[Spedizzo]

Pokerwhiz is a fukkin joke. This thread needs to fuk off

[noyb]

Issue #1: May a Sportsbook leave a line up after the match has begun?
Answer: Yes. Books have been doing this for years.

Issue #2: Must a Sportsbook void a wager that is slightly past-posted?
Answer: No, they are not required to. Many sportsbooks have left odds up after a long event starts, especially if the book believes the odds have not materially changed.

Issue#3: May a Sportsbook void a wager that is slightly past-posted?
Answer: Yes, if they did not intend to leave the market up when the wager was bet. Only the book can say what they intended, so they have a pretty wide latitude of when to void a slightly past-posted wager, as long as they are consistent.

wow, what a load of bs. worst post ever.
"books have been doing this for years" : you have been playing at the wrong books, really.
"Only the book can say what they intended" : how convenient for the book!!!!

no, a book cannot accept a wager after start-time unless the wager is advertised as a live-bet. it's in their own rulebook f f s.

[Dunhill]

wow, what a load of bs. worst post ever.
"books have been doing this for years" : you have been playing at the wrong books, really.
"Only the book can say what they intended" : how convenient for the book!!!!

no, a book cannot accept a wager after start-time unless the wager is advertised as a live-bet. it's in their own rulebook f f s.

You know that daringly is Justin7, right?

[BigDaddy]

You know that daringly is Justin7, right?

really?

[daringly]

really?

I used to post as Justin7 as a moderator/dispute specialist. I am no longer affiliated with SBR, and my new (old) handle reflects that.

[tto827]

wow, what a load of bs. worst post ever.
"books have been doing this for years" : you have been playing at the wrong books, really.
"Only the book can say what they intended" : how convenient for the book!!!!

no, a book cannot accept a wager after start-time unless the wager is advertised as a live-bet. it's in their own rulebook f f s.

Tried to contact Heritage regarding their statement that they leave lines open after the start of the match, I wanted to ask if this is a typical practice, lets just say they avoided that question.

Someone with an account there ask their CS if they adhere to that email sent to OP stating lines are left up after the start.

[tto827]

Issue #1: May a Sportsbook leave a line up after the match has begun?
Answer: Yes. Books have been doing this for years.

Issue #2: Must a Sportsbook void a wager that is slightly past-posted?
Answer: No, they are not required to. Many sportsbooks have left odds up after a long event starts, especially if the book believes the odds have not materially changed.

Issue#3: May a Sportsbook void a wager that is slightly past-posted?
Answer: Yes, if they did not intend to leave the market up when the wager was bet. Only the book can say what they intended, so they have a pretty wide latitude of when to void a slightly past-posted wager, as long as they are consistent.

You should draw two things from this dispute:
A. Heritage has done nothing wrong here; and
B. If you past-post a book, you are giving them a legal free-roll against you.

So it is the responsibility of the player, not the book to determine official off times? That seems highly unfair, what happened to the typical stance of "you book the bet, you pay the bet"?

I always thought past-post equals voided wager, and then usually a banishment from the book if they feel their was intent.

[BigDaddy]

I used to post as Justin7 as a moderator/dispute specialist. I am no longer affiliated with SBR, and my new (old) handle reflects that.

i know

[evo34]

Issue #1: May a Sportsbook leave a line up after the match has begun?
Answer: Yes. Books have been doing this for years.

Issue #2: Must a Sportsbook void a wager that is slightly past-posted?
Answer: No, they are not required to. Many sportsbooks have left odds up after a long event starts, especially if the book believes the odds have not materially changed.

Issue#3: May a Sportsbook void a wager that is slightly past-posted?
Answer: Yes, if they did not intend to leave the market up when the wager was bet. Only the book can say what they intended, so they have a pretty wide latitude of when to void a slightly past-posted wager, as long as they are consistent.

You should draw two things from this dispute:
A. Heritage has done nothing wrong here; and
B. If you past-post a book, you are giving them a legal free-roll against you.

Definitely a personal-worst post for you... By your logic, because entities have been stealing from people "for years," there is nothing wrong with it. Would love to hear that defense the next time a lifelong criminal is charged for the first time. "Hey, I've been doing this for years. And as far you know, I didn't even intend to it this time."

[evo34]

A bad enough post that I almost wonder if your account has been hacked.

[johnpendred]

I used to post as Justin7 as a moderator/dispute specialist. I am no longer affiliated with SBR, and my new (old) handle reflects that.

why no longer with SBR?

[tto827]

why no longer with SBR?

BI case led to some internal difficulties, not sure you will ever get a better explanation than that.

[davidchong]

most A-B books leave games opened up to maybe 10 minutes only for complete games. Normal for NFL games, they leave opened until any team is close to score or made a big play.

[evo34]

most A-B books leave games opened up to maybe 10 minutes only for complete games. Normal for NFL games, they leave opened until any team is close to score or made a big play.

100% false. All games are closed before kickoff. You think any book would intentionally leave a game open with a kickoff in the air?

[andywend]

http://www.flashscore.com/match/f5fm...int-by-point;1

what he did was place a wager on Keavic when he broke serve in first set when he lost serve at game 3 he tried to get out because he knew he was going lose people like you make it hard for rest of us

After seeing how the first set played out, it is clear Pokerwhiz bet on Keavic when he broke serve in the first game of the first set and when he began to falter, PokerWhiz wanted out of his past-post bet. There's just way too much evidence against him considering the way the set played out.

[noyb]

You know that daringly is Justin7, right?

no i didn't, but does it matter? i'm not really that interested in all of the sbr-drama.

i came here all these years because this was a sportsbookreview website. and at one point a pretty fair and powerful one.
as the url implies, its goal is to review sportsbooks, not to review one unimportant little bettor who took a shot using a few dollars (really, who cares), but this concept seems to be lost on most here who are more interested in crucifying a player.

daringly's post really was an awful one. it was either worded wrongly or it's suggesting all the power with the books in case of a past post to decide whatever they feel like doing (even though their own rules explicitly contradict this) and no power with the player. that's just not how it works with sportsbook around the world, and i know. it might work that way in today's climate with US facing books, but that would be pretty awful and not something that one should be willing to accept.

[daringly]

it's suggesting all the power with the books in case of a past post to decide whatever they feel like doing (even though their own rules explicitly contradict this) and no power with the player.

If you past-post a book, they do have all the power (whether or not you are taking a shot).

[John Dough]

If you past-post a book, they do have all the power (whether or not you are taking a shot).

Others may not like this explanation, but it's spot-on.

The moral of the story is to be careful of past-posting and definitely don't take a shot on purpose.

[noyb]

If you past-post a book, they do have all the power (whether or not you are taking a shot).

the times i've contacted a book with regards to a past post, and especially in tennis they're not so uncommon, they either 1. refunded, 2. denied it was a past-post at all (and in some cases, it's impossible to prove either way). most of the times you don't have to contact the book, the book will know and void themselves long before any match is over.
i've never ever had a book admit it's a clear past-post, but saying it's their policy to sometimes let a wager stand if they feel like it that particular day. so regardless of whether a book has all the power (ofcourse they technically have all the power, they're holding your money after all, whether you past post or you don't), any incident in which a book does not stick to its own rules, the book is in the wrong.

[teaz2win]

So it is the responsibility of the player, not the book to determine official off times? That seems highly unfair, what happened to the typical stance of "you book the bet, you pay the bet"?

I always thought past-post equals voided wager, and then usually a banishment from the book if they feel their was intent.

I agree with you. I think there is more to this, and from reading the OP's posts I think he had a habit of doing this. If its a first offence then void the wager warn the person .. but this guy he made 3 wagers on the same tennis match claiming he saw a good thing. A big underdog is a good thing? Yah it is if they are up a break.

[captrobey]

I had bet one bet that was like this i did not realize they cancelled it. Any bet winning or losing should be cancelled if game already started. They cancelled mine and i was fine with it since it already started. However if a book sees you are losing a bet they should cancel it and not make any excuses for trying to keep the money.

[pokerwhiz90]

I agree with you. I think there is more to this, and from reading the OP's posts I think he had a habit of doing this. If its a first offence then void the wager warn the person .. but this guy he made 3 wagers on the same tennis match claiming he saw a good thing. A big underdog is a good thing? Yah it is if they are up a break.

not a big dog - got +110 odds and it wasnt a habit nor on purpose

[Jayvegas420]

Someone was trying to freeroll someone here & that's all that really matters.
You can't prove what the OP's intentions were any more than you can prove that Heritage intended to pay 1st set bets on Granollers.
No one knows what the OP was thinking when he bet. You can't get in the business of speculating what his intentions were.
You just end up coming off as a know - it - all. Only he knows.
It also doesn't matter that it was only $52. Bets that are past post shouldn't be cancelled after the result, to alleviate any implied prejudice on Heritages's part.

Would certainly be nice if someone posted a screenshot where they paid the Granollers 1st set bets.
Or even better, a screenshot where they cancelled or voided 1st set Granollers bets.
But that's not gonna happen.

No one from Heritage has posted here as far as I can tell. That's is expected though.

If they offered him 50 free play they aren't necessarily admitting guilt. If they accepted bets on the other side of the action, only they know how those bets were graded.

GL with this

[BigDaddy]

it's heritage not 5d

[raydog]

contests dont always start when they are supposed too...for example, there hasnt been an nba playoff game this season that has started on its schedule time at any book... exact times when to take a contest off the board are impossible to get right all the time and clerks fall asleep at the wheel at times..its human error...books want as much action as possible, so just because there is something on the board a few minutes after it actually starts, it doesnt mean the book is attempting to freeroll ... its one of the worst assumptions that gamblers on these boards make..

not a single thing wrong with the way Daringly explained the situation either....

given the circumstance, with op making the bet after his player was winning and then trying to get out of the bet later and subsequently losing, he shouldnt be refunded... being that its $52, they might say what the fukk and let him off the hook with a refund and a stern warning... the problem with that is because he ran here to start a thread, if he is refunded, there will be a ton of assholes who attempt to take shots by past posting...

whiz, let it be a lesson to you...dont run to the forum with a complaint after you have clearly violated a books rule...you wont like what the forum has to say.

[Jayvegas420]

On the 1st page of General Rules they state:
All wagers are final once accepted by management and confirmed by the player, either over the phone or online.
Members are responsible for checking all of their sports, horses, and lotto wagers in the review bets section. No Internet wager claims will be accepted without a ticket number.

Later on that page,this :
Book reserves the right to correct grading errors at any time. If an account reaches a negative balance due to the re-grade of an event, all in-progress pending wagers will stand and be honored. Since winning wagers in this instance will be honored, immediate settlement of losing wagers is also expected.
which essentially negates any confirmed wagers.

In the General Rules, this is the most pertinent rule to this particular case:
A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a "past-post", and will be handled as blatant theft. This applies for all regular game lines or when play resumes in live in play wagering. All events intended for in-play offering will be noted as such on the wagering option.

And pretty much everything in the General rules could be negated by the typical disclaimer at the bottom of all rules & regulations:
All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management
without prior written notice.

Books should be on top of this $H|T. Remember it's only your till you bet it, once you bet it, it's theirs!

[teaz2win]

On the 1st page of General Rules they state:
All wagers are final once accepted by management and confirmed by the player, either over the phone or online.
Members are responsible for checking all of their sports, horses, and lotto wagers in the review bets section. No Internet wager claims will be accepted without a ticket number.

Later on that page,this :
Book reserves the right to correct grading errors at any time. If an account reaches a negative balance due to the re-grade of an event, all in-progress pending wagers will stand and be honored. Since winning wagers in this instance will be honored, immediate settlement of losing wagers is also expected.
which essentially negates any confirmed wagers.

In the General Rules, this is the most pertinent rule to this particular case:
A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a "past-post", and will be handled as blatant theft. This applies for all regular game lines or when play resumes in live in play wagering. All events intended for in-play offering will be noted as such on the wagering option.

And pretty much everything in the General rules could be negated by the typical disclaimer at the bottom of all rules & regulations:
All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management
without prior written notice.

Books should be on top of this $H|T. Remember it's only your till you bet it, once you bet it, it's theirs!

Very good post Jay. Quote of a the year "Books should be on top of this $H|T. Remember it's only your till you bet it, once you bet it, it's theirs!"

[noyb]

On the 1st page of General Rules they state:
All wagers are final once accepted by management and confirmed by the player, either over the phone or online.
Members are responsible for checking all of their sports, horses, and lotto wagers in the review bets section. No Internet wager claims will be accepted without a ticket number.

Later on that page,this :
Book reserves the right to correct grading errors at any time. If an account reaches a negative balance due to the re-grade of an event, all in-progress pending wagers will stand and be honored. Since winning wagers in this instance will be honored, immediate settlement of losing wagers is also expected.
which essentially negates any confirmed wagers.

In the General Rules, this is the most pertinent rule to this particular case:
A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a "past-post", and will be handled as blatant theft. This applies for all regular game lines or when play resumes in live in play wagering. All events intended for in-play offering will be noted as such on the wagering option.

And pretty much everything in the General rules could be negated by the typical disclaimer at the bottom of all rules & regulations:
All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management
without prior written notice.

Books should be on top of this $H|T. Remember it's only your till you bet it, once you bet it, it's theirs!

jay, do you ever read other people's posts? the book in question (sort of given away by the name of the thread i would say) is HERITAGE, not 5Dimes.

you made that mistake in your first post, and someone was kind enough to point that out to you. And then you go on copy-pasting the 5Dimes rulebook...

[Jayvegas420]

These are general rules that books generally use.
Aren't these the same rules that Heritage uses?

[noyb]

These are general rules that books generally use.
Aren't these the same rules that Heritage uses?

every book has different rules of course.

Heritage:
"A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a 'past-post' and therefore invalid. This applies for all regular game lines or when play resumes in live wagering. All events intended for in-play offering will be noted as such on the wagering option. The same applies for all horse bets, they must be placed before post time or are invalid."

whatever way you look at it, this bet should have been voided from the start.

[shari91]

every book has different rules of course.

Heritage:
"A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a 'past-post' and therefore invalid. This applies for all regular game lines or when play resumes in live wagering. All events intended for in-play offering will be noted as such on the wagering option. The same applies for all horse bets, they must be placed before post time or are invalid."

whatever way you look at it, this bet should have been voided from the start.

Considering this: A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a 'past-post' and therefore invalid. Doesn't say Heritage will void all past posts.

See that bolded part? The OP said he didn't know that Kavcic was "in advantage" when he made those 4 bets. And he continued to state he just wanted to bet and wasn't even aware the match had started. Forum posters pointed out Kavcic was up a break precisely when OP bet FOUR TIMES and then when Kavcic lost the break back the OP demanded a refund.

Unless you posted the wrong rules he shouldn't have had been offered a freeplay as I've always said and should've been shown the door. Can't have it both ways. You try to mess with books by past posting, they have you by the balls every single time.

[Monitor-Tan]

The correct thing to do is for Heritage to Kick him out BUT refund him all his bets and money.. Kick him for taking shots, and refund the money because that bet should've been void from the beginning regardless of the outcome. Outcome is irrelevant. What's relevant is that 1) he took shots) 2) It was posted AFTER it went off. It's that simple, anything in between is irrelevant.

[tto827]

The correct thing to do is for Heritage to Kick him out BUT refund him all his bets and money.. Kick him for taking shots, and refund the money because that bet should've been void from the beginning regardless of the outcome. Outcome is irrelevant. What's relevant is that 1) he took shots) 2) It was posted AFTER it went off. It's that simple, anything in between is irrelevant.

Ding-dong

His money needs to be returned, kick him if you feel their was intent, give him warning if not, pretty straightforward.

[Jayvegas420]

every book has different rules of course.

Heritage:
"A bet made after an event begins based on occurrences that have developed while in-play, is considered a 'past-post' and therefore invalid. This applies for all regular game lines or when play resumes in live wagering. All events intended for in-play offering will be noted as such on the wagering option. The same applies for all horse bets, they must be placed before post time or are invalid."

whatever way you look at it, this bet should have been voided from the start.

Sounds like what I said.

Ding-dong

His money needs to be returned, kick him if you feel their was intent, give him warning if not, pretty straightforward.

I believe you should have to prove his intent. Anyone can feel anything they want, as demonstrated in this thread.

I'm already trying to make sure I'm not betting on games that have started & I am behind in.
Shouldn't the books be doing the same?

[tto827]

Sounds like what I said.


I believe you should have to prove his intent. Anyone can feel anything they want, as demonstrated in this thread.

I'm already trying to make sure I'm not betting on games that have started & I am behind in.
Shouldn't the books be doing the same?

"Feel" is not a reason for theft, but a business can allow any customers it wants, and "feel" is a perfectly valid reason to boot someone.