 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Pinnacle violates their rules when grading bets
Made two bets on Maze "Tina Maze (SLO) vs The Field for Matchups" (downhill).
Two winners were on this event (also Gisin from "The Field" won)
Winter Sports Rules should be applied.
Outright/Winner: "If there is more than one winner, the odds will be divided with the number of winners".
Bets were recalculated 4! times. Current status is refund.
CSD answered that "Wagers are decided at our Grader's Department discretion" Not by rules, by "opinion"
Last edited by Raana; 02-12-14 at 12:13 PM.
Whereas making a bet on one contestant to beat "the field" is essentially the same as betting to win the event, technically it is a match bet option and I think when they aren't clearcut results a void/refund is standard practice. Is there anything specific in their rules about match bets. The rule you quoted is clearly for an outright winner market and I'd suggest not applicable to a bet in a matchup market. However in the absence of a rule covering the situation in a matchup market, I think it would be appropriate to apply it to your bet and you have a good case to argue that you should have been paid as a half winner.
Your pick did not beat the field since one from the field was also a winner. I don't think it should matter that you have a "half-winner" since this is not outright betting, it's matchup. A void seems fair to me, but I might be wrong. Good luck
I agree with you. It is clearly about the winner. Can you ask pinnacle csd (csd@pinnaclesports.com) : If the bet is "AthleteA vs The Field" Is it equal to "Will AthleteA win the race Yes/No" or not? Where you described "The Field" in rules?to beat "the field" is essentially the same as betting to win the event
Still got no answer for this questions. They just not answered it.
Their decision looks overweighted to me, it is not based on rules or protocols. Jury of race didn't say "It is a tie between Maze and The Field", it is pin department's discretion! And it is obviously their fault that they did not provide this situation in their rules.
"Your pick did not beat the field"
Pin said it is a tie between Maze and "The Field". But it can't be, because not all "The Field" got gold medal! There is a clear distinction between two sides here. In rules you can see how pin is using preliminaries, previous race results, all possible data to define who is higher. Maze wins further comparison with "The Field".
Last edited by Raana; 02-12-14 at 11:15 PM.
"The field" means anyone in the field.
Pinnacle is right here, it's a push.
Head2Head means comparing. Comparing Maze with anyone in the field? OK, she won 40 comparings and 1 is a real tie.Originally Posted by boeing power
Your "understanding" differs a lot from what is written in rules. Relying on "understanding" leads to situation when you think it is about the winner but bookmakers decide what is more profitable for them in particular case. All possible cases must be written in rules clearly.
I suggest you lodge a formal request for a review of their decision.
Could you not have backed Maze in a tournament winner market? Would the odds have been any different to taking on the field in a matchbet market?
What do mean by formal request? I've contacted csd by e-mail, disagreed with grading and stated my arguments. Still waiting for their response.
There was no classic winner market with multiple choice for alpine skiing. Just Head2Heads between 2 athletes and between an athlete and "The Field". You can see archive bets on this event here: scanbet.ru/archive/pinnacle (12 февраля 2014, Alpine Skiing. Olympic DH W)
Think that the key trouble here is because pin did not describe Head2Head in case Athlete vs "The Field" neither in winter games section nor in general rules. Also the case of sharing first place not mentioned for H2H at all. It is obviously their mistake. They just have Outright/Winner and Group Betting (Group Betting has the same: "If there is more than one winner, the odds will be divided with the number of winners") which can be applied here using common sense.
But they don't have any clear rule that matches this situation.
Problem solved. Pin gave me 1/2 of a win.
"we will be crediting your account as a gesture of good will with half the winnings that you would have won if you were a winner"
I think it is fair. Odds were 8.04, so I overcome much of probability, and deserved to win some money I suppose.
Also pin will clarify their rules:
"We will be adjusting our rules to make sure that similar situations are not misunderstood in the future."
Good news. That's a fair outcome.
But a bit disappointing that they are calling it just a goodwill gesture and it seems the rules will be changed to justify a void next time. I don't think that's fair as a bet against the field is surely a bet to win the event in any reasonable man's view?
I'd say it's called a goodwill gesture because they believe they intended to have the rule clearly in place so the correct ruling should be a void bet, but they are giving this one guy a break. Not everyone.
These rules are tricky
nobody ever right
If you are joint winner with another one from the field you did not beat the entire field.
That's why you don't get paid the full value of the ticket when your contestant is a joint winner/dead-heater. But unless the contestant you backed was odds on you get more than your stake back.
To treat a bet against the field any differently to a bet to win the event is just not fair play. The dead-heat rule should be applied.
they prob couldn't do the math so they called it a refund.
Pinnacle A++++++
Anyone knocking them has some nerve
They are the best bookie overall but they are not infallible and deserve a knock when they get something wrong, just like anyone else.
They handled this instance well but I don't agree with their rule going forward. But if it's there one just has to accept it. Extraordinarily rare occurrence so perhaps we'll not see it happen again in 10 years.
Reply With Quote