Huge issue with Bookmaker.eu, around $9k involved.

[adrianvxo]

I think you are misunderstanding.

There was no map forfeited. Check the official result for yourself;

https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354457/mad-lions-vs-777-pinnacle-winter-series-2

And as far as I understand the conversation, even the OP is not claiming that any map was forfeited or not played out in full.


He is saying that a player timing out so he could no longer play constitutes what the rules call a Player Forfeiting.

A forfeit is a scenario in which a team (or a player in this case) does not show up. You are not seeing a forfeit on the HLTV link because the team did not forfeit the map, opting to let their coach play. However, the player forfeited. It was not a regular substitution because the player failed to come back during the allowed time. He abandoned the game by not being able to come back due to his network issues.

Bookmaker is not even disputing this. They brought up another rule in their defense, saying that "a bet cannot be cancelled because of a team playing with a replacement player". That rule is not the same as "a bet cannot be cancelled IF a team is playing with a replacement player". It merely states that the player being replaced cannot be the reason for cancellation. The reason for cancellation in my case would be "a player forfeiting on at least one map". Again, this is on a player level (which is word for word out of their rules). Is this strictly for single player or team based events? We don't know. That is not specified.

If you want my honest opinion, the map was already lost when a non-playing coach participated. But I'm simply going by the rules here.

Did a player or team forfeit on at least one map? Yes.

Is the team playing with a replacement the reason for cancellation? No. The reason above is.


Per these rules, the bet should only stand IMO if:

1) The coach (or anyone else really) starts the game as the replacement player (assuming the organizer doesn't really care who plays)
2) The coach (or anyone else really) replaces the official player under normal circumstances, i.e. The player is feeling ill all of a sudden and someone subs in.

The difference in my scenario is that they waited and waited for the player to come back, to the point that they exhausted all their technical timeouts, and exceeded the limit allowed - at this point the player forfeited/abandoned - and can't return.

Such technicalities are what separates me from $9,000 so I'm definitely going to be persistent and escalate this as much as I can. I am following their own rules, not mine.

[Optional]

You are not seeing a forfeit on the HLTV link because the team did not forfeit the map

Correct.

And if the official published result says there was no forfeit, bets should be honored by the site rules.


The player did not forfeit anything, they were replaced and the match was played out in full.

Replacement players are allowed under the rules you bet under and there is no mention of a time limit the league has to do so in the Bookmaker.eu terms. And the league called the match official.


Anyway, I did all I could to try and see you point of view. But you have no valid argument and SBR will not advocate for you in this matter.

[adrianvxo]

Correct.

And if the official published result says there was no forfeit, bets should be honored by the site rules.


The player did not forfeit anything, they were replaced and the match was played out in full.

Replacement players are allowed under the rules you bet under and there is no mention of a time limit the league has to do so in the Bookmaker.eu terms. And the league called the match official.


Anyway, I did all I could to try and see you point of view. But you have no valid argument and SBR will not advocate for you in this matter.

There is a time limit. Here are the ESL rules for the matter:

If a participant has a problem that prevents them from playing on, they are allowed to use the pause function.Participants are limited to four timeouts, but there are no limits on the amount of technical pauses, but the totaltime spent technical paused per team, per map, must not exceed ten (10) minutes

The team also has 4 regular timeouts, which are 30 seconds each, and can be all taken one after the other.

That's 12 minutes. The "timeout" lasted more than 20 minutes in the contested event. The player not coming back represents clear abandonment by the player. That is no ordinary substitution, but rather a forced one caused by the fact that the previous player abandoned.

Did a player forfeit on at least one of the maps? Yes.

Can the Bookmaker rules be improved? Yes, and I even offered to help. I am going by their rules, and for some reason, you are not on my side. I am not the one who wrote the rules. I also don't really understand how you think it's fair that in a match that had 2 maps played, one of the teams played an entire map with a "player" who has basically never played the game officially. In any real sport, this scenario wouldn't happen as you need to have eligible players.

[Optional]

Then you need to speak to ESL and complain to them that you do not think they followed their rules and need to change the official result.

The official published results are not something any bookmaker has control over or responsibility for.

[adrianvxo]

Then you need to speak to ESL and complain to them that you do not think they followed their rules and need to change the official result.

The official published results are not something any bookmaker has control over or responsibility for.

I think there is some confusion in this argument.

A team can forfeit a map or the whole game. They could forfeit map 1 and play map 2.

The Bookmaker rule states that one map is sufficient for the bet to be cancelled. But the rule is also extended to "player". Given the importance of a "player" in a CS:GO match, I do believe that having a player abandonment (especially if the team does not have any roster players that can replace them) should essentially mean the same thing. This will not be seen in any results, because the match did continue and finished with a result. But if you look at the player, he was not able to play Map 1. Again, there is some ambiguity if the word "player" refers to single-player or team-based events, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in their rules.

The frustrations are even higher because Pinnacle (the official organizer) does not want to offer me official information. I can see with my own eyes that the player abandoned (and the match was even paused way past the normal time limit for technical timeouts), yet I haven't been able to get an official confirmation from them.

[adrianvxo]

Then you need to speak to ESL and complain to them that you do not think they followed their rules and need to change the official result.

The official published results are not something any bookmaker has control over or responsibility for.

I do think you have a good point here though.
Although Bookmaker rules could potentially favor me based on the wording, I really need to bring this up with whoever is in charge of regulating this competition. That first map should have probably been a forfeit (at the team level as well). They waited more than 20 minutes for a player to return - that goes beyond any official CS:GO rules I've ever seen.

If that map is declared forfeit, then there is nothing else Bookmaker could argue about. They might still bring up the fact that there was a replacement player, but it wouldn't be a valid counter-argument at that point.

[DontTailMe]

Maybe it wasn't declared "forfeit" purposely. I've yet to see you post anything which states that such a scenario would be deemed a "forfeit". That last bit is only coming from your mouth as far as I can tell. Forfeit has special meaning which wasn't satisfied here it seems.

[adrianvxo]

Maybe it wasn't declared "forfeit" purposely. I've yet to see you post anything which states that such a scenario would be deemed a "forfeit". That last bit is only coming from your mouth as far as I can tell. Forfeit has special meaning which wasn't satisfied here it seems.

Ok so how would you describe a player abandoning a match (for whatever reason?) Is that not a forfeit on the player?

[DontTailMe]

Ok so how would you describe a player abandoning a match (for whatever reason?) Is that not a forfeit on the player?

Did the team still play to the end of that map without him?

[adrianvxo]

Did the team still play to the end of that map without him?

Did the team finish the map? Yes.
Did the player finish the map? No.

Did the team forfeit the map? No.
Did the player forfeit the map? Yes.

[DontTailMe]

Did the team finish the map? Yes.
Did the player finish the map? No.

Did the team forfeit the map? No.
Did the player forfeit the map? Yes.

Okay, now everything the others have been saying all along makes sense to me. I agree with what Optional is saying here. No forfeit occurred. The team finished the map down 1 player - that's all. A forfeit would be where they could not continue playing and had to accept a loss by default. That's the accepted definition of "forfeit" in sports.

I don't think you're necessarily doing this on purpose, but it seems that you are (at least subconsciously) trying to bend the definition of "forfeit" to suit your needs.

[Optional]

Okay, now everything the others have been saying all along makes sense to me. I agree with what Optional is saying here. That's not a forfeit. No forfeit occurred. The team finished the map down 1 player. A forfeit would be where they could not continue the map and accepted a loss by default. That's the accepted definition of "forfeit" in sports.

I don't think you're necessarily doing this on purpose, but you are (at least subconsciously) trying to bend the definition of "forfeit" to suit your needs.

They did not even finish the map short a player.

They subbed in the coach, who the OP is not happy about as he is useless.


His contention is that the game was suspended for more than 5 minutes waiting for the player to return before the sub was made and game continued, which is apparently against league rules and what he is calling a player forfeit.

You usually read threads before commenting. Not sure what inspired you to muddy the waters here.

[adrianvxo]

They did not even finish the map short a player.

They subbed in the coach, who the OP is not happy about as he is useless.


His contention is that the game was suspended for more than 5 minutes waiting for the player to return before the sub was made and game continued, which is apparently against league rules and what he is calling a player forfeit.

You usually read threads before commenting. Not sure what inspired you to muddy the waters here.

That's exactly what my logic is.

In fact, I just opened a case with ESIC requesting the map 1 (as a whole) to be declared forfeit because
a) the technical timeout bent the rules. It was actually prolonged for 25 minutes.
b) the coach is not an official team player, or an official player at all.

But more so case a), because Pinnacle can apparently allow Optional to play in the tournament and no one would care.

[comet52]

My opinion and it's jmo:

1. You are never going to get paid on this wager no matter how much time and energy you spend complaining, pursuing it with governing bodies, etc. Your understanding of forfeit in this case seems flawed at best as Optional has pointed out about six different ways.
2. You might have had a shot to just get bookmaker to refund your wager - how much are you out, a couple hundred? That is gone too imo.
3. You risk losing them as an out if you piss them off.

Personally I'd give it up and move on with your wagering. Chalk it up to experience. Everyone takes bad beats in this game.

[adrianvxo]

My opinion and it's jmo:

1. You are never going to get paid on this wager no matter how much time and energy you spend complaining, pursuing it with governing bodies, etc. Your understanding of forfeit in this case seems flawed at best as Optional has pointed out about six different ways.
2. You might have had a shot to just get bookmaker to refund your wager - how much are you out, a couple hundred? That is gone too imo.
3. You risk losing them as an out if you piss them off.

Personally I'd give it up and move on with your wagering. Chalk it up to experience. Everyone takes bad beats in this game.

If you read what I said above, my new angle is disputing the fact that Map 1 should have been a forfeit, which if successful would give Bookmaker no choice but to honor the bet. The governing body should be able to look at this and see what happened on that map. I only need one map to be forfeit, not the entire result. The official result will remain the same, but map 1 will be marked as forfeit.

[DontTailMe]

If you read what I said above, my new angle is disputing the fact that Map 1 should have been a forfeit, which if successful would give Bookmaker no choice but to honor the bet. The governing body should be able to look at this and see what happened on that map. I only need one map to be forfeit, not the entire result. The official result will remain the same, but map 1 will be marked as forfeit.

This is your problem.

Did you have like $20,000 on this or something? You seem desperate to find some way to turn this into a win.

[adrianvxo]

Well I was frustrated with Bookmaker, but like Optional said, they just follow official results. Their rules are ambiguous to say the least so if course they refuse to cooperate and give me $10k. But the real shady thing here is the match. A player gets disconnected after the first round, a technical timeout that exceeds 25 minute follows (way past the rules) and then an incompetent (but more importantly ineligible) staff member tries to fill that role. I had 10 other picks on that bet and this one is the only one with shithousery involved.

[syjytg]

Even if you manage to get ESIC to change the result to Map 1 being forfeited, it won't help you. It is a well known fact that books do not recognize protests and overturned decisions in the determination of a bet and bookmaker is one of the books that follows this norm.

So the determination of your bet is entirely hinged on the correct intepretation of "If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded."

I agree with the others posted above that the correct interpretation is that a player here refers a player in a solo or 1v1 event. It does not apply for a player in a team event.

I will now give my reasoining on why that is the correct interpretation.

"If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded." is equivalent to saying that

All wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded if either

a) a player receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, or
b) a team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map

A player in a team event cannot receive a walkover or win by admin decision so clause (a) does not make sense in that scenario. Clause (a) makes sense in the context of a player playing in a 1v1 event so "a player" refers to a player in a 1v1 event and does not apply to a player in a team event. In your case, it is a team event (5v5) and not a 1v1 event, so clause (a) does not apply and only clause (b) applies and as a team did not receive a walkover, win by admin decision or forfeits on at least one map, this rule is not applicable.

[comet52]

This is your problem.

Did you have like $20,000 on this or something? You seem desperate to find some way to turn this into a win.

20k to win 14k on a 7 way parlay... I'm guessing he had a couple hundred at most on it.

Maybe he can take it all the way to the Supreme Court of International Sportsbetting! The lawyer fees are gonna make that 200 hundred look pale by comparison though...

[adrianvxo]

Even if you manage to get ESIC to change the result to Map 1 being forfeited, it won't help you. It is a well known fact that books do not recognize protests and overturned decisions in the determination of a bet and bookmaker is one of the books that follows this norm.

So the determination of your bet is entirely hinged on the correct intepretation of "If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded."

I agree with the others posted above that the correct interpretation is that a player here refers a player in a solo or 1v1 event. It does not apply for a player in a team event.

I will now give my reasoining on why that is the correct interpretation.

"If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded." is equivalent to saying that

All wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded if either

a) a player receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, or
b) a team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map

A player in a team event cannot receive a walkover or win by admin decision so clause (a) does not make sense in that scenario. Clause (a) makes sense in the context of a player playing in a 1v1 event so "a player" refers to a player in a 1v1 event and does not apply to a player in a team event. In your case, it is a team event (5v5) and not a 1v1 event, so clause (a) does not apply and only clause (b) applies and as a team did not receive a walkover, win by admin decision or forfeits on at least one map, this rule is not applicable.

Yeah, that's why I realized that it's not Bookmaker I should be mad about, but rather the host of the tournament for allowing such travesty. If map 1 is officially declared forfeit (rather than the player), then I don't see Bookmaker not assisting me, especially since I'm one of their top customers.

[Optional]

Yeah, that's why I realized that it's not Bookmaker I should be mad about, but rather the host of the tournament for allowing such travesty. If map 1 is officially declared forfeit (rather than the player), then I don't see Bookmaker not assisting me, especially since I'm one of their top customers.

I am very happy to see that you understand the situation now.

I am sure missing out on 9K still hurts a lot, but I hope it helps to also understand Bookmaker are not trying to cheat you at least.

[adrianvxo]

I am very happy to see that you understand the situation now.

I am sure missing out on 9K still hurts a lot, but I hope it helps to also understand Bookmaker are not trying to cheat you at least.

I never thought they were cheating. I was just frustrated by their rulebook and the customer service I was getting. Obviously that frustration should be directed at the tournament/organizing body, but the Bookmaker rules in this area need a lot of work.

[Barrakuda]

I had a parlay in esports.... GTFO.

[adrianvxo]

I had a parlay in esports.... GTFO.

Get The Forfeit Officialized ?

Bet.