Bodog/Bovada Cancelled Big Wins - Advice?

[milwaukee mike]

I’d have to check myself but In the 15+ games Steph missed or was hurt hard to think kd didn’t do this a few times in his own games

he did it twice during the regular season, i already did the research, and one of those games was a tie

2/25 charlotte, and 11/29 toronto

[rm18]

He wasn't leading scorer 2/25, so he did it once in a game that Curry didnt play so odds would of been way different.

[allabout the $$$]

Ok - so the 5 favorites that night to combo the most points/most 3’s were KD, Thompson, Curry, Harden, ?CP.
what happens if you bet 5 separate parlays each time? That wins as well, right! Was there value on all 5 parlays? This comes down to the bookmaker at Bovada being an idiot! The bookmaker thought he could win every dime bet on these props.

So, a sharp nails them? But, they have a catch 22 rule. No sharps or pros. All squares will lose - only sharps can find value - player won - must be a sharp - void the bets!

Bovada bookmarking is incompetent - they should not even be offering prop bets if they do not know what they are doing!

......

[milwaukee mike]

He wasn't leading scorer 2/25, so he did it once in a game that Curry didnt play so odds would of been way different.

you're right, i had just looked for leading the game in 3 pointers made

[Stallion]

Has this been resolved???

[allabout the $$$]

Has this been resolved???

yes bovada free rolled OP

[Stallion]

So has she been paid??

[allabout the $$$]

So has she been paid??

no she got a refund from the bets losers and winners. Guaranteed if OP would have lost every bet they NEVER would have seen their money back

[MrCavalier]

Another bet book another bet that won voided... Only in Online books does this fly

[michael777]

Good move by Bodog,these scammers should never be paid

[allabout the $$$]

Good move by Bodog,these scammers should never be paid

how is it the players fault that bodogs software allowed them to parlay props

[cashin81]

how is it the players fault that bodogs software allowed them to parlay props

exactly, no way is that "scamming"....

[TheMetsSuck]

Deserves to be paid and told to take a hike if they thought she was taking a shot. It was their own fault. I had my own negative experiences with bodog back in the day. Holy crap was that a bad book. Rigged poker rooms, horrendous lines, miserable payouts, etc

[milwaukee mike]

weird that tiff never came back

maybe "she" is busy twitter-bombing bovada all over the internet?

[Optional]

If someone from SBR ends up helping out I can verify my idendity if that matters. If I dont get any help here my next plan is to go to Twitter. I would prefer not as obviously there is a bit of stigma with sportsbetting but for $20,000+ I will post in a more public forum if I think it might help.

You need to send in a complaint form still: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/sportsbook-complaint/

[baseballstud]

You need to send in a complaint form still: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/sportsbook-complaint/

WOW- OP never submitted a complaint form, that is awfully strange. I mean who would ask for help getting $20k back from SBR who is your best chance at getting some/all money back. Unreal

[TheMoneyShot]

WOW- OP never submitted a complaint form, that is awfully strange. I mean who would ask for help getting $20k back from SBR who is your best chance at getting some/all money back. Unreal

Complaint form not sent.... because there's nothing really to complain about.

[SBR Forum]

We spoke with Bodog and have completed our review. First, we were informed that all wagers involving these prop line parlays were refunded across the board, whether the parlays resulted in a win or loss.

A system error caused these correlated props to allow parlays. The guaranteed profit wasn't 100%, but the probability was high enough to be considered an obvious error - the more 3-pointers a player makes, the more likely it is that the player would lead in scoring. You wouldn't expect to be able to parlay a -40 point favorite with an over of 56, as an example of similarly high correlation.

The OP's husband had also wagered many of these same bets and was also refunded. All of that being said, this could have and should have been identified and resolved much sooner. But it's hard to argue that the household wasn't taking advantage.

[icon]

The OP's husband had also wagered many of these same bets and was also refunded. All of that being said, this could have and should have been identified and resolved much sooner. But it's hard to argue that the household wasn't taking advantage.

Tiff! Mother of TWO!!! Making the same wagers as her hubby!! Shocking!!!

[HedgeHog]

To summarize: OP is guilty of multi-accounting and Bovada freerolled him/her/them after the fact.

[michael777]

To summarize: OP is guilty of multi-accounting and Bovada freerolled him/her/them after the fact.

100% correct,surprised so many here feel for the he/she scammer

[Optional]

To summarize: OP is guilty of multi-accounting and Bovada freerolled him/her/them after the fact.

The only party that created the free roll here is the player. And they free rolled the book in the end too.

Book had no chance to win but still could have lost if the error was not picked up.

Player never had a chance to lose unfairly, as the book voids all bets if the error is found, or pays out winnings if not.

100% correct,surprised so many here feel for the he/she scammer

Shot taker is probably closer than scammer.

Not sure why you care about ones like this. The book had an error. Player takes their shot. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't. No grace in whining the times it doesn't work out.

And if you don't open new accounts to target obvious errors yourself, then you should be wanting the books to police it (fairly) so it's discouraged and you are not paying the costs of it.

[eaglesfan371]

Optional this is the first time I’ve disagreed with you in a massive way. One that would generally have me cursing but I won’t.

If he had lost and came to SBR and said “I parlayed two correlated props, it lost, I deserve a refund” there is no way they would have been refunded. They would have been called a shot taker, scammer and POS on here. Bodog would laugh at them. We’ve seen it several times.

Void was not the fair solution here. Sharps stepped in and explained how they are barely correlated. This user also found a bug. I found a minor bug two weeks ago with Fairlay and was given 0.01 BTC ($60). This user finds a bug and gets screwed over. At a minimum, the longer odds prop should have been paid out, as a straight bet for one account if only one account per address allowed.

[Optional]

"If he had lost and came to SBR and said “I parlayed two correlated props, it lost, I deserve a refund” there is no way they would have been refunded"

Absolutely correct. That's pretty much one of the slimiest/dumbest moves they can make. As it shows they not only took a shot but they intended it to be a total free roll for them from the start.

You're a shot taker win or lose and will be treated like one.

Pretty sure I have seen you recently in a thread saying a player should be paid as a winner instead of a void when there was a listing error in the bet being offered?

One of the reasons innocent people get voided like that is the exact type of shot taker you describe. Those who come back after events demanding a refund due to an obvious error.

You can disagree all you like but I can only affirm that we definitely don't agree. I think you argue without much deep thought about this stuff sometimes.

[allabout the $$$]

Opti do you really believe if they didn't hit those wagers that they would have been refunded on the losers?

[Optional]

Opti do you really believe if they didn't hit those wagers that they would have been refunded on the losers?

I don't know.

But do you guys really think it's weird that SBR would not go to a book on behalf of a player and say "hey they lost money on bets where you gave odds that are obviously too high so we expect you to refund them"?

Do you really want that to happen when you stop and think about it?

[milwaukee mike]

were these bets cancelled for every player, or just the husband/wife

[Optional]

were these bets cancelled for every player, or just the husband/wife

The first sentence of the explanation by SBR Forum about half a dozen posts above. Yes.

[allabout the $$$]

I don't know.

But do you guys really think it's weird that SBR would not go to a book on behalf of a player and say "hey they lost money on bets where you gave odds that are obviously too high so we expect you to refund them"?

Do you really want that to happen when you stop and think about it?

Thats not the point. The point is would the book have refunded these parlays if the person never won any of them. Absolutely not. I will stand by that opinion 110%.

I wouldn't expect SBR to do that but that's neither here nor there. At the end of the day SBR has to walk a fine line considering these guys keep the lights on in the office. There have been a few instances where SBR has sided with the book when even the person in charge of the case disagreed with the decision. If the book cancels the winners it should cancel the losers in any case. It was a system error that allowed this to happen that is the books fault not the player who played them.

[allabout the $$$]

A system error caused these correlated props to allow parlays. The guaranteed profit wasn't 100%, but the probability was high enough to be considered an obvious error - the more 3-pointers a player makes, the more likely it is that the player would lead in scoring. You wouldn't expect to be able to parlay a -40 point favorite with an over of 56, as an example of similarly high correlation.

As was shown here in many examples this is not true. so if there are 8 games in a day the player with the highest points out of all the games is going to hit the most 3 pointers? absolutely not. its not even all that likely to happen.

you cant compare the correlation with a football game because football game has 4 outcomes fav/over, fav/under, dog / over, or dog/ under. thats 4 outcomes possible.

most players have high score and hit the most 3's on any given day, with all of the different games/players playing is no where near the correlation

[vampire assassin]

A system error caused these correlated props to allow parlays. The guaranteed profit wasn't 100%, but the probability was high enough to be considered an obvious error - the more 3-pointers a player makes, the more likely it is that the player would lead in scoring. You wouldn't expect to be able to parlay a -40 point favorite with an over of 56, as an example of similarly high correlation.

If it was an obvious error, what was the fair no-vig odds? Someone must have figured this out to conclude it was an obvious error with a high correlation.

[Optional]

If it was an obvious error, what was the fair no-vig odds? Someone must have figured this out to conclude it was an obvious error with a high correlation.

I can't give you an exact number for MOST 3s with points but I can give you an example of how a book that offers correlated parlays handles a similar prop/parlay.

Sportsbet/Paddypower offer special parlays on the same player to score Over/Under a total points and threes. For these they payout 80% of the "true" odds.

EG: 76ers v Raptors

Kawhi Leonard Over 32.5 points is -115 and Over 2.5 Threes -110. That would parlay to +257.

They let you have it at +187


That suggests PadyPower think there is 20% correlation in that one. (it's the same 20% for all the different same player parlays like that)

[icon]

Optional Void was not the fair solution here. Sharps stepped in and explained how they are barely correlated.

Barely correlated = a little pregnant. No such thing.

Everything in the sportbook world is based on math and the parlayed bets in question created payout odds well above what was proper (and should not have been allowed) and that is why the original posters HUSBAND told "TIFF" to make the bets the way she did as it was an advantage play that was VERY +EV.

The plays WERE correlated as many have already stated.

MOTHER OF TWO!!

[HedgeHog]

Actually there is such a thing as "barely correlated". It happens every time you parlay a same game favorite with the over. Likewise, a same game parlay with the underdog and under is correlated. It's the level of correlation that determines whether they're acceptable or not.

[Brooklyn Dick]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the bets lost you would hear NOTHING, and they would just be losers. Any book that cancels winning bets days after grading them is full of shit and all the assholes that stick up for this are morons and deserve the same treatment.