BetFirstClass reserves right to cancel winning parlays and keep losers?

**smitch124** · 10-05-09, 12:44 PM

Thats especially troubling when there is no clear explanation of what a correlated parlay is, especially with college totals and sides (2-1 ratio? 2.5-1? 3-1?), gives them a wide discretion to void bets after the fact.

**themajormt** · 10-05-09, 12:45 PM

They are obviously keeping this vague for a reason, they want to STEAL from their customers!

**BigDaddy** · 10-05-09, 12:45 PM

what a bullshit move.

NFL correlated parlays bets are very limited over the course of the year most all books accept all parlays for NFL 1st half 2nd half and game side to total.

college is another story but NFL to have that bet cancelled is one of many reasons why you should play at the big books.

you accept the parlay you pay the parlay and fix your ****ing software.

unreal

**chance** · 10-05-09, 12:49 PM

I would call that a bush league policy. Not first class at all. Ass maybe

**Sledge187** · 10-05-09, 12:51 PM

downgrade
downgrade
downgrade
downgrade
downgrade
downgrade
downgrade

**SBR_John** · 10-05-09, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by smitch124

Thats especially troubling when there is no clear explanation of what a correlated parlay is, especially with college totals and sides (2-1 ratio? 2.5-1? 3-1?), gives them a wide discretion to void bets after the fact.

I predict they will change this. Its bush league thinking that you can allow the squares to slip in a correlated but limit the angle shooters.

**OSUCOWBOYS** · 10-05-09, 01:02 PM

What was the actual wager that was canceled?

**thespeculator** · 10-05-09, 01:03 PM

who cares about their grade , just don't play there, nice avatar man

**thespeculator** · 10-05-09, 01:04 PM

i meant sledge

**blackbox** · 10-05-09, 01:43 PM

Agreed-if you book it - pay it-would not happen in Nevada-gaming com. would back the player. They say Nevada rules - but only as it is in their favor. This is downside of offshore-them holding your cash-trying to get paid, and no one to make the books accountable. BFC- shame on you-Mirage exp. too-

**acarmelo1** · 10-05-09, 01:47 PM

I am a Software developer as all of you may think that fixing that software issue is HARD and Expensive

Well is not hard. Any guy with a degree can fix that in like 5 hours maybe a day if it is to big

and its a little expensive. we charge alot

**Thremp** · 10-05-09, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

I predict they will change this. Its bush league thinking that you can allow the squares to slip in a correlated but limit the angle shooters.

Perfect.

**Bread** · 10-05-09, 01:55 PM

I hope that one crazy guy from BFC comes back here to defend himself. I love that guy.

**SBR_John** · 10-05-09, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by acarmelo1

I am a Software developer as all of you may think that fixing that software issue is HARD and Expensive

Well is not hard. Any guy with a degree can fix that in like 5 hours maybe a day if it is to big

and its a little expensive. we charge alot

They can probably enable a function to prevent correlated parlays, everyone else does. I think what they are trying to do is leave all parlay options 'ON' so the squares can play away and if a square stumbles onto a correlated parlay they dont care. But when they see a sharp jump on them they just take a shot at him, let him play and if he losses all is cool but if he wins, well, he gets a 'NO ACTION'. Bush league, see it a lot from new shops who think no other book has ever thought of this gimmick.

**acarmelo1** · 10-05-09, 02:04 PM

well that is just bad and evil. We should use any other sportsbook then.
Has SBR done something to them?

**blackbart** · 10-05-09, 02:10 PM

exactly how is it correlated?

**acarmelo1** · 10-05-09, 02:17 PM

For example if make a parlay with: Viking ML, Viking -4

That is correlated because you may have a better chance at winning that parlay. odds are not well placed

**StraitShooter** · 10-05-09, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by blackbart

exactly how is it correlated?

also betting 2 parlays

one with a side and the over

one with the same side..and the under..

**Chuck Sims** · 10-05-09, 03:30 PM

Most people do not even know the definition of "correlated".

Yes, Vikings m/l parlayed with the Vikings -4½ is correlated. If you make that type of play and the computer accepts it, then you can expect the bet to be cancelled.

If you just parlay a side and total, this is not correlated in any way and should never be cancelled, even though some rogue books will do it.

I would like to know what the bettor parlayed.

**smitch124** · 10-05-09, 03:34 PM

This week Boise St. was 44.5 favorite over UC Davis and the total was 55.

You are saying Boise St. -44.5 and over 55 and UC Davis +44.5 and under 55 aren't correlated?

**OSUCOWBOYS** · 10-05-09, 04:12 PM

The bet was Balt -7.5 and OV 19 1H. (40% ratio)

In my opinion they should give the client the option to be paid and to be shown the door or for the player to accept the cancellation and remain as a customer.

**StraitShooter** · 10-05-09, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by OSUCOWBOYS

The bet was Balt -7.5 and OV 19 1H. (40% ratio)

In my opinion they should give the client the option to be paid and to be shown the door or for the player to accept the cancellation and remain as a customer.

nice to see you here

**Chuck Sims** · 10-05-09, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by smitch124

This week Boise St. was 44.5 favorite over UC Davis and the total was 55.

You are saying Boise St. -44.5 and over 55 and UC Davis +44.5 and under 55 aren't correlated?

Its not correlated. If you say its correlated, then you are saying Boise St covering is somehow connected to the game going over. Or, if the game goes over then Boise St must cover. Not true in either scenario.

**SBR Lou** · 10-05-09, 04:25 PM

BFC has addressed the complaint with SBR this afternoon. They have revised their website rules today by adding in their definition of correlated parlays that are off limits:

BFC considers parlays to be correlated when the spread/line is 30% (or more) then the total.

BFC has also stated that it would prevent users from making such parlays by blocking them via the software, so going forward these would not be able to be submitted.

The situation was handled poorly initially, BFC's rules were vague and allowed them to cherry-pick wagers to accept, but the player now considers the matter resolved to his satisfaction.

**durito** · 10-05-09, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Chuck Sims

Its not correlated. If you say its correlated, then you are saying Boise St covering is somehow connected to the game going over. Or, if the game goes over then Boise St must cover. Not true in either scenario.

Most people do not even know the definition of "correlated".

You got one thing right.

You cannot simply disallow "correlated parlays", you must define it. There are plenty of parlays that are correlated that certainly aren't +ev for the player.

**HedgeHog** · 10-05-09, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Chuck Sims

Its not correlated. If you say its correlated, then you are saying Boise St covering is somehow connected to the game going over. Or, if the game goes over then Boise St must cover. Not true in either scenario.

Actually this game is heavily correlated. If BS covers 44.5, then the game will very likely go over 55.

**eidolon** · 10-05-09, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by thespeculator

who cares about their grade , just don't play there, nice avatar man

You know what the name of this site is right?

**SBR_John** · 10-05-09, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by CrazyLou

BFC has addressed the complaint with SBR this afternoon. They have revised their website rules today by adding in their definition of correlated parlays that are off limits:

BFC has also stated that it would prevent users from making such parlays by blocking them via the software, so going forward these would not be able to be submitted.

The situation was handled poorly initially, BFC's rules were vague and allowed them to cherry-pick wagers to accept, but the player now considers the matter resolved to his satisfaction.

Thats the right move imo.

Books just itch to have two sets of rules, one for squares and one for sharps. But it fails the honor litmus test that is critical to being a bookmaker.

**Chuck Sims** · 10-05-09, 04:45 PM

Does BetFirstClass accept 1st half parlays? I am assuming yes. If yes, pay the bettor. Its a disgrace that BFC would cancel the winning bet. Do we even need to ask if the parlay had lost, would BFC void the losing bet?

This book is shady. During the NBA playoffs BFC cancelled all Laker -265 1st half m/l bets vs Den because they said it was an "error" line. They used Pinnacle's closing line as proof. That excuse went over like a lead balloon as Lakers -265 was widely available before it got steamed. The dummies never adjusted the line when they started to take bets on the game. Anyway, BFC ended up honoring the bets.

**Chuck Sims** · 10-05-09, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by HedgeHog

Actually this game is heavily correlated. If BS covers 44.5, then the game will very likely go over 55.

Likely? Correlated means connected to. Correlated does not mean likely to happen.

You are using probabilities and incorrectly using the word correlated.

**durito** · 10-05-09, 04:50 PM

Correlation - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

**Tinytimmy** · 10-05-09, 04:51 PM

IT WAS ME!!

I didn't read the rules and don't have a problem with the way it was resolved. BFC is one of the best books I play with and we have sent large sums back and forth very quickly in the past.

**InThisMoment** · 10-05-09, 04:59 PM

Why anyone would play with this Mickey Mouse operation is beyond me? It's like those suckers that go downtown in Las Vegas into the sawdust joints with the girls wearing the Mardi Gras beads and grass skirts then complain they can't win on the slots.

A couple questions:

-Were the players who bet Cleveland +7.5 and un 19 correlated refunded as well?
(I am assuming this was the BAL/CLE game)

-Assuming this is the same game, why does it take over a week for this to come to light?

**Tinytimmy** · 10-05-09, 05:04 PM

here is the wager. They did a good and quick job resolving this. I have no problem with the book and will continue to play there...