Bookmaker/Galaxy/JustBet: NFL Draft Top 3 Picks to be QBs

**SBR Drew** · 04-30-18, 03:51 PM

Will you give us more details here? What was the confusion?

**fried cheese** · 04-30-18, 04:00 PM

would be funny if it was because ppl play multiple positions in college and someone argued that barkley played qb in the wildcat formation and had a 100 completion percentage.

**jbayko** · 04-30-18, 04:20 PM

There were several typos in the description of the wager:

"Will The Top 3 Pick On The 2018 Draft Be A QB?"

We can ignore their use of the incorrect preposition "On" instead of "In" because the intent is obvious. However, what isn't clear is whether they are asking:

1. Will all of the top 3 picks be QBs?
2. Will any of the top 3 picks be a QB?
3. Will the 3rd pick in the draft be a QB?

Reasoning should lead one to conclude that their intended meaning was #1, when you consider: (a) everyone was talking about how it was likely going to be a QB-heavy top of the draft, (b) the associated odds, and (b) the fact that it exactly mirrors props that other sports books were offering. But I don't like leaving these sorts of things to the interpretation of the book after the event has taken place. So due to this poor grammar, I contacted their wagering department prior to putting money down and confirmed with them that their intended meaning was indeed #1. ALL of the Top 3 picks had to be QBs. In fact, they acted annoyed with me, as if I was a moron for thinking that it could have any other meaning and was wasting their time. Ok, great.

Not so fast. As we know, the #2 pick in the draft was Saquon Barkley - a RB - yet to my surprise, they graded my "No" wager as a LOSS!

Even with the evidence that I held onto, they gave me the runaround for several days. Finally, today, after bugging them again, they told me they were voiding all wagers. They said some people incorrectly assumed the #3 interpretation, which is kind of understandable I guess, but it doesn't answer why they graded it wrong in the first place. I guess the wording was so poor that they couldn't even get the meaning straight within their own department.

Now, I can totally understand voiding this, as the wording was very confusing. It's just that I did absolutely nothing wrong in this case, yet they gave me a very difficult time from the beginning and showed absolutely no remorse for screwing me out of a win. So if they're going to do that, then I'm going to try to keep them honest and make sure they aren't just crediting back my initial stake to shut me up while perhaps keeping the profits from one-sided action or something of that nature.

**jbayko** · 04-30-18, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by fried cheese

would be funny if it was because ppl play multiple positions in college and someone argued that barkley played qb in the wildcat formation and had a 100 completion percentage.

Nothing like this at all.

**fried cheese** · 04-30-18, 05:04 PM

its worded to say your third choice. but what if it was a situation where they drafted a qb to be a wide receiver or if a guy was a heisman candidate qb but started playing mostly wide receiver like braxton miller.

**jbayko** · 04-30-18, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by fried cheese

its worded to say your third choice.

No, it's not. I agree that's one possible interpretation. But no one really goes around saying "The NY Jets have the Top 3 pick." They say "The NY Jets have the third pick" or they have "the #3 pick". The way they worded it is completely ambiguous because no one interpretation is rooted in sound grammar. It was a mess from the start.

And if they meant the #3 pick only, then the odds (something like -130) were WAAAAAAAAAAAY off since everyone knew a QB was going at #3. But we know they didn't mean that because they told me...twice...once before the draft and once when they decided to void it.

Originally posted by fried cheese

its worded to say your third choice. but what if it was a situation where they drafted a qb to be a wide receiver or if a guy was a heisman candidate qb but started playing mostly wide receiver like braxton miller.

Interesting "what if?", but I don't think you'd need to worry about that kind of experiment with a top 3 pick, at least in 2018.

**rangerz2478** · 04-30-18, 05:58 PM

I know for a fact is what meant to mean will ALL 3 be qbs? Called about it myself.

**rangerz2478** · 04-30-18, 05:59 PM

[ # 360154045 ] Will The Top 3 Picks On The 2018 Draft Be All QBs? ( Risking: 100.00 - To Win: 250.00 )

LOSE

04/26/2018 @ 05:05 PM

TNT

[93335] Yes +250 Winner:

LOSE

$-100.00

**rangerz2478** · 04-30-18, 06:00 PM

Mine is still a loss but they also changed the wording after I called about it.

**jbayko** · 04-30-18, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by rangerz2478

Mine is still a loss but they also changed the wording after I called about it.

Wait, that's from one of the Bookmaker family books? If so, that is messed up. Because I contacted them too and they told me the same thing but they never updated the text.

What your evidence shows is that they updated the text of YOUR wager but not everyone's - at least not mine. And then they used that difference to selectively choose winners and losers...well, only losers.

Would you mind posting a screenshot? You can block out any identifying information if you like. I've been screwed.

**jbayko** · 04-30-18, 07:17 PM

Actually, I can tell that it's definitely a Bookmaker book and that's exactly what happened. Because your position is "[93335] Yes" and mine is "[93336] No".
Yours:
Will The Top 3 Picks On The 2018 Draft Be All QBs?

Mine:
Will The Top 3 Pick On The 2018 Draft Be A QB?

This is not good from a book that I've trusted up to this point. I understand that @rangerz2478 might be thinking "Eh, I knew what it meant and I lost fair and square." But if they are going to void my win on the basis that the wager was confusing, then they need to void his loss as well. Or they need to give me my win. They can't have it both ways.

**jbayko** · 04-30-18, 07:25 PM

Bookmaker is definitely playing games here. @Optional @SBR Drew, what say you?

For the record, here is my confirmation, much like the one rangerz says he got.

**Optional** · 05-01-18, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by jbayko

Bookmaker is definitely playing games here. @Optional @SBR Drew, what say you?

For the record, here is my confirmation, much like the one rangerz says he got.

It sounds like they just cancelled your bet only, as you suspected.

I don't know if that is a terrible thing as you are trying to paint it, or just a goodwill gesture for a persistent person with a good argument.

Considering the odds I don't think many people would have been really confused about what it meant though.

**fried cheese** · 05-01-18, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Optional

It sounds like they just cancelled your bet only, as you suspected.

I don't know if that is a terrible thing as you are trying to paint it, or just a goodwill gesture for a persistent person with a good argument.

Considering the odds I don't think many people would have been really confused about what it meant though.

i think you are not understanding that he actually won the bet that they voided.

**jbayko** · 05-01-18, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Optional

It sounds like they just cancelled your bet only, as you suspected.

I don't know if that is a terrible thing as you are trying to paint it, or just a goodwill gesture for a persistent person with a good argument.

Considering the odds I don't think many people would have been really confused about what it meant though.

@fried chese has it right. Based on the clear explanation of the wager that they gave me - which is the exact same explanation they gave @rangerz2478 - I won this bet. Goodwill is not voiding my WIN and keeping others' LOSSES. Goodwill would be honoring the commitment they made to me. At the very least, we should expect more from them than what suspiciously looks very much like a FREE ROLL.

And it's not like I tried to take advantage of them or anything. As I mentioned before, this exact same prop was offered at several other books and Galaxy/Bookmaker's odds were right in line with everyone else.

I'd appreciate an explanation from them.

**Optional** · 05-01-18, 05:03 AM

Yes I did not understand, or would not have called it goodwill of course.

Please send in your account details on a complaint form so we can ask a manager to take a look at this.

**4nic8ing** · 05-01-18, 08:46 AM

I give Bookmaker credit in the sense that they have made a concerted effort to offer more props than ever before. I would like to assume some low level person made a call here with JBayko as they really botched this prop (wording/grading).

It seems like about once every 3 months they offer one with wording so vague or open ended you know they are going to have issues. Did anyone see the Prop they had right before the NBA Playoffs started??

Will a Kardashian attend a game in Cleveland?? (YES was like +700) ; No mention of specifics with regards to actual names or time stamps. So if any person named Kardashian went from now until eternity do you win? We know what their intent was but sloppy wording like that just opens them to claims galore.

**jbayko** · 05-01-18, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by 4nic8ing

I give Bookmaker credit in the sense that they have made a concerted effort to offer more props than ever before. I would like to assume some low level person made a call here with JBayko as they really botched this prop (wording/grading).

It seems like about once every 3 months they offer one with wording so vague or open ended you know they are going to have issues. Did anyone see the Prop they had right before the NBA Playoffs started??

Will a Kardashian attend a game in Cleveland?? (YES was like +700) ; No mention of specifics with regards to actual names or time stamps. So if any person named Kardashian went from now until eternity do you win? We know what their intent was but sloppy wording like that just opens them to claims galore.

If what you say about the Kardashian wager is true, then they must have fixed it because by the time I saw it, it said: “WILL ANY MEMBER OF THE KARDASHIAN FAMILY ATTEND A CAVALIERS GAME DURING THE 2018 NBA PLAYOFFS?” I would feel very comfortable wagering on that description.

Another possibility - and I’ve been guilty of this before - is that Bookmaker had one line of the wager’s banner be very vague but they had another more detailed banner that you missed. Bookmaker seems to do this a lot.

I do agree that you have to be very careful analyzing he wording of these props before you bet though.

**4nic8ing** · 05-01-18, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by jbayko

If what you say about the Kardashian wager is true, then they must have fixed it because by the time I saw it, it said: “WILL ANY MEMBER OF THE KARDASHIAN FAMILY ATTEND A CAVALIERS GAME DURING THE 2018 NBA PLAYOFFS?” I would feel very comfortable wagering on that description.

Another possibility - and I’ve been guilty of this before - is that Bookmaker had one line of the wager’s banner be very vague but they had another more detailed banner that you missed. Bookmaker seems to do this a lot.

I do agree that you have to be very careful analyzing he wording of these props before you bet though.

Ok with the offerings they have right now they have the odds for Team to get the First Pick in the 2018 NBA Draft. They then had another contest prop up and then they had the Kardashian Prop. So in the end they had 2 things for the Kardashian Prop (the header you see above with a couple of other props and then a very vaguely worded prop absent of timeline or description. Maybe they intended the header you see above to stand for the actual prop but they left them self open to all sorts of confusion.

**jbayko** · 05-01-18, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by 4nic8ing

Ok with the offerings they have right now they have the odds for Team to get the First Pick in the 2018 NBA Draft. They then had another contest prop up and then they had the Kardashian Prop. So in the end they had 2 things for the Kardashian Prop (the header you see above with a couple of other props and then a very vaguely worded prop absent of timeline or description. Maybe they intended the header you see above to stand for the actual prop but they left them self open to all sorts of confusion.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Bookmaker always have a header and another lower level description. You always have to be careful to look for BOTH to get a comprehensive view of the prop's conditions. It's a terrible design, and it will likely burn you at least once before you realize what's going on.

**rangerz2478** · 05-01-18, 03:40 PM

Did you bet this on bookmaker or galaxy? If bookmaker you must've bet it very early, before I called in and they changed the wording of it. If they cancelled yours with the exact same wording as mine, then I'd expect my losers to be cancelled as well.

**rangerz2478** · 05-01-18, 03:41 PM

I'm guessing you bet it on a sister book of bookmaker where they did not change the wording. Did they cancel AFTER the draft or before the draft?

**rangerz2478** · 05-01-18, 03:44 PM

Nevermind I missed one of your earlier posts. So they originally graded a loss and then switched it to a void? When was your bet placed? Because I called bookmaker regarding my confusion on this one a couple weeks before the draft and they changed the wording.