[noyb]

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.

again, it's completely irrelevant what the OP did or did not know. we can speculate all day what he may have been thinking, we will never be able to prove either way and, most of all, it doesn't matter!! We all agree, including the heritage rule book, the bet is invalid, so the bet should be refunded (and not lost simply because the book is happy about the final outcome, and therefore decides the bet is valid after all). You can bold any part of it you like, it still comes down to the same. It's not rocket science.

[noyb]

Sounds like what I said.

sorry, but posting the 5dimes rulebook in a heritage thread, and then saying: what does it matter, all rules are the same anyway, doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing way to make your point.

[Jayvegas420]

The rules I posted were virtually identical to Heritages.
They are identical across the board as far as I am concerned.
You're arguing against yourself now.
GL

[shari91]

again, it's completely irrelevant what the OP did or did not know. we can speculate all day what he may have been thinking, we will never be able to prove either way and, most of all, it doesn't matter!! We all agree, including the heritage rule book, the bet is invalid, so the bet should be refunded (and not lost simply because the book is happy about the final outcome, and therefore decides the bet is valid after all). You can bold any part of it you like, it still comes down to the same. It's not rocket science.

Exactly, it's not rocket science. That's why I'm unsure how you're still failing to see the point.

Doesn't matter why the OP made his 4 bets. Their rules don't state all past posted bets will be voided. Read the rule several times if you need to.

[noyb]

Exactly, it's not rocket science. That's why I'm unsure how you're still failing to see the point.

Doesn't matter why the OP made his 4 bets. Their rules don't state all past posted bets will be voided. Read the rule several times if you need to.

their rules state past posted bets based on occurences (which is obv a meaningless definition, there will always be "occurances" if the game has started) will be invalid, as in not valid. they proceeded to grade the bet a loser, as in treat the bet like it is valid.

[noyb]

The rules I posted were virtually identical to Heritages.
They are identical across the board as far as I am concerned.
You're arguing against yourself now.
GL

yeah, "as far as you're concerned", that's pretty vital here i guess. GL

[tto827]

their rules state past posted bets based on occurences (which is obv a meaningless definition, there will always be "occurances" if the game has started) will be invalid, as in not valid. they proceeded to grade the bet a loser, as in treat the bet like it is valid.

Shari wins this battle dude, their rule basically states "if a bet is past-posted, we have the right to choose whether to accept or void it, and this decision can be made at anytime." It never says all past-posts will be voided.

Its a shady rule, which the CS rep backtracked on when he said that if it was found to be past-posted it would be cancelled, but in the end, it's the books call, and we got to a fair conclusion in the end, money returned, player booted.

[noyb]

Shari wins this battle dude, their rule basically states "if a bet is past-posted, we have the right to choose whether to accept or void it, and this decision can be made at anytime." It never says all past-posts will be voided.

Its a shady rule, which the CS rep backtracked on when he said that if it was found to be past-posted it would be cancelled, but in the end, it's the books call, and we got to a fair conclusion in the end, money returned, player booted.

if you say so. it could be my english, but i personally stil don't understand how an invalid bet could be considered valid based on their own choosing, i don't read it there. if the bet is invalid, then it's invalid, and not valid. regardless, it would show to prove how wrong jayvegas is about all book having the same rules. Pinnacle will never ever freeroll a player like this, even if SBR apparently think this is OK behaviour (because books like Pinny know it's not). Thankfully I don't live in a part of the world I am forced to play at books like Heritage.

you're right about the fair conclusion.

[teaz2win]

if you say so. it could be my english, but i personally stil don't understand how an invalid bet could be considered valid based on their own choosing, i don't read it there. if the bet is invalid, then it's invalid, and not valid. regardless, it would show to prove how wrong jayvegas is about all book having the same rules. Pinnacle will never ever freeroll a player like this, even if SBR apparently think this is OK behaviour (because books like Pinny know it's not). Thankfully I don't live in a part of the world I am forced to play at books like Heritage.

you're right about the fair conclusion.

Its pretty simple. Based on intent.. we all know the customer tried to take a shot here.. difference between manslaughter and murder is INTENT... he tried to get over and got caught. Makes gambling for the rest of us more difficult cause the books put in shady rules cause of guys like this. Of course this is just my opinion

[5mike5]

Its pretty simple. Based on intent.. we all know the customer tried to take a shot here.. difference between manslaughter and murder is INTENT... he tried to get over and got caught. Makes gambling for the rest of us more difficult cause the books put in shady rules cause of guys like this. Of course this is just my opinion

i totally agree

[Monitor-Tan]

soo what's the differenmce between void and invalid.. i'm confused..

there's a difference between heritage following their rules and doing what's right..

They don't have to do squat, but my feelinmg is what i posted before, they're free to do whatevetr obviously

Just that they follow their own rule or guideline doesn't make it the right thing.

[mtneer1212]

The proper resolution to this thread is give the customer a choice:

A) The bets stand as a loser; case closed
B) The bets are voided; account is closed; no longer do business with the customer

[tto827]

if you say so. it could be my english, but i personally stil don't understand how an invalid bet could be considered valid based on their own choosing, i don't read it there. if the bet is invalid, then it's invalid, and not valid. regardless, it would show to prove how wrong jayvegas is about all book having the same rules. Pinnacle will never ever freeroll a player like this, even if SBR apparently think this is OK behaviour (because books like Pinny know it's not). Thankfully I don't live in a part of the world I am forced to play at books like Heritage.

you're right about the fair conclusion.

Agreed. Heritage really dropped a level in my sportsbook review grades because of some of the boneheaded comments their CS made. JayVegas comment has 0 regard for anything, basically the equivalent of saying "I don't care what country I go to, the laws are all "basically" the same".

[looneytunes]

Funny how these kind of threads separate the gamblers from the shot takers and others who use the forums as leverage to try and convince Books that Intent doesnt matter or is irrelevant

[Jayvegas420]

Only Deem could actually degrade my posts while agreeing with my opinion.
Classic guy!

[Jayvegas420]

Funny how these kind of threads separate the gamblers from the shot takers and others who use the forums as leverage to try and convince Books that Intent doesnt matter or is irrelevant

It wasn'r my opinion that it was irrelevant, I was simply trying to convey that you can't prove intent in a case like this, on either side.
Unless of couse we saw a screenshot of someone's Heritage bet on Granollers where the 1st set was cancelled or graded otherwise.

[Jayvegas420]

All shot takers are gamblers not all gamblers are shot takers.

[looneytunes]

All shot takers are gamblers not all gamblers are shot takers.

Correct. This guys intent seemed pretty clear though when he started this thread. Of course now were entering the dan Bouton mind set. Take a shot, get rewarded and then complain it wasnt enough- only 14 more pages to go.

[BranchDavidian]

Correct. This guys intent seemed pretty clear though when he started this thread. Of course now were entering the dan Bouton mind set. Take a shot, get rewarded and then complain it wasnt enough- only 14 more pages to go.

Of course, all that Dan asked for, and all that the OP is asking for here, is for the book to follow its own rules. Both books in these two cases have not.

[touchback]

Hmmmm.... books can tell the difference between a past posted mistake and a past posted shot. If they think it is a shot they will audit your action history and take a good look at you possibly ending in account closure. Honest mistakes happen and books know it and life goes on. I also find it funny that though some OPs do not like the content of Daringly's post it does negate it's accuracy. The past post terms and conditions are so commonly worded you could cut and paste it from 10 different services and it would basically say the same thing. Lastly, whether a book cancels all bets depends on a number of factors and one of them being that if the wheel was balanced and all they collect in the end is the vigorish and the past post issue was minor they may let it stand. If the service stands to lose a lot of money they will cancel all wagers... the end.

[sharpcircle]

another book using their rules to take advantage of the situation.

this is a freeroll and isn't fair.