Pinnacle issue, they scammed me!

[Optional]

You can be arrogant to me but you are only troll designed here to support and defense bookmakers

You decided to troll this thread with your idiocy trying to say Pinnacle did wrong here. Maybe a dozen posts you pushed your agenda?

Now you call me a troll for asking you to justify YOUR TROLLING with some logic.


Seriously, come up with any sort of logic based argument to support your claim that Pinny could grade this any way they liked under these rules.

You made at least 10 posts claiming it was the case. Let's hear some reasoning...


You were keen to come at me in the other thread. Don't go all snowflake cry baby on me now... justify yourself! No need to play the man asking you, take that ball and explain your theory.

[JoeCool20]

if they won by 1 they wouldnt win the series.

LOL If they won by 1 point (or ANY other margin than 2 points) then Pinnacle would have paid him the moneyline bet!

But since they won by TWO points, then Pinnacle paid the loser of the moneyline bet!

LOL You just showed how absurdly ridiculous this is!

[JoeCool20]

I will say one thing, somebody said it was an "Arb bet" and Pinny actually LOST money by paying the losing side

of the moneyline bet! LOL if Pinnacle LOST money because they paid the losing side of the moneyline bet, then

that is the most hilariously stupid thing that I have ever heard of in Gambling!

[semibluff]

Joe, you keep talking about "stealing money". It's entirely possible and even fairly likely Pinnacle paid out MORE on the other side by grading this the way they did. OP took an arb which means the side he took at Pinnacle was the odd that was climbing. That means they received more bets and a bigger odd drop on the side that dropped, hence the winning bet, hence they likely paid out more on that side. It's how their model works.

You are wasting your time. If, (in some weird Universe), Pinnacle reversed their ruling and decided the op's bet was a winner and the other side was a loser and someone who bet on the other side posted that Pinnacle was scamming them Joe would pipe in and agree with them.

[piterp]

I not blame pinny at all you cant find bad word about them from me in different place.


Just to try found out how bet on ML can be settled with rules of series winner bet

[JoeCool20]

You are wasting your time. If, (in some weird Universe), Pinnacle reversed their ruling and decided the op's bet was a winner and the other side was a loser and someone who bet on the other side posted that Pinnacle was scamming them Joe would pipe in and agree with them.

LOL I've never seen a more stupid post than yours! Yes I dislike it when S-books cheat people,

but I'd never go on the "other" side of something! Dude try to post about the issue at hand and not me!!

It isn't about me, it is about the fact that Pinnacle paid the loser of a moneyline bet!

So I have simply made posts about how stupid it is to pay the loser of a moneyline bet!!

[semibluff]

No what im saying its that it is possible that they didnt account for this situation. They can have whatever rule they want, but they would need to explain it if its in dispute, if its unfair rule or doesnt make sense

The fact that 3 big books dont use this rule, and also many others state "unless otherwise stated" means all books ive looked at, will at least accept that there are other scenarios than just standard overtime.
My point is backed up by many books, all you are saying is that "its in the rules" - without questioning the rule.

It doesn't matter what rules other books have. It doesn't matter if Pinnacle are the only book with this rule. It's their rule and they have to abide by it. If you bet F1 you'll find books have all sorts of different rules, some of which don't seem fair.

For what it's worth I agree with most posters here. The pinnacle rule as written is stupid and should be re-written similar to the Ladbrokes rule. That's for the future and if/when the rule is changed is if/when the new rule would apply. For now the op is stuck with a really bad beat. I sympathise with arbers who have arbs cancelled by unscrupulous books who void arbing situations after events start. I'm not particularly sympathetic towards bad beats.

[JoeCool20]

It doesn't matter what rules other books have. It doesn't matter if Pinnacle are the only book with this rule. It's their rule and they have to abide by it. If you bet F1 you'll find books have all sorts of different rules, some of which don't seem fair.

For what it's worth I agree with most posters here. The pinnacle rule as written is stupid and should be re-written similar to the Ladbrokes rule. That's for the future and if/when the rule is changed is if/when the new rule would apply. For now the op is stuck with a really bad beat. I sympathise with arbers who have arbs cancelled by unscrupulous books who void arbing situations after events start. I'm not particularly sympathetic towards bad beats.

LOL Good post! Why did you tell a stupid lie about me right before this post instead of just posting this?!

[piterp]

The pinnacle rule as written is stupid and should be re-written similar to the Ladbrokes rule

They are not idiots, maybe they did this rule to buy more time for traders to balance bets because bets on ML cant not be settled before finish of overtime

[JoeCool20]

They are not idiots, maybe they did this rule to buy more time for traders to balance bets because bets on ML cant not be settled before finish of overtime

LOL The game didn't go into overtime! One team won the game by 2 points!! thus clearly winning the moneyline bet!


And then AFTER the game was won by 2 points, they played to see who would advance to the next round!

If you want to get into "maybes" then "maybe" Pinnacle fukked up the vague rule so they could pay the LOSER

of the moneyline bet! LOL Because that is what they did! A team LOST the game by 2 points and they paid off

on the loser of the game!! Yes, you heard right, they paid the loser of the game instead of the winner!

[piterp]

In first post is information from cs that extra time is counted as well
so in this case because of extra time and their rules
ML bet change itself in series winner bet

[lonnie55]

In first post is information from cs that extra time is counted as well
so in this case because of extra time and their rules
ML bet change itself in series winner bet

BS. If Pristhina won by one point you would have won ML but lost series winner. Besides, there was no such market as "series winner"

[piterp]

if extra time was counted in bet it is exactly the same rules like series winner

[lonnie55]

You bet on Prishtina ML and Prishtina won by 1 point: ML WON
You bet on Pristhina Series Winner and Prishtina won by 1 point. Series Winner LOST

Only in the case that Prishtina wins by exactly 2 points ML would be the same like series winner, yes.

But what difference does it make? Maybe you missed it, but there was no market like SERIES WINNER or TO QUALIFY. So I'm not quite sure where you want to go with your argument

[cashin81]

It doesn't matter what rules other books have. It doesn't matter if Pinnacle are the only book with this rule. It's their rule and they have to abide by it. If you bet F1 you'll find books have all sorts of different rules, some of which don't seem fair.

For what it's worth I agree with most posters here. The pinnacle rule as written is stupid and should be re-written similar to the Ladbrokes rule. That's for the future and if/when the rule is changed is if/when the new rule would apply. For now the op is stuck with a really bad beat. I sympathise with arbers who have arbs cancelled by unscrupulous books who void arbing situations after events start. I'm not particularly sympathetic towards bad beats.

I guess the topic is 2 fold, does the rule need to be changed? we both agree and the argument is stronger for this than the second point; what should happen to OP?

I say he bet on something occurring and it occurred.
How can this match go into overtime? If Ops side win by 2 points - thats the only way you can answer this question.

Now if pinnacle are fully behind their rule, have looked at all the scenerios and are happy, its happened before and it will happen and they like their own rule....you wouldnt expect them to grade the bet winner after losing, then changing it back. That to me adds more questions.

[DontTailMe]

As an aside, any user who begins every post with “LOL”, I’m tuning them out. Whatever follows is unlikely to be a mature debate. I’m sure there are others who feel similarly.

[piterp]

I say he bet on something occurring and it occurred.
How can this match go into overtime? If Ops side win by 2 points - thats the only way you can answer this question.

It was not overtime for single match but it was overtime for qualification -for pinnacle it is the same

[fried cheese]

It was not overtime for single match but it was overtime for qualification -for pinnacle it is the same

it was overtime for the single match though. they were ahead by 2 at the end of regulation but they ended up losing the match. the reason they had overtime for that match was because of the qualification though.

[semibluff]

I guess the topic is 2 fold, does the rule need to be changed? we both agree and the argument is stronger for this than the second point; what should happen to OP?

I say he bet on something occurring and it occurred.
How can this match go into overtime? If Ops side win by 2 points - thats the only way you can answer this question.

Now if pinnacle are fully behind their rule, have looked at all the scenerios and are happy, its happened before and it will happen and they like their own rule....you wouldnt expect them to grade the bet winner after losing, then changing it back. That to me adds more questions.

I would say he bet on the road team winning by any other margin than exactly 2 points. The 'normal' situation is that a game would go into overtime if it was tied at the end of regulation time. The nature of this match meant the game would only go into overtime if the road team won by exactly 2 points - which they did. If the road team led by exactly 2 points at the end of overtime then game would have continued with double-overtime or some other tie-breaking procedure. Regardless the road team couldn't win by exactly 2 points. Thus your position is NOT the only way your question could be answered. Ironically if the game had been tied at the end of regulation, (or overtime), then his bet would have been void and if they had won by exactly 1 point the op would have won the battle whilst the team lost the war.

Pinnacle screwed up their bet settlement. No-one is disputing that. That is something that occasionally happens, with or without stupid rules. Whilst I think it's a stupid rule it doesn't matter to me whether the rule is changed or not. As a gambler I want bets to be settled by the rules that stood when I made my bet and not by what some other 3rd party 'thinks' is a just outcome. This isn't 1970's Soviet soccer. Pinnacle's current rule is clear and easy to understand. That it doesn't sit well with it's customers is a PR issue for them. It's in their interest to change this rule for the future because financially it makes no difference to them who wins an outcome. They are there primarily as middlemen to earn the juice from both sides. They're likely to take more bets, (and earn more juice), if their rules fit the 'fair-outcome' thinking of their customers. Ladbrokes, William Hill, and other books have already adopted this position. It means their rules are longer to read and more complicated but it fits in with what their customers are happier with.