, you will definitely lose out betting with them.

BS

It's kind of funny how people that don't use Singbet long-term think they can explain people how this book works

[qsgsg]

BS

It's kind of funny how people that don't use Singbet long-term think they can explain people how this book works

it's ok if reasoning or logic doesnt work for you.