BetOnline refuses to grade my bet correctly — any advice on how to proceed?

[convick]

No wonder gamblers lose long term. Half of them don’t even know that they are betting on! Don’t know or don’t understand!

[LT Profits]

No wonder gamblers lose long term. Half of them don’t even know that they are betting on! Don’t know or don’t understand!

Yes, but this guy knew what he was betting on, that was clear from bet offered. It was wording of ticket after bet was placed that caused mass hysteria.

[convick]

Yes, but this guy knew what he was betting on, that was clear from bet offered. It was wording of ticket after bet was placed that caused mass hysteria.

I’m talking about the bozos that voted that BOL graded the wager correctly.

[LT Profits]

I’m talking about the bozos that voted that BOL graded the wager correctly.

Gotcha and agreed,

[swordsandtequila]

Oh Shit, sorry buddy! All the double-negatives in this thread had me confused for a minute.

[mrpapageorgio]

OK lets go down to a 3rd grade level then and see if you can come along.

So where did you get that:

"the wording of the prop indicates that the attempt must be successful to be graded as yes." ?

Out of your ass?

Here is the full bet:

Side 1: Conversion +325
Side 2: No Conversion/No Attempt -400

Where does Side 1 NOT indicate it must be successful? By definition, it means successful. If you ever watched football for 5 seconds, you would know it must be successful for the PAT to be converted.

[mrpapageorgio]

Please re-read my last few posts, he OBVIOUSLY won the bet. I am spending way too much time explaining something that should be obvious from wording of bet in Post 12 (NOT from wording of ticket in Post 1).

Maybe his first post should be edited with the correct wording from Post 12 (with a notation it was edited) so the correct bet wording can be shown on the first page than having people search down.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming some people are reading the wording of the first post and voting on that without knowing the actual wording of the bet.

[SBR Forum]

BetOnline has confirmed the player's ticket should be a winner. The prop will be worded differently in the future. His money should be in his account shortly.

[swordsandtequila]

[milwaukee mike]

BetOnline has confirmed the player's ticket should be a winner. The prop will be worded differently in the future. His money should be in his account shortly.

good to hear

they've changed wording in the past, once after a 0-yard fumble recovery for td... then they changed wording to "will there be a 0 or 1 yd td"

no idea why they should have to change the wording on this one, it was always pretty clear

[LT Profits]

BetOnline has confirmed the player's ticket should be a winner. The prop will be worded differently in the future. His money should be in his account shortly.

Boom!

[moojoo]

BetOnline is disqusting. God knows how many people they F up with their grading and tempering with players accounts.
Dont worry guys they are in JJ's top 10 books of the World 👌

[bubba]

BetOnline has confirmed the player's ticket should be a winner. The prop will be worded differently in the future. His money should be in his account shortly.

has the wording changed? Is the word successful new? If yes I thought it was clear before and this is EVEN clearer.

Indianapolis Colts @ New England Patriots - 2pt Conversion
Rot.	Selection	Odds
10120	Successful 2pt Conversion		+280
10121	No Conversion/No Attempt		-340

[LT Profits]

has the wording changed? Is the word successful new? If yes I thought it was clear before and this is EVEN clearer.

Indianapolis Colts @ New England Patriots - 2pt Conversion
Rot.	Selection	Odds
10120	Successful 2pt Conversion		+280
10121	No Conversion/No Attempt		-340

I would still like to see an "or" where the "/" is, because as of now, if someone bets the No option, Ticket details will read same way as Post 1 and this could start all over again.

[mrpapageorgio]

has the wording changed? Is the word successful new? If yes I thought it was clear before and this is EVEN clearer.

Indianapolis Colts @ New England Patriots - 2pt Conversion
Rot.	Selection	Odds
10120	Successful 2pt Conversion		+280
10121	No Conversion/No Attempt		-340

The wording of the No choice is the same as last week. Don't know if the yes is the same, but I think it is.

[bubba]

I think that's the same wording as last week when I looked up a couple of the games.

Its pretty damm clear as is. I honestly cant see how anyone could look at this wager and think if there is an unsuccessful attempt, that "succesful 2pt conversion" is the winner.

[mrpapageorgio]

Its pretty damm clear as is. I honestly cant see how anyone could look at this wager and think if there is an unsuccessful attempt, that "succesful 2pt conversion" is the winner.

I think the problem is the OP and other people were trying to remember the prop's wording off memory since the actual prop bet was no longer on display to give the exact wording. Looking at the wording of the prop for the Indy/Pats game, I know the "No" bet wording is the same as the wording on the Sunday games and if you were to put a gun to my head, I would say the "Yes" wording is also the same (but I'm not as confident on that as the "No" wording).

[SnakesPicks]

Fukk all those prop bets. 99% of them are sucker bets.

[mrpapageorgio]

Fukk all those prop bets. 99% of them are sucker bets.

If you dabble in fantasy sports or at least follow it, the props relating to player/team stats can be better than the sides and total bets.

[Optional]

I’m talking about the bozos that voted that BOL graded the wager correctly.

Gotcha and agreed,

If you two are not capable of understanding why half the people didn't agree with you, I'd be careful calling other people bozos.

[Optional]

BetOnline has confirmed the player's ticket should be a winner. The prop will be worded differently in the future. His money should be in his account shortly.

Good result.

[Barrakuda]

Same wording:

[Optional]

Same wording:

They have added "Successful", but it appears BOL did not fully grasp the wording problem either from that.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

Viola...

[JoeCool20]

If you two are not capable of understanding why half the people didn't agree with you, I'd be careful calling other people bozos.

[JoeCool20]

They have added "Successful", but it appears BOL did not fully grasp the wording problem either from that.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

Viola...

Like I told Mr. "poo-poo georgio" about 8 times. If they had the word successful in there, then it would be crystal clear.

Now it is.

[mrpapageorgio]

All we are doing is "guessing" at what they meant the wording to be. They NEVER put the word "successful"

We don't know if successful was in the original prop since it was never screenshot. You've been advocating that it was a losing bet and he should just a simple refund for the "ambiguity" rather than using reading comprehension and saying he should actually get paid. I had been advocating the whole time he won and should get paid and BetOnline agreed. Just take your L and move on.

[rangerz2478]

They have added "Successful", but it appears BOL did not fully grasp the wording problem either from that.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

Viola...

Nailed it.

[LT Profits]

If you two are not capable of understanding why half the people didn't agree with you, I'd be careful calling other people bozos.

I meant agreed after seeing what actual bet was (the now world famous Post #12).

[LT Profits]

They have added "Successful", but it appears BOL did not fully grasp the wording problem either from that.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

Viola...

And if there is no 2pt Conversion attempted? This was the very reason BOL added the "No Attempt" qualifier in horrible fashion

[LT Profits]

They could go the 5 Dimes route and add qualifying footer.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

*-If no 2pt conversion is attempted, NO is winner.

[5918mike]

They have added "Successful", but it appears BOL did not fully grasp the wording problem either from that.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

Viola...

Now that makes sense.

[convick]

If you two are not capable of understanding why half the people didn't agree with you, I'd be careful calling other people bozos.

Sorry to hurt your feelings pal. I know you were the first one that was convinced it was graded correctly.

I’m not taking back what I said. JoeCool is one of the biggest idiots on the forums. Sad to see you dropping to his level.

[Optional]

They could go the 5 Dimes route and add qualifying footer.

Successful 2pt Conversion - YES +280
Successful 2pt Conversion - NO -340

*-If no 2pt conversion is attempted, NO is winner.

I guess this prop must be a regular one to create confusion, but would have thought the NO Successful Conversion covered no attempt anyway.

[LT Profits]

I guess this prop must be a regular one to create confusion, but would have thought the NO Successful Conversion covered no attempt anyway.

I am guessing BOL added qualifier (again, horribly) because some bettors were claiming Push if no attempt.

[milwaukee mike]

and now bookmaker is grading this prop wrong (see my other thread)

their prop says

successful 2 point conversion?
YES +230
NO -250

and they are trying to argue that the bet only has action if there is an attempt? that's ridiculous and has never been the case at any book