IBAS ruling re: Canbet dispute

20Four7 · 10-12-09, 02:57 PM

So basically IBAS says correlated parlays can be cancelled after the fact even if the book accepts them. Smells like the books can Angle shoot and accept and if they win cancel but if they lose accept the money. All books need to get their software to NOT accept any if that's the case.

Santo · 10-12-09, 02:59 PM

Canbet argue human error, i.e. that not linking the markets in software is the same as typing +11 instead of +1. I do have some sympathy with that argument; if we allow one typographical error why not the other?

What were the spreads in question?

topgame85 · 10-12-09, 03:09 PM

correlated parlays are a no no basically everywhere

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 03:15 PM

Canbet has a rule that says "No correlated parlays, unless on a side/total in a North American Sport". All the canceled wagers were side/total on US Football.

tomcowley · 10-12-09, 03:24 PM

If you got raped up the ass, IBAS would find you liable for getting shit on the other guy's dick.

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 03:44 PM

Here it is:

JoshW · 10-12-09, 03:55 PM

Excellent video, Justin.

Is one of those head scratching rulings that points out exactly how bad the IBAS is.

Santo · 10-12-09, 03:58 PM

A few things:

- IBAS is not a governmental agency -- there is one, they're called the Gambling Commission. As far as I know the player did not appeal there.
- Advising players use caution with UK books is a little harsh; for the vast majority of players worldwide financial security is much better with UK books than offshores, eastern european books, asian books etc.. and in 2/3 of those cases some regulation is better than none (I give SBR credit for being able to pressure offshores).
- It could be said Canbet have two rules 'on point'. The ability to make a correlated parlay does not neccesarily outweigh the right to correct software/typographical errors that all books maintain.

On the last one let's say the market line was Colorado State +21, total 45. I bet a parlay with Colorado State +31/Under 45. A book wouldn't be compelled to accept it just because they had a rule saying they allowed correlated parlays on US sport, it would still be void on the basis of a typographical error.

The panel in this case seems to find that a human error was made by not linking these two markets to block the parlay -- if that is how it usually worked at Canbet (and I'm not sure that's the case), I can understand the ruling.

spongerat · 10-12-09, 04:04 PM

i don't get how they can do that? This case is more basic than first year courses in law school, you have an issue, you have a rule, you apply the rule to the issue and...?

betpartners · 10-12-09, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

If you got raped up the ass, IBAS would find you liable for getting shit on the other guy's dick.

tomcowley i just love your responses, naturally i disagree with you but still no one puts it over like you do

Justin7 be careful with UK Books?

You serious?

Based on that and previous statements of yours i would suggest the gamblers be careful of your warnings.

Would rather trust a UK book over any illegal steal your money in the night offshore financed by drug money run by theives and scam artists books that you seem to love.

Oh and for the record IBAS spot on my sons.

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 06:20 PM

Santo, thanks for the responses.

Betpartners,

I'm DEAD serious. I keep seeing more and more UK books screw players. No explanation, or very weak ones. Would you prefer your average UK book vs Pinnacle, Cris or Greek? Hell, I'd take most C books over UK. They are just giving so much crap lately. This one part of Canbet is just the tip of the iceberg. I'd love to see how the mass confiscations are dealt with.

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 06:21 PM

Betpartners,

What do you think of Totesport?

betpartners · 10-12-09, 06:32 PM

Justin7

You know me and you disagree on this vehemently

SBR is biased against Euro books and always has been and the reason is that you dont have the access to influence decisions with Euro books and UK books in particular in the same way that you do with offshore.

SBR's attitude has always been work with us or we will work against you.

SBR needs to get a focus in Europe before it can ever comment justly on UK and European issues, you know this and to say otherwise would be disengenous.

Tote? why mention the Tote, is that looking for an arguement.

I like the tote and trust them as you know.

Flame away

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 06:56 PM

We can agree to disagree.

I mention Totesport, because it was a ridiculous example of a UK Sportsbook cheating a player, IBAS rubber-stamping the decision, and me issuing one of my "overreaction" warnings.

Here's the problem I see with MANY UK Sportsbooks (which currently includes Betfair, Canbet, Iasbet and Sportingbet): They do something asinine, and refuse to explain to the player what they're doing. You can't ****ing steal someone's balance and give the player no explanation. This is what they are doing (not Sportingbet; their problems are different). Regardless of a book's willingness to talk to SBR, I'm going to ream them if they steal from a player and don't explain themselves to the player.

Santo · 10-12-09, 07:12 PM

Justin; what were the spreads involved here? Just how correlated were they?

I do agree with you that in any case the player should be informed of the reason for any decisions, however I believe that in all cases, at least once the player has gone to IBAS, they get that reason?

If they are still unhappy with an IBAS decision, I believe under the new gambling commission they are entitled to file a claim in small claims court.

betpartners · 10-12-09, 07:14 PM

Sportingbet, ream them all you want, they are bad indeed

Canbet and IASbet i have no opinion on either way although they are Australian no matter were their licenses are issued.

Betfair wont disclose nothing to a player in the event that a criminal act is supected and is under investigation as is their right under the Law, hardly going to reveal evidence are they.

I wont get in to the Totesport incident again because we argued that one to death last time and just because IBAS go against you on occasions does not mean you throw your dummy out of the pram.

IBAS has the advantage that it has boths sides testimony, SBR has just the players and therefore you are in no position to judge fairly.

As i said until SBR builds relations with UK and Euro books they will never be in a position to judge issues fairly.

Unless you call listening to one side of the arguement then passing judgement fair

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by betpartners

Unless you call listening to one side of the arguement then passing judgement fair

At least with the IBAS ruling, I have the benefit of seeing the other side's opinion.

Ok, let's discuss this Canbet opinion. Your thoughts?

Justin7 · 10-12-09, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Santo

Justin; what were the spreads involved here? Just how correlated were they?

I do agree with you that in any case the player should be informed of the reason for any decisions, however I believe that in all cases, at least once the player has gone to IBAS, they get that reason?

If they are still unhappy with an IBAS decision, I believe under the new gambling commission they are entitled to file a claim in small claims court.

I think the player bet every parlay on the card (14 games, 28 parlays; 27 were voided, one losing parlay was not voided). I think Canbet's cutoff was a 3:1 ratio of total:spread.

In this Canbet case, the "reason" was Canbet's rules cover this. This ruling was nonsensical though - there was no rule that permitted Canbet to void a correlated parlay in NCAAF. Just the opposite - there was a rule permitting correlated parlays in that one sport.

betpartners · 10-13-09, 02:28 AM

Justin7 from what i can understand the odds were such that it was unrealstic to think that a parlay was allowed and that human error allowed the bet to go through.

Anyone that does a contingency bet is always likely to have the bet voided especially if the odds are massively skewed as appears the case here.

So this was a contingency bet that are not allowed and this one got through and the arguement is that the bet was allowed in this particular sport.

Maybe so if the odds are not so skewed.

Bookies are protected against palpable human error and again from what i can understand this was palpable.

To think otherwise is unreasonable and one of the reasons that Euro and UK books wont work with SBR if your going to be so unreasonable.

Dark Horse · 10-13-09, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by betpartners

Bookies are protected against palpable human error and again from what i can understand this was palpable.

To think otherwise is unreasonable and one of the reasons that Euro and UK books wont work with SBR if your going to be so unreasonable.

I suppose closing one's eyes to written rules falls under human error in your universe.

The rule at Canbet specifically stated that these parlays were allowed.

When something as obvious as this is completely ignored by a monitoring organization, there's a strong possibility that the opinion is bought and paid for.

Canbet is under new ownership; same name, different game. Could that have anything to do with it? When were these parlays? I always liked the old Canbet, which was anything but uptight. Maybe they allowed the North American parlays, but the new ownership does not?

And, of course: Have similar bets been canceled for all players that lost such parlays?

laconic · 10-13-09, 06:09 AM

.

IrishTim · 10-13-09, 08:16 AM

Great video Justin. Can feel you getting heated just talking about this.

IrishTim · 10-13-09, 08:22 AM

I can't believe someone is actually trying to defend the book here. There is a specific rule permitting what the player did. It doesn't get any more clear than that. And to top it off, they leave one of the losing parlays. How convenient.

Santo · 10-13-09, 11:14 AM

Let's return to my example:

Let's say the market line was Colorado State +21, total 45. I bet a parlay with Colorado State +31/Under 45 when they put up a line in error. Should Canbet accept it just because they had a rule saying they allowed correlated parlays on US sport?

(I agree that leaving one of the losing parlays seems a bit odd if they were deleting anything above the contingency ratio)

Justin7 · 10-13-09, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Santo

Let's return to my example:

Let's say the market line was Colorado State +21, total 45. I bet a parlay with Colorado State +31/Under 45 when they put up a line in error. Should Canbet accept it just because they had a rule saying they allowed correlated parlays on US sport?

(I agree that leaving one of the losing parlays seems a bit odd if they were deleting anything above the contingency ratio)

In that case, the +31 is a bad line. There is a different rule on that point that is consistent with the industry standard. It would be reasonable to cancel that leg or the parlay.

Santo · 10-13-09, 05:19 PM

Ok, so in that case there was human error in typing the line. Where does the precedent come from that we don't allow for human error in the linking of markets?

My point is; if Canbet could prove that in other weeks parlays with a ratio of 2.5:1 or less were blocked, but this week due to human error the markets weren't linked correctly, is that different from any other input error?

Dark Horse · 10-13-09, 05:53 PM

Human error: I lost the bet, so it doesn't count. I meant to bet the other team.

If a rule states that a bet is allowed, and the bet is accepted, how is it not free rolling if the winnings are not paid?

betpartners · 10-13-09, 05:55 PM

Spot on Santo

Hopefully they will get it now, but doubt it, that tunnel vision syndrome is a bugger to shake off.

betpartners · 10-13-09, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Human error: I lost the bet, so it doesn't count. I meant to bet the other team.

If a rule states that a bet is allowed, and the bet is accepted, how is it not free rolling if the winnings are not paid?

serious?

Rules are wrong when the rules are against the player and rules are right when its against the book.

Screw human error and blatant wrong lines and what not, if the player comes out worse off then nothing esle matters the player is right.

Justin7 · 10-13-09, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Santo

Ok, so in that case there was human error in typing the line. Where does the precedent come from that we don't allow for human error in the linking of markets?

My point is; if Canbet could prove that in other weeks parlays with a ratio of 2.5:1 or less were blocked, but this week due to human error the markets weren't linked correctly, is that different from any other input error?

Under contract law, there is allowance for a mistake. If one party made a mistake, and the other party knows it was a mistake, contracts can be canceled. If I mean to pay $100.00 for something, and the contract says $10000 (decimal point removed), that contract is voidable IF the other side new this was an accident.

Was the parlay offering a mistake? And if it was, did the player know it? I don't know what Canbet's current practice is. Other books take correlated parlays, and they have a rule saying they take them. Given that, it's reasonable for the player to expect that Canbet intended to take this bet.

In the "bad line" example, if the line is far enough off, the player knows it is bad. Getting +9 when the market is +8 may or may not be bad. 10 points off is bad in NCAAF.

Justin7 · 10-13-09, 06:12 PM

If Canbet didn't want these bets, why did they wait until AFTER the event to cancel it? Did they seriously not see 28 bets come in? Did they seriously not look at the wager log until days after the event, when the player asked for a payout?

Another requirement if you want to void a contract due to "mistake" is that you must discover the mistake in a reasonable time period. If they player lost money, they would not have discovered the mistake. In this instance, waiting until after the events were completed is simply not reasonable. They are free-rolling the player by waiting.

If Canbet had canceled these bets before the event started, I would not call foul.

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

Dark Horse · 10-13-09, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by betpartners

serious?

Rules are wrong when the rules are against the player and rules are right when its against the book.

Screw human error and blatant wrong lines and what not, if the player comes out worse off then nothing esle matters the player is right.

All bets are subject to human error.

If the bet wins, the above rule does not apply.

'Rolling, rolling, free rolling on the river.'

betpartners · 10-13-09, 06:20 PM

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

D within 9 months, actually maybe, like i say no opinion on them but based on this case and your other comments Justin7 you seem to be speaking from emotion.

Not sure that qualifies you as best placed to be an impartial judge on these matters if you cannot look at them without being so emotional.

Next you'll be saying that Betfair should be D rated because they are UK based and rely on IBAS for rulings.

Then all hope is lost mate

Maybe time for you to take a break and recharge the batteries now that objectivity is on the wane.

Santo · 10-13-09, 06:22 PM

Ah well now you're introducing facts that we didn't know in either the letter or the video...

Have you suggested the player files an appeal / small claims court claim?