BetFirstClass reserves right to cancel winning parlays and keep losers?

[Chuck Sims]

What was the rule? Since they are one of the "best books", that means they were shamed into paying you. They are shady for pulling the same shit they have done in the past. These are minimal cues for bettor BEWARE!! Since BetFirstClass is a credit/post-up shop, I would play there on credit. Posting up with cash, no way. I don't want my money in there if things take a downturn.

[StraitShooter]

Tinytimmy..since you move such " large funds" frequently as you say..why cover up the amount of your play, Tiny Timothy?

[Chuck Sims]

durito, some parlays have a slight edge to the player. Books do not even pay true odds so the slight edge is extremely slight.

Rouge books will cancel winning parlays saying they do not allow correlated parlays. Its bullshit.
Correlated parlays are not allowed, period.

Just because the percentages say play the big fav to the over, does not mean its correlated. That is my point.

[The Judge]

I have to admit to being a bit surprised to see this complaint was posted at SBR Forum a mere 10 minutes after I received an email from their office inquiring about the complaint. Is it SBR’s standard procedure to jump to conclusions regarding a player dispute and to post their own opinion on the matter prior to hearing the book’s response?

After all, it is not as if there has been a rash of complaints over canceled wagers at BetFirsClass. We are talking about a single wager so why the rush to judgment? What is the rationale behind posting this without giving our office a chance to respond? It is not as if it is difficult to reach us and in my response to the emailed inquiry I even stated that I was traveling and would not be able to respond until this evening

Admittedly, the rule posted on the BFC website was unnecessarily vague but for John to suggest that we have been “taking a shot” at players is blatantly false and in my opinion, irresponsible of him. There has been no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption and it would seem that in this case, rather than “arbitrate” the complaint; SBR management chose instead to “arbitrarily” assume the worst which frankly, is disappointing.

Furthermore, I understand that the player contacted SBR as far back as last Friday to withdraw his complaint so it is even more baffling to me that SBR would decide to post this, not only on the forum, but also in the SBR rating page for BetFirstClass. Coincidently, BetFirstClass’ SBR rating was upgraded to C- one week ago today which leads me to wonder if there are perhaps some on the SBR staff who were not happy with the upgrade. In my eyes, the decision to create this thread is more than a little suspect.

I have to believe that SBR management knows that if BetFirstClass had been canceling many of these types of parlays, they would probably have heard about it long before now. The fact of the matter is that this particular play slipped by our staff initially but was then canceled immediately upon discovering it, after grading the game 1st half.

Once again, BetFirstClass appreciates the opportunity afforded us by SBR to address, here on the forum, any issues that arise but I would hope that in the future, a little more thought will be given to disputes prior to going public with a minor issue such as this. I am fairly confident in stating that BFC is not the first book to cancel a correlated parlay and no one should be surprised if we continue to do so in the future.

Regards,
Judge

[acw]

After reading the Bodog scam (A- book that is what really worries me) I thought I had seen it all!

[HedgeHog]

IOnce again, BetFirstClass appreciates the opportunity afforded us by SBR to address, here on the forum, any issues that arise but I would hope that in the future, a little more thought will be given to disputes prior to going public with a minor issue such as this. I am fairly confident in stating that BFC is not the first book to cancel a correlated parlay and no one should be surprised if we continue to do so in the future.

Regards,
Judge

No you're not the first. Sportsbook.com is the first I know about, but I hope they aren't the company you plan to keep. If you canceled that 1st half parlay on Baltimore and Over (especially after knowing the outcome), then you did indeed take a shot at that player and you deserve to be called on it.

[Chuck Sims]

ITS NOT CORRLEATED! There is nothing connected to the Ravens covering -7½ and going over the total 19½. Books do not pay true odds so even if the arguement is made that the Ravens parlayed to the over has a better chance of happening than the Ravens and Under, those percentages are negated by the less than true odds payout.

Sportsbooks do not allow correlated parlays. Example: Packers m/l parlayed to GB +4.

Shit books love to cheat the player by cancelling a winning parlay wager. But they can't say, it was a sharp play, so they say it was correlated, which is bullshit.

[Trojan]

Judge,

Quit trying to play the victim here and blaming SBR for jumping to conclusions. You know what you guys did and you know its wrong. Plain and simple.

[Chuck Sims]

The Judge also said it was a good decision when BFC cancelled all Lakers -265 1st half vs Denver. BFC is shady.

When The Judge says BFC will continue to cancel winning parlays. I now can say they are a crooked sportsbook.

Since we know they will not cancel losing wagers, this gives a crooked book a free shot.

[Bill Dozer]

I have to admit to being a bit surprised to see this complaint was posted at SBR Forum a mere 10 minutes after I received an email from their office inquiring about the complaint. Is it SBR’s standard procedure to jump to conclusions regarding a player dispute and to post their own opinion on the matter prior to hearing the book’s response?

After all, it is not as if there has been a rash of complaints over canceled wagers at BetFirsClass. We are talking about a single wager so why the rush to judgment? What is the rationale behind posting this without giving our office a chance to respond? It is not as if it is difficult to reach us and in my response to the emailed inquiry I even stated that I was traveling and would not be able to respond until this evening

Admittedly, the rule posted on the BFC website was unnecessarily vague but for John to suggest that we have been “taking a shot” at players is blatantly false and in my opinion, irresponsible of him. There has been no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption and it would seem that in this case, rather than “arbitrate” the complaint; SBR management chose instead to “arbitrarily” assume the worst which frankly, is disappointing.

Furthermore, I understand that the player contacted SBR as far back as last Friday to withdraw his complaint so it is even more baffling to me that SBR would decide to post this, not only on the forum, but also in the SBR rating page for BetFirstClass. Coincidently, BetFirstClass’ SBR rating was upgraded to C- one week ago today which leads me to wonder if there are perhaps some on the SBR staff who were not happy with the upgrade. In my eyes, the decision to create this thread is more than a little suspect.

I have to believe that SBR management knows that if BetFirstClass had been canceling many of these types of parlays, they would probably have heard about it long before now. The fact of the matter is that this particular play slipped by our staff initially but was then canceled immediately upon discovering it, after grading the game 1st half.

Once again, BetFirstClass appreciates the opportunity afforded us by SBR to address, here on the forum, any issues that arise but I would hope that in the future, a little more thought will be given to disputes prior to going public with a minor issue such as this. I am fairly confident in stating that BFC is not the first book to cancel a correlated parlay and no one should be surprised if we continue to do so in the future.

Regards,
Judge

Player complaint or not the "rule" is a liability to players and relevant to SBR readers. BFC is stating that it will book bets that may be canceled if they win. BFC owes this player and any others their winnings. The fact is if it lost you can't say you would have canceled it days later and credited him.

The conspiracy theory on the upgrade is silly. BFC has done a good job distancing from the scammers it opened with and it's been noted. The upgrade still looks good as long players can be sure their bets are.

[tomcowley]

Admittedly, the rule posted on the BFC website was unnecessarily vague but for John to suggest that we have been “taking a shot” at players is blatantly false and in my opinion, irresponsible of him. There has been no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption and it would seem that in this case, rather than “arbitrate” the complaint; SBR management chose instead to “arbitrarily” assume the worst which frankly, is disappointing.

LOL. You cancelled a play that your software accepted, on good lines, after the result was determined. That's one of the examples in the definition of taking a shot. And SBR accused you of doing.. exactly what you did. Spend less time whining and more time not sucking at bookmaking.

[InThisMoment]

Did they refund parlays that had Cleveland and Under as well?

That has not been answered.

Mickey Mouse and Goofy here obviously don't understand that they eat the loss and correct it for the future. That is what a good book does. Of course, the words good book and "BetStowaway" will never be in the first sentence.

[Thremp]

lol Chuck Sims self pwning

[Peep]

The dumb ****s who claim to be linesman at BFC wouldn't recognize a bad line if it hit them in the face.

About two months back they said that I bet a bad line and posted a play of mine to prove it.

Only problem, the number I got was widely available and when I offered to bet them a dime that I could prove it, they shut up lol.

[Halifax]

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.

Chuck Sims, you've been around these boards as long as you have, and you don't know that these bets are correlated ? Come on now ... of course they're correlated.

Common sense ... IF Boise State wins by at least 45 points (thus covering the -44.5), there's a pretty high chance that the game is ALSO going to go over the 55 total ... certainly a hell of a lot higher chance than 50% (which is essentially what you're saying when you say that the two outcomes, -44.5 and Over 55, aren't correlated).

[Thremp]

If the spread is -55 and the total is 55, the bets are perfectly correlated, the over must cover whenever the faves covers.

[Reload]

The Reload-er nation votes for crediting the player here

[SBR_John]

Furthermore, I understand that the player contacted SBR as far back as last Friday to withdraw his complaint so it is even more baffling to me that SBR would decide to post this, not only on the forum, but also in the SBR rating page for BetFirstClass. Coincidently, BetFirstClass’ SBR rating was upgraded to C- one week ago today which leads me to wonder if there are perhaps some on the SBR staff who were not happy with the upgrade. In my eyes, the decision to create this thread is more than a little suspect.


Regards,
Judge

Say you are not serious with that comment. You have been around too long to make those kind of comments.

Also Judge, between the lines you were wondering why SBR would come out with this. What if we had not? What if players learned we were running cover for you guys? Then next time you guys have a scammer we chase away the public would not know what side we are on. I suggest taking the heat when the book has issues and emerging with a bullet proof policy that is honorable. That will build your book faster than suggesting we sit on your complaints.

[Chuck Sims]

If the spread is -55 and the total is 55, the bets are perfectly correlated, the over must cover whenever the faves covers.

"perfectly correlated" Damn, you are ignorant. LMAO!!!!

[durito]

"perfectly correlated" Damn, your ignorant. LMAO!!!!

you might want to take a remedial stats class

[Sam Odom]

I'm glad this thread hit the forum yesterday. I almost sent these fools some money

[flyingillini]

The judge , no mames

[Santo]

Chuck Sims doesn't seem to grasp that correlation isn't binary.

[blackbart]

bfc took the wager so it stands
they now define there meaning of correlated, what bfc is really referring too is "more likely to win".
you could use a broad definition of "correlated" as everything is correlated, thus any wager could be canceled.

[blackbart]

and i want to play at the book that allows ml/spread parlays

[Chuck Sims]

If the Ravens & Ov 1st half was correlated, which is bullshit to begin with, the Ravens & Ov for the game would then have to be correlated too.

Was the Ravens & Over parlays cancelled? Of course not, those parlays bit the dust.

Unbelievable--Keep the Ravens & Over parlay losers, but cancel the 1st half Ravens & Ov parlays citing the crooked book "correlation" excuse.

[InThisMoment]

Every bet is correlated to some extent. The distinction lies where bets are correlated to a degree where the player has the mathematical edge.

If two bets are perfectly correlated they have a factor (don't know if that is the right word) of 1.0 or 100%. In the example given -55 with a total of 55. If A happens (-55 covering) then B (over 55) must happen 100% of the time.

Most independent bets have a correlation that lies somewhere between 0.0 and 1.0.

Books generally do not take sides and totals that have a correlation greater than 0.33. In layman's terms the side is 33% or greater than the total.

There is more math to explain it but not necessary to the discussion.

For a book to say we reserve the right to cancel correlated bets in a parlay is fundamentally incorrect and open to abuse. The correct distinction would be "bets that are correlated to a degree where the player has a mathematical edge".

In this case, one could blindly bet -7/ov19 and +7/un19 all day and come out ahead in the long run. Of course no one has still addressed whether +7/un19 parlays were cancelled as well. Any sharp worth their salt would have bet this as well as the -7/ov19. I think we all know the reason why it has not been addressed.

[InThisMoment]

Chuck,
See my previous post. I looked up the game and the Ravens were -13 and the total was 37. This is right on the edge of positive expectation as well depending on the payout odds. The first half wager did have a much higher mathematical expectation. As did the corresponding +7/under 19, which conveniently is left out of the equation.

Either way, I do agree that it is a shit decision by a shit book because it was their mistake and you cannot wait until after the game to make a decision. Had they cancelled and notified prior to the game, there would be no issue with me on the matter.

[BigDaddy]

the game closed 13.5 38.5

34-3 final


did they refund the parlays that were bet -13.5 over 38.5 and +13.5 under 38.5?

my guess would be no

this is a shit book.

[katstale]

Been following this with a little interest. Comments are:

1) Book screwed up and admitted such and corrected it. All you can hope for.

2) Judge had some valid points abt rush to judgment, if his timeline is correct.

3) SBRJohn also had some valid points, but we have to view his comments in light of he was the one who hired MOfo. Really hard to live that down.

4) NEVER get into math arguments with snack chip dude, Santa and Thrempmeister. This is no win situation. It could lead to an all out slpadown from Grinch.

[HedgeHog]

Been following this with a little interest. Comments are:

1) Book screwed up and admitted such and corrected it. All you can hope for.

2) Judge had some valid points abt rush to judgment, if his timeline is correct.

3) SBRJohn also had some valid points, but we have to view his comments in light of he was the one who hired MOfo. Really hard to live that down.

4) NEVER get into math arguments with snack chip dude, Santa and Thrempmeister. This is no win situation. It could lead to an all out slpadown from Grinch.

Kat, I must have missed the post that said they reinstated the winning wager. Assuming they did, what about the people that didn't complain and simply let the theft go unreported? BFC needs a less ambiguous policy regarding side/total correlation or simply fix their software. As it stands now, they plan to continue stealing and handle resulting complains on an individual basis. This clearly gives BFC an unfair advantage.

[katstale]

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.

I was basing my assumption on the above, HH. Player said it was all good with him, so I assume they took care of him. As for them taking care of any others caught in the same situation..... yea i can't tell anything abt that.

[Chuck Sims]

InThisMoment, Thanks for posting. Here is my beef with the word "correlated" when describing a parlay with +ev. Sportsbooks do not allow correlated parlays. Examples would be parlaying the 1st half total to game total, parlaying the m/l to the spread of same team.

In no way was this rule intended to be applied to parlays that may have a miniscule advantage to the player. If thats the case, then the shit books could start cherry picking which winning parlays to cancel. And thats exactly what many have done. Keep the losing wagers that had +ev and then cancel winning +ev wagers saying correlated parlays are not allowed.

[InThisMoment]

By not refunding the losing bets that fall under their definition of correlated as well, they are flat out stealing or taking one sided action with no intent to pay the winners.

This makes them shot-takers and a scam book. Period.

[InThisMoment]

Completely agree with your last sentence Chuck. You either take none of them, which is their right, or take them and pay them and change your policy going forward if you choose to do so. Unfortunately for Mickey Mouse and Goofy, they have both no clue and business sense.