The bovada case - that can change the whole betting industry

[Ant23]

PD77....careful taking a stand against Opti b/c he put me outta here for doing the same. Only allowed back with limited choices.....have over 10k points and question opti 1x and he will pull the "I'm the mod here" card and you'll be banned too. Sad that he can't keep his emotions out of the forum but I guess when "book A" is helping you pay your bills you go to great lengths to defend the undefendable? Sad......but true!!

PD77 you may be allowed a little more leeway since you're an SBR Pro.....they like you more!!
Degen1 pulled opti card and he folded like a tent!! Read the posts b/c it's so obvious Stevie Wonder can see it!!

[ace7550]

He called me a troll when I disagreed with him. I don't get it either. Optional has a lot of good input and has answered my questions on numerous occasions but for whatever reason he likes to call names when people don't agree with him. Discussion and debate are good things that make us all smarter. Name calling not so much.

[littlekona]

PD77....careful taking a stand against Opti b/c he put me outta here for doing the same. Only allowed back with limited choices.....have over 10k points and question opti 1x and he will pull the "I'm the mod here" card and you'll be banned too. Sad that he can't keep his emotions out of the forum but I guess when "book A" is helping you pay your bills you go to great lengths to defend the undefendable? Sad......but true!!

PD77 you may be allowed a little more leeway since you're an SBR Pro.....they like you more!!
Degen1 pulled opti card and he folded like a tent!! Read the posts b/c it's so obvious Stevie Wonder can see it!!

Your a true idiot with no contribution to the forum...if you ever had a legitimate beef besides complaining your btc takes to long to confirm even though you sent with low fee you would know optional is a huge asset and advocate here...hes helped me a few times and agree or disagree w books/exchange/agents i use if i do encounter a issue (not
scam or attempt to de fraud) i know i have an advocate i can pm.....

[im over here now]

Lol thread turning crazy.. One must remember SBR was founded to be the Online Sports book Authority..Mod has every right to defend book. If online drys up SBR goes the way of the dinosaur.. Fu isn’t even harsh all grown here.. Mentioned already.. Sending large sums of money to 3rd world countries hoping to be treated 100% fairly is asking a lot... All books are A plus.. Until the day they aren’t... Nothing SBR or anyone else can do about that... Online going to die a slow painful death... Fun why it lasted..

[newton0038]

Linesmakers/Traders cant all be drunk/lit every time these bad odds present themselves to be an obvious problem and are only a problem when they win. Isnt line automation an issue involved in some of this or is there a certain amount of carelessness on the book side.

No issue when a punter losses on the "bad line", how does that work out? book rebate 30% of the wager or some hookie shit. Whats the current situation in the new books in the USA ??? See a line, bet a line, win the game, get paid.even if the line is off by 10-1.

Punter needs to take what the book offered post match, and lucky he isn't shown the door, but the book also needs to look at he amount of action that was levied, would said punter have hit the line just as hard for the odds now offered?

Checks and balances needed and then redundancy in the check it again and again.

[Crusherrr]

PD77....careful taking a stand against Opti b/c he put me outta here for doing the same. Only allowed back with limited choices.....have over 10k points and question opti 1x and he will pull the "I'm the mod here" card and you'll be banned too. Sad that he can't keep his emotions out of the forum but I guess when "book A" is helping you pay your bills you go to great lengths to defend the undefendable? Sad......but true!!

PD77 you may be allowed a little more leeway since you're an SBR Pro.....they like you more!!
Degen1 pulled opti card and he folded like a tent!! Read the posts b/c it's so obvious Stevie Wonder can see it!!

10000 points means nothing since you aren't a pro.

[ace7550]

Betting industry changed yet?

[Optional]

He called me a troll when I disagreed with him. I don't get it either. Optional has a lot of good input and has answered my questions on numerous occasions but for whatever reason he likes to call names when people don't agree with him. Discussion and debate are good things that make us all smarter. Name calling not so much.

I don't argue politely when people like PD77 and Ant23 start telling me how I think, or what I have to do, or that my ethics are corrupted. And don't apologize for that.

But if I took things too personally that Ant23 idiot would be gone long ago. If you think he is a bit rude at me here, you should see the PM messages.

And if I called you a troll for simply disagreeing with me, that sucks and would be a mistake from me. I can assure you, even without recalling what you are talking about, that I would have had a real reason in my mind better than just wanting to shut you down merely for not agreeing, It can't have been too much of an issue though. Still can't recall anything with you even after typing this and thinking about it.

[FakeNews916]

Correct odds for when he laid it should have been about +325. I was on Bookmaker looking at the Europa futures to look for some value. I can't believe he took a risk on LASK.

Glad Bovada paid some...+200 is the tip off odds for the group. So they gave you some.

Now we move on and no one trusts anyone

[fried cheese]

FU pal.

I don't care that the thread started.

Everyone else with half a brain and an ounce of ethics told him the truth.

I did object to you joining him in unfairly trashing the book and confusing the situation.

But just like you, I "get it". You have no honor like the OP, and genuinely don't understand what was wrong here.

it seems dishonorable to let someone bet +ev odds and then change them to -ev odds after the fact. casinos arent some charity out to help you. i dont think its unethical to take advantage of ppls mistakes when they have a competitive relationship with you.

[lonnie55]

i dont think its unethical to take advantage of ppls mistakes when they have a competitive relationship with you.

Absolutely, that's part of the game.

To be fair, I think what Opti makes upset is rather the fact that people taking a shot come here to complain when the book does not pay an obvious error. I mean, this thread won't change anything on the book's decision, it won't change anyone's opinion and it definitely won't change the industry, so it's pretty useless anyway

[Optional]

it seems dishonorable to let someone bet +ev odds and then change them to -ev odds after the fact. casinos arent some charity out to help you. i dont think its unethical to take advantage of ppls mistakes when they have a competitive relationship with you.

Sure, he took a shot and it didn't pay off in full. Fair game. People do it all the time, don't get paid at all, but don't start threads unfairly trying to smear the book afterward.

And the forum members had it handled before PD77 decided to pile on with him is why I got a bit testy.

[TommieGunshot]

Sure, he took a shot and it didn't pay off in full. Fair game. People do it all the time, don't get paid at all, but don't start threads unfairly trying to smear the book afterward.

Are really trying to say that sportsbooks waiting three weeks to make a correction happens "all the time"?

Most of us accept that bad lines are going to happen and be canceled when a place like Bovada can just pay a fee, do whatever they want, and still earn an A+ rating. They have no incentive for better quality control or to honor bets, like dozens of others sportsbooks now do. But to wait three weeks to make a correction is tacky at best

[Optional]

Are really trying to say that sportsbooks waiting three weeks to make a correction happens "all the time"?

Yes it is normal for errors to be picked up at grading time, whether that be on a 3 week or 3 month long future bet.

And this error was addressed 16 minutes after grading happened, per the OP's first post.

Sure it's on Bovada for making the error to start with, but nothing at all wrong with the response.

[lonnie55]

I plead for mistrade deadlines like in the financial market:

In order to have legal certainty at the stock exchange, all exchanges have tight deadlines to request a review and cancellation, if possible. At the NYSE, BATS, CBOT, NASDAQ, OMX and American Stock Exchange requests for review must be received within thirty (30) minutes of execution time.^[5][6]
At the NYSE-Euronext Liffe (Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam), "Where a member has executed an Erroneous trade, he will have a maximum of 30 minutes from the time of execution within which he may contact Market Services to request an invalidation".^[7]
At the London Stock Exchange "any requests from member firms to cancel trades should be made to the Market Supervision department as soon as possible and in any event within 30 minutes of the trade time".^[8]
At the Singapore Exchange, "the matter must be referred to SGX-ST within sixty (60) minutes from the time the error trade occurred".^[9][10]
The Frankfurt Stock Exchange in Germany applies the following rules: in case of transactions in securities traded in Continuous Auction, the Mistrade application shall be submitted within two trading hours upon receipt of the execution confirmation pursuant to § 2 Paragraph 1 Clause 2. As far as transactions of securities other than structured products, which are traded in Continuous Auction, are concerned, the application term ends according to Clause 1 upon closing of trading hours for that day, so the mistrade application has to be submitted within half an hour after the closing of trading hours at the latest.^[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-finger_error#Deadlines_for_review_&_cancellation

[icon]

it seems dishonorable to let someone bet +ev odds and then change them to -ev odds after the fact. casinos arent some charity out to help you. i dont think its unethical to take advantage of ppls mistakes when they have a competitive relationship with you.

Absolutely and I believe most here agree with this. Since most here are experienced with offshore rules they are just stating the reality.

I personally agree that if a book accepts a bet they should pay it. The reality is very different. Anyone that has been around a while knows that if a line seems to be too good to be true and bet it the outcome for them will likely be disappointing.

Bottom line and something everyone needs to remember is that if you bet a line thats waaay off it will likely be voided after the fact if it wins and will be honoured if it loses. Is this fair, no, but it is how it works in real life.

DONT BET BAD LINES!

[ace7550]

Absolutely and I believe most here agree with this. Since most here are experienced with offshore rules they are just stating the reality.

I personally agree that if a book accepts a bet they should pay it. The reality is very different. Anyone that has been around a while knows that if a line seems to be too good to be true and bet it the outcome for them will likely be disappointing.

Bottom line and something everyone needs to remember is that if you bet a line thats waaay off it will likely be voided after the fact if it wins and will be honoured if it loses. Is this fair, no, but it is how it works in real life.

DONT BET BAD LINES!

My problem here is that I am always looking for the best value possible and sometimes there's a book that is offering a significantly better line than everyone else but it's not so far off that it's obviously a bad line.
Example from today:


Look at the lines highlighted in green. Are these bad lines? I bet the Madison Keys line at bookmaker...

[Optional]

My problem here is that I am always looking for the best value possible and sometimes there's a book that is offering a significantly better line than everyone else but it's not so far off that it's obviously a bad line.
Example from today:


Look at the lines highlighted in green. Are these bad lines? I bet the Madison Keys line at bookmaker...

When you get a bet like that cancelled, that you think is questionable, complain.

But we don't see that sort of cancel complained about very often... just brought up as a theoretical possibility when a thread like this with a very obvious clear error is being discussed.


Why pick a clear shot takers thread to suddenly worry about it?

[ace7550]

When you get a bet like that cancelled, that you think is questionable, complain.

But we don't see that sort of cancel complained about very often... just brought up as a theoretical possibility when a thread like this with a very obvious clear error is being discussed.


Why pick a clear shot takers thread to suddenly worry about it?

I do think the OP obviously bet a bad line to try and take advantage of Bovada. Especially the amount he bet.
I'm bringing this up because I shop for lines everyday and it is an interesting subject to me. I wanted others' opinions on it.
Since we are talking about bad/questionable lines in this thread it seemed like a good place to bring it up.

[fried cheese]

so to get into 1st, LASK basically had to win both remaining matches (against Rosenborg and Sporting).

Opening odds at Pinnacle to win the first match were @2,01 and opening odds for the the 2nd one were @2,10,

Correct odds for when he laid it should have been about +325. I was on Bookmaker looking at the Europa futures to look for some value.

i have no idea about soccer odds but if theses statements are true then how can this even be an obvious error? if ppl in this thread argue that the odds could have been +130, then that is about the same difference from +325 as +525 without even deducting juice. that is another problem with "obvious" errors. ppl who regularly post here can easily be off by a td or more when they are guessing lines for upcoming college football games.

[semibluff]

I just read through this thread. I'm familiar with this soccer competition but I haven't followed the tournament or the teams in it for many years. I'm guessing wildly at numbers, but here goes...I would have expected LASK to be -125 or so to win @ Rosenborg and +140 to beat Sporting in the last game, (depending on what happened in the PSV @ Sporting Week 5). That's +332 to win both games and win the Group. However there were some possibilities to win the Group with 1 win and a draw. +300 to win the Group would have been about the true odds price. I would have expected market odds of +250 to +275. Paying out on this bet at less than +235 is favouring the book. I don't think Bovada is being at all generous paying out at +200.

Then again +525 is shot-taking and I don't particularly care what happens to 'other' shot-takers, and I say that as someone who does occasionally take shots, (with small bets I can afford to lose). Bottom line:- the op took a shot and whilst the book didn't void the winning bet, it paid out at less than a fair price. Voiding the bet would have been tempting.

The bet was placed 11/21. The Week 5 game was played 11/28. The final Week 6 games were played 12/12. The odds error probably wasn't spotted until the odds were changed after Week 5. Whether the op was notified how Bovada would proceed on 11/29 or when the bet was settled on 12/12 wouldn't have made any difference overall. Personally if I had been in the book's shoes I would have flagged the op's account as a shot-taker on 11/29 for Bovada staff, but wouldn't have informed him. If the bet would have lost there would have been no benefit to Bovada in letting the op know he had been tagged as a shot-taker. I wouldn't have booted him but he wouldn't be eligible for any bonus, promotion, or the benefit of any future doubt.

I'm mildly curious to see if anything happens from here, but it's not going to bother me.

[cashin81]

if its +525 instead of +325 then i dont really see that as obvious. if you checked the market, then sure but it needed checking.
Not like 16/1 instead of 1/16...

Arsenal play chelsea tonight, they are +350. If you arent into soccer and dont check the market - then +280-+600 would all make some sense. +1100 would be obvious.

also the book has to pay the price at some point. If you are gonna mess up champions league odds, and its only +325 instead of +525 - then at some point you have to hold your hands up.

[pologq]

This is the most blatant (documented) shot taking I have seen here ... deposit and bet into a bad line a few minutes later ... twice! Should have only had his wagers refunded IMO ... and he's here complaining about payout adjustments. I'm assuming Bovada is no longer an out for him.

i do not know the sport and odds so i can't say if it was blatant but it appears to be based on feedback. i agree if that is the case he should just be thankful they still paid.

[semibluff]

if its +525 instead of +325 then i dont really see that as obvious. if you checked the market, then sure but it needed checking.
Not like 16/1 instead of 1/16...

Arsenal play chelsea tonight, they are +350. If you arent into soccer and dont check the market - then +280-+600 would all make some sense. +1100 would be obvious.

also the book has to pay the price at some point. If you are gonna mess up champions league odds, and its only +325 instead of +525 - then at some point you have to hold your hands up.

I respectfully disagree. If the common price is +325, (23.53%), then the best price is not going to be more than +400, (20%), and that +400 would be snapped up pretty quickly. There's no way +525, (16%) could be justified. 7.5% difference on a base of 23.5% is too far away from the correct price.

To put it in perspective the current Super Bowl odds line is Chiefs -125; 49ers +105. If you moved that line by 7.5% it would be Chiefs -162; 49ers +142. No-one would argue that wasn't a clear error and being 7.5% off on a base of 48.78% is more plausible than 7.5% on a 23.5% base.

[rustygsbr]

seems to me

the player seems like he was treated very fairly. Evidence of his taking a shot here is that I don't think anyone would bother putting in a parlay with a -1000 which adds less than 10% to the payout. Probably (although can't be sure) did this to get around the betting limits, although that would be on Bovada to prevent as well. FWIW, I think Bovada has acted honorably here. I've seen books simply cancel, especially if circumventing the limits.

If not for the amazingly obvious parlay, I think OP would have a much more reasonable argument.

[cashin81]

I respectfully disagree. If the common price is +325, (23.53%), then the best price is not going to be more than +400, (20%), and that +400 would be snapped up pretty quickly. There's no way +525, (16%) could be justified. 7.5% difference on a base of 23.5% is too far away from the correct price.

To put it in perspective the current Super Bowl odds line is Chiefs -125; 49ers +105. If you moved that line by 7.5% it would be Chiefs -162; 49ers +142. No-one would argue that wasn't a clear error and being 7.5% off on a base of 48.78% is more plausible than 7.5% on a 23.5% base.

The player might not know all the percentages etc. He could just see +525, from the players perspective it wont be obvious as for example Arsenal vs Boston celtics... You wont look at +525 and think "obvious error".

I mean he took a shot, the parlay prably killed him, but others have taken shots and been paid with bigger differences.

[ace7550]

The player might not know all the percentages etc. He could just see +525, from the players perspective it wont be obvious as for example Arsenal vs Boston celtics... You wont look at +525 and think "obvious error".

I mean he took a shot, the parlay prably killed him, but others have taken shots and been paid with bigger differences.

Again, the guy obviously took a shot.
But I just bet Madison keys at -405 at bookmaker when most other sites had her at -550 or -650. I got paid.
Where do we draw the line between getting a good price and taking a shot?

[semibluff]

The player might not know all the percentages etc. He could just see +525, from the players perspective it wont be obvious as for example Arsenal vs Boston celtics... You wont look at +525 and think "obvious error".

I mean he took a shot, the parlay prably killed him, but others have taken shots and been paid with bigger differences.

Whether the player knows there's an obvious error doesn't matter. If it's an obvious error to anyone with basic math skills and Excel then it's an obvious error. If there's a 4 team tournament and you can bet 3 teams at 1 book and the 4th team at another book and guarantee a profit then you can be sure there's an obvious error in there somewhere. The total book price on the Europa League Group would have been around 106.5%. There isn't room for a 7.5% difference. A 5% differential is about the most that will be accepted. The exception to this is where there's a much higher total book price, for example a 20 runner horse race where the total book price is around 128% and the differential could be absorbed.

[semibluff]

Again, the guy obviously took a shot.
But I just bet Madison keys at -405 at bookmaker when most other sites had her at -550 or -650. I got paid.
Where do we draw the line between getting a good price and taking a shot?

-405 is 80.2%. -550 is 84.62%. That differential of 4.42% is pretty much the top end of what could be considered a good/genuine/reasonable line, especially in a 2 outcome low total book price event. That's the sort of bet I look for but I would definitely have been sweating on a differential that large. I think -380 would have been voided and a void at -405 would have tough to overturn on appeal. Just my opinion rather than some cold, hard, written-in-stone decree.

[ace7550]

-405 is 80.2%. -550 is 84.62%. That differential of 4.42% is pretty much the top end of what could be considered a good/genuine/reasonable line, especially in a 2 outcome low total book price event. That's the sort of bet I look for but I would definitely have been sweating on a differential that large. I think -380 would have been voided and a void at -405 would have tough to overturn on appeal. Just my opinion rather than some cold, hard, written-in-stone decree.

Yeah that sounds reasonable to me too.

[tristan]

Most of the time i try to defend customers (vs Bookmakers)...But in that particular situation... LOL: Lanceman, you take people for idiots?? You tried to take advantage of a situation, i won't blame you for it, but then please don't insist, don't come to complain because they caught you .

[frenchbettor]

Most of the time i try to defend customers (vs Bookmakers)...But in that particular situation... LOL: Lanceman, you take people for idiots?? You tried to take advantage of a situation, i won't blame you for it, but then please don't insist, don't come to complain because they caught you .

And don't pretend it will change a whole industry...