IBAS ruling re: Canbet dispute

[moonbeam]

My prediction on Canbet: They will be rated "D" within 9 months.

A lot of european books wait until after the event has finished to void bets.
SBR never downgraded them.
Especially a lot of A-C rated books here at SBR.
(OK canbet starts as a australien book and now they are a russian or chinese book or something else, who cares?)

[Dark Horse]

so its free rolling now, next it will be because they have stupid name or the logo is yellow.

Of course it's free rolling. If the player had lost 19K, do you think the book would have bothered to pay those losses back?

The book stated that correlated parlays were not allowed in all sports, except in North American football. That is a specific invitation. It's not a misprint or a typo, but a specific choice. If you open that door and somebody walks through it, you can't tell him he's trespassing; which is exactly what Canbet did.

[betpartners]

Of course it's free rolling. If the player had lost 19K, do you think the book would have bothered to pay those losses back?

The book stated that correlated parlays were not allowed in all sports, except in North American football. That is a specific invitation. It's not a misprint or a typo, but a specific choice. If you open that door and somebody walks through it, you can't tell him he's trespassing; which is exactly what Canbet did.

You can if what was on offer behind that door was available as the result of an error in the first place.

[Dark Horse]

You can if what was on offer behind that door was available as the result of an error in the first place.

But that was not the case. There were ten or more doors (to correlated parlays) that said: no access. And there was one that said: access allowed.

It's the difference between yes and no. The same difference that a bettor makes when he places a bet. This is commonly known as choice. A choice can certainly turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't qualify as human error.

The book allowed these bets, and it is safe to assume that losses were not refunded. Free rolling.

[tomcowley]

It doesn't even matter if the book intended to offer the bet or not. Nobody could look at their rule on point (we explicitly take side/total parlays in college football), the fact that their software accepted such parlays, and possibly conclude that they didn't intend to take the bets in question- even if they didn't. Somebody could look at +31 in place of +21 (or +21 in place of -21) and reasonably know they didn't mean it. "OMG, the player thinks he had an edge on this bet, so he should have reasonably known we didn't mean to offer it" is not a viable defense after the fact. If they want to claim a mistake when the player couldn't reasonably know it was a mistake, they'd damn well better do it before the event, not freeroll by waiting. They had THREE chances to avoid liability for this bet (writing a rule against it (instead of for it!), software not allowing it, and catching it before the event), and the player had no way to reasonably believe it was an input error. They simply have to pay in this spot- and the player should take it to court.

[betpartners]

They simply have to pay in this spot- and the player should take it to court.

He did, IBAS and lost, time to get over it.

You also cannot have it both ways and quote rules for the player and disregard rules for the book.

The book protects itself in its rules over human error and so by saying it is in the rule book that the player should get paid you therefore accept by default that the book is allowed to void bets as per its rule.

There is no contingency in the rulebook for software not stopping a bet going through that was based on human error, and voiding bets after the event while not best practise is also not in the rule book.

You see quoting the rulebook to support the player just supports the book even more and that is why IBAS found for them, they had no other choice as the rulebook allows canbet the out.

No point having a dig at IBAS when they are following the rules as laid out, the very same rules the player is quoting in order to get paid out on bet that was clearly allowed as a result of human error

Now if you disregard the rules then you make the players arguement even less credible simply because their was blatant human error.

Stay consistent.

[Thremp]

He did, IBAS and lost, time to get over it. You also cannot have it both ways and quote rules for the player and disregard rules for the book. The book protects itself in its rules over human error and so by saying it is in the rule book that the player should get paid you therefore accept by default that the book is allowed to void bets as per its rule. There is no contingency in the rulebook for software not stopping a bet going through that was based on human error, and voiding bets after the event while not best practise is also not in the rule book. You see quoting the rulebook to support the player just supports the book even more and that is why IBAS found for them, they had no other choice as the rulebook allows Canbet the out. No point having a dig at IBAS when they are following the rules as laid out, the very same rules the player is quoting in order to get paid out on bet that was clearly allowed as a result of human error Now if you disregard the rules then you make the players arguement even less credible simply because their was blatant human error. Stay consistent.

Where is the human error? Other than poor bookmaking? Your same logic would allow you to steal deposit bonuses due to "human error" from winners.

[tomcowley]

There's no obvious human error. At least not obvious to anybody but the book (Oh shit, we lost, it was obviously a mistake to offer that). Even if it were a mistake, which is quite in doubt, that's not enough.

Rules from books that don't suck:

Pinnacle Sports reserves the right to cancel any wager made on an obviously "bad" line or a wager made after an event has started.

(Boomkaker) In the case of an obvious error on the posted line, scheduled time, or maximum wager, any wagers will be deemed a "no action" wager, and all money will be credited accordingly.

(5D) All wagers placed on events with obvious erroneous lines resulting from human error will be graded no action.

The Greek Sportsbook reserves the right to refuse or limit any wager. This may include, but not limited to past-posted plays, obvious line errors, or exceeded bet limit amounts.


All require the error to be obvious.

Canbet:

In the event that a line or price is put up in obvious error due to a human error by an employee, any customer wagers entered to take advantage of such error will be void.

Oh, wait, they require the line or price to be in obvious error too. So no, their rules don't let them void anything they call a "mistake", they can void "obvious line and price errors", which these weren't.

[trixtrix]

tbh, i blame Sportsbook.com for starting this recent parlay retroactive cancellation trend, once they set a precedent, and other books sees that it could be done w/ no major backlash, why would they NOT do it?

[tomcowley]

Yeah. Books could have the rule that you couldn't ever withdraw more than you deposited, and they'd still have plenty of business. Hell, plenty who have the rule that you can't withdraw anything, ever, still have business.

[andywend]

I have known for quite some time that IBAS is clearly biased in favor of Sportsbooks over players. They have proven this time and time again.

However, they have never rubber-stamped outright theft by a sportsbook as they did in this Canbet case.

After reading their decision, it is easy to come to the conclusion that IBAS is an OUTRIGHT AND TOTAL DISGRACE and I emailed them to let them know just that.

BetPartners, I have to say the same thing goes for you and anyone else that would defend Canbet after what they did. None of your posts going forward will have any meaning as you have lost total credibility with this forum.

[betpartners]

BetPartners, I have to say the same thing goes for you and anyone else that would defend Canbet after what they did. None of your posts going forward will have any meaning as you have lost total credibility with this forum.

Oh come on Andywend you can do better than that mate, i have been accused of all sorts on here and my credibility was attacked after my very first post so you calling in to question my credibility is hardly going to make me toe the company line now is it.

Do a search on tomcowley posts, now he knows how to insult people, he's a master at it, if your going to attack me and my credibility then do it like a pro and not in such a predictable way, its quite embarrasing mate.

Ok now that the ineveitable nomad has been dealt with back on point.

All i see in those responses above is selective rule selection, and now attacks on Canbet utilising its rules, the very same rulebook that the player wants to use to back up his claim.

To quote pinnacle rules or any other book is irrelavant, to say Canbet can put in rules that steal money is irrelevant simply because it was the player and not the book that put the Canbet rulebook in to play here.

Listen it is the player using the rulebook as the reason why he should be paid, now if Canbet rules are crap and they may be then you cant say all the rules that favour the player are spot on and all the rules that favour the book are crap.

Either the rule book is used in this case or it is not, i am happy to accept it either way, all i am saying is be consistent.

Use the rule book and the player is ****ed because as IBAS correctly ruled the rulebook allows Canbet an out.

Dont use the rulebook and the player is ****ed because there was human error.

Either way the player is ****ed and that is what is pissing people off and so they attack the book from whatever angle they can.

When a player places a bet that is clearly wrong and he knows it and gets busted then what does he expect, it was clearthat related contingencies on this bet screwed the odds unfairly and no bookies would have taken the bet and those that do would ahve voided.

Maybe it should ahve been voided earlier and so on, Canbets methods of operation can be questioned here without doubt, but i am getting bored shitless with players taking a shot, missing the target, running to SBR, the same chorus of condemnation lead in the most part by chief cheerleader justin7 followed by his little warrior pawns.

If the player never knew the odds were badly skewed in a related contingency bet then he should not be betting, if he knew they were wrong as it was clear they were then he got stuffed.

Dont quote the rules to get your money and then whine that the very same rulebook wont let you have the money.

Thats bad karma man.

Now before any of you attack me, remember this, all been said before, heard it all lalalalalala means shit.

[Dark Horse]

Legality and corruption are not mutually exclusive. In many ways, quite the contrary.

This case is a good example of that, and a useful reminder that the offshore world is preferable over the politically 'legalized' European system. In the offshore world the best float to the top, and the public is the judge. This realm is free from politics in an almost spectacular sense. As soon as politics gets a foot in the door, corruption comes right along.

Sure, we have to be more careful not to send our money to pirate books, and to better navigate these waters we share our experiences and/or turn to the SBR flagship. To our standards, which are obviously higher than those of folks as betpartners, the IBAS ruling is absurd. That division is as it should be. The offshore world is as close to the idea of 'for the People, by the People' as we may experience in our time.

'They' call it 'illegal', because its outside of their control. But meanwhile, we, bettors and Bookmakers together, have created our own world where we are free to do as we please; without hurting anybody. The offshore betting world is a primary expression of freedom. (forget the Euro books. They dance to a completely different drummer...).

[betpartners]

Legality and corruption are not mutually exclusive. In many ways, quite the contrary.

This case is a good example of that, and a useful reminder that the offshore world is preferable over the politically 'legalized' European system. In the offshore world the best float to the top, and the public is the judge. This realm is free from politics in an almost spectacular sense. As soon as politics gets a foot in the door, corruption comes right along.

Sure, we have to be more careful not to send our money to pirate books, and to better navigate these waters we share our experiences and/or turn to the SBR flagship. To our standards, which are obviously higher than those of folks as betpartners, the IBAS ruling is absurd. That division is as it should be. The offshore world is as close to the idea of 'for the People, by the People' as we may experience in our time.

'They' call it 'illegal', because its outside of their control. But meanwhile, we, bettors and Bookmakers together, have created our own world where we are free to do as we please; without hurting anybody. The offshore betting world is a primary expression of freedom. (forget the Euro books. They dance to a completely different drummer...).

That was quite funny, may print it off and frame it.

My standards are that i bet legal, you prefer not to

each to their own and we all reap what we sow.

[Dark Horse]

You're free to do so. But I may have a little © in there. You may not see it now, but it may show up later...

[IrishTim]

Betpartners, just stop answering. You're getting absolutely hammered by dark horse and justin. There is no possible way to defend Canbet or IBAS. There are dozens of arguments in this thread against the book/IBAs, but I have yet to see one decent argument in favor.

[yobinad]

Stay away from this scam books, they are a bunch of thieves

[Santo]

FWIW I still do believe the human error argument may have some merit, depending on their past precedent. However I think that's negated by me for the fact they acted so retrospectively, which I wasn't aware of in the earlier post.

I still do think the SBR attitude towards European books in general is a little unfair and prejudiced by the fact they won't submit to their mediation. I don't entirely disagree with DH's opinion above by the way (it was actually the subject of a conference paper I wrote a year or so ago, in a slightly different context) - there are certainly advantages to player/company driven regulation, but I think going to the level of warning players off all UK books is going too far, and somewhat undercuts the issue at hand.

The player still has the right to (a) appeal the IBAS ruling, and (b) take the case to court under the new regulation, and I would encourage him to do so, if not least because it would set precedent for future IBAS decisions, which can only help.

[tomcowley]

Even if it's human error, it's clearly not "an obvious error", which is the standard- and it's the standard for a reason, because otherwise the books could claim human error in any market where they get killed. I mean, Canbet says that a 2.45:1 ratio is perfectly acceptable, but 2.5:1 is an obvious error? (or, for people who want to argue the price is an obvious error, Canbet agrees that +264 is perfectly acceptable on a 2.45:1 ratio, but calls it an obvious error on 2.5:1) That doesn't pass the smell test (or their rules). The difference in EV between those bets is minimal.

[Emily_Haines]

That's just stupid not paying. It couldn't have been that much money in the big scheme. That decision not to pay eventually will end up costing them far more than just paying.

[betpartners]

Betpartners, just stop answering. You're getting absolutely hammered by dark horse and justin. There is no possible way to defend Canbet or IBAS. There are dozens of arguments in this thread against the book/IBAs, but I have yet to see one decent argument in favor.

I would have done but your contribution to this thread was so articulate and so overwhelming in content that i felt obliged to respond.

Because you cannot grasp what is being discussed and you choose the standard response does not then mean one should bow to your demands, however eloquently you may put it.

Even if it's human error, it's clearly not "an obvious error", which is the standard- and it's the standard for a reason, because otherwise the books could claim human error in any market where they get killed. I mean, Canbet says that a 2.45:1 ratio is perfectly acceptable, but 2.5:1 is an obvious error? (or, for people who want to argue the price is an obvious error, Canbet agrees that +264 is perfectly acceptable on a 2.45:1 ratio, but calls it an obvious error on 2.5:1) That doesn't pass the smell test (or their rules). The difference in EV between those bets is minimal.

tomcowley i would agree when the margins on their own are small and then one can feel agreived even if technically the book was still within its rights.

But my understanding and correct me if i am wrong, this was a related double, a contingency bet were one event directly effected the other and that is what skewed the odds, no matter how minor.

Without the bet being related those odds would never have been accepted and it was the direct relationship between the bets that contributed to the odds price.

My understanding also is that the human error was in actually accepting the bet and not the prices that were generated.

So what we have is a related bet giving a price that would never have been available on their own and yet the related bet in effect was nothing more than a glorified single bet.

This to me is someone seeking a way to inflate odds unjustly and under these circumstances it would be obvious error to accept the bet.

Or have i read the IBAS ruling wrong?

Nomads dont bother answering, only answers from those like justin, tomcowley, DH, santo etc that actually discuss the merits are wanted.

the rest of you kiss my spotty green ass and go find another cheerleader to follow

[Domestic]

Great video, very well explained.
Thank you.

[andywend]

The bettor in question placed about 40 huge wagers and did so long before the events started.

CanBet had more than enough time to cancel the wagers BEFORE the games started if they had a problem with them.

BetPartners, your statement that no other Bookmaker would accept those wagers is absolutely false.

About a month ago, I placed a $5K teaser betting USC and the over against Washington State. At the time, USC was favored by 45 with the total being 52 1/2 and I was able to bet USC -38 with a total of 45 (I was even able to buy a half point on the total).

I knew of the obvious correlation so after I placed the wager, I called in to make sure the bet was acceptable to them and they had no problems with it.

The above wager was far more correlated than any bet placed by the CanBet player in question.

Its real simple:

If the software allows the player to place a series of wagers, then the wager should stand as long as there are no obvious and extreme errors in the lines. At the very least, the sportsbook should only be allowed to cancel the wagers BEFORE the game starts.

If CanBet cancelled the wagers before the games started, then no problem. However, they can't wait until after the events are completed, see how the player did and then retroactively go back and cancel all the wagers after the player winds up winning.

BetPartners, if the CanBet bettor lost, do you think CanBet would have cancelled the wagers?

[yobinad]

Canbet is a scambook... that stole the winnings of the players and don't tell the reason to do that»?
Stay away from that book

[Dunderfisk]

Canbet thieves now I know

thank u for this excellent video. Now I know these guys are thieves and will never send any money to them.