1. #36
    KVB
    It's not what they bring...
    KVB's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 05-29-14
    Posts: 16,138
    Betpoints: 1397

    Solid post TripleTry.

    This was a win for the player, regardless of any conclusions others may come to, and it does feel like the classic battle isn't being honored.



  2. #37
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by Optional View Post
    I dont see anyone saying that Try.

    SBR Forum said that this was "not a market that could have been graded properly". Nothing about it not being smart to offer these strange/fun style props in general. Just that this particular offer looks prone to having an issue.

    If they had a market on State of the Union phrases and all we got to see was 2 mins of the president saying hello to people, would you be saying the void was wrong in that case too? As that's the equivalent situation. You might still think bets should be graded for that, but it's tough to claim that it is a clear and obvious decision either way I think.

    I don't really have a dog in this fight. I feel like I do not know enough about how the bet was framed to know whether this video is gradable or not but what SBR reported they were told does gel with my first comment on the matter when I first viewed that vid.
    OP said the only rules attached to this bet is what he posted in post 1. If he is lying about that for whatever reason, then betonline is free to comment on what he missed. But based on the way it was "framed" it should be graded. Also opti, what is your response to betonline saying this had "nothing to do with handle" and then to what OP posted in post 20, which shows the clear one sided action they had on these?

    I'm not blaming you for this as I'd probably do the same thing in your position, but you almost always side with the sponsored book if there is an argument to do so, so I don't think it's fair to say you don't have a dog in this fight. Every single poster who has absolutely nothing to do with this situation has agreed that the player deserves to be paid.

    Betonline has handled this poorly at the very least, and is straight stealing from the player at the very worst. And so far betonline's only comment (to my knowledge) is a statement that was proven to be false.

  3. #38
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by Wohlford View Post
    When a book posts something they shouldn't, and a clear (if unintended/unanticipated) winner emerges, the book should eat it and pay the winner, even if they cancel the "losing" tickets.
    I have seen cases where betonline has done exactly that. So I am pretty shocked to see them ignoring this case. (to this point at least)

    It may be because some of the other cases were for very small amounts, and here OP claims to have 6k worth of winning tickets. But it is odd either way.

  4. #39
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by 4nic8ing View Post
    The book should have rules clearing stating what thresholds have to be met for the prop to be graded. It isn't fair to the bettors to offer clear Yes/No props and then come back and cancel due to something not clearly stated.

    It is obvious based on some of his tickets that the wagers on these props were one sided. This stance by them benefited Betonline much more than it did the bettors. This isnt a sporting event where there were commercials leading up imploring everyone to gather around and watch the G20 Summit. So if Betonline really expected the whole interaction to be caught on Live feed they were nuts.
    Perfectly said all around.

  5. #40
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    One last question for Opti: Regarding your state of the union point where you say "it's tough to claim its a clear and obvious decision either way," would you not agree that it is the book's responsibility to write the rules in such a way where there is no possible room for interpretation to what constitutes action? 4nic8ng made the exact point above. What is stopping betonline from writing exotic props with vague rules and then having the power to rule action/cancel based on how the market benefits the book or the players? This is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set that every past, current, and future betonline player should be concerned with.

  6. #41
    Optional
    Optional's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date: 06-10-10
    Posts: 30,223
    Betpoints: 1856

    Oh I agree this was a mess. I don't know about the handle comment stuff but agree the number of bets and total amount risked was a surprise when I read it. That really doesn't change things if it is ungradable though. And I do understand it sounds like I stand up for books more than the average bettor but most of the time, like here, There is no one else giving any perspective and sometimes I just have to be the bad guy and try to offer some balance. But also, despite that accusation, I haven't taken a side here at all. All I have said is that it is not obvious the bets should be graded. As I dont think there has been enough information posted in this thread for anyone to be making a definitive finding. I do think BOL is at fault for hanging a prop that was questionable whether it could ever be graded fairly from the start. I dont think they have tried to be evil doing that though. Just didnt think it through fully maybe. I lean toward the OP being paid as the best solution too but it's just not clear enough to be jumping up and down making demands in my mind.

    And as far as the sponsor thing. Sure I am not going to rip into a book that supports this site without a very good reason but I don't even know who sponsors what any better than any other poster here. It's not discussed with me. No one from SBR has told me to not be critical of any book or hold back my opinions. My personal opinion of BOL is high. I have seen them treat complaints fairly over and again in the last year or two so I do want to pay that back a little by trying to be understanding when they make calls we dont all agree with I guess. I feel like I am apologizing for my opinion here but I dont want to sound like that, as I still stand by everything I have said fully.
    Points Awarded:

    semibluff gave Optional 1 Betpoint(s) for this post.

    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 2 times . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: KVB, and trytrytry

    SBR Bash
    Punta Cana
    Attendee 2/4/2017


  7. #42
    jsgreen1
    jsgreen1's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-15-17
    Posts: 33
    Betpoints: 420

    Update: just received an email from Matt that the decision is final. Absolutely and utterly shocked at this outcome. The entire forum is completely one sided on this one, even Optional agreed I should be paid yet they are unwilling to do a thing about it.

  8. #43
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by Optional View Post
    Oh I agree this was a mess. I don't know about the handle comment stuff but agree the number of bets and total amount risked was a surprise when I read it. That really doesn't change things if it is ungradable though. And I do understand it sounds like I stand up for books more than the average bettor but most of the time, like here, There is no one else giving any perspective and sometimes I just have to be the bad guy and try to offer some balance. But also, despite that accusation, I haven't taken a side here at all. All I have said is that it is not obvious the bets should be graded. As I dont think there has been enough information posted in this thread for anyone to be making a definitive finding. I do think BOL is at fault for hanging a prop that was questionable whether it could ever be graded fairly from the start. I dont think they have tried to be evil doing that though. Just didnt think it through fully maybe. I lean toward the OP being paid as the best solution too but it's just not clear enough to be jumping up and down making demands in my mind.

    And as far as the sponsor thing. Sure I am not going to rip into a book that supports this site without a very good reason but I don't even know who sponsors what any better than any other poster here. It's not discussed with me. No one from SBR has told me to not be critical of any book or hold back my opinions. My personal opinion of BOL is high. I have seen them treat complaints fairly over and again in the last year or two so I do want to pay that back a little by trying to be understanding when they make calls we dont all agree with I guess. I feel like I am apologizing for my opinion here but I dont want to sound like that, as I still stand by everything I have said fully.
    Fair enough, good insight.

  9. #44
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by jsgreen1 View Post
    Update: just received an email from Matt that the decision is final. Absolutely and utterly shocked at this outcome. The entire forum is completely one sided on this one, even Optional agreed I should be paid yet they are unwilling to do a thing about it.
    Wow.

  10. #45
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Scene: Same sit down press conference as posted video.


    Trump: "We are having very productive meetings, with NATO being a focal point."

    Putin: "It is nice to see America with such a great leader. We hope to improve relations with America. Great job Donald."


    Is there any doubt to a single person here whether the props would have been actioned under this scenario?

  11. #46
    Wohlford
    Wohlford's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-12-11
    Posts: 165
    Betpoints: 108

    Quote Originally Posted by jsgreen1 View Post
    Update: just received an email from Matt that the decision is final. Absolutely and utterly shocked at this outcome. The entire forum is completely one sided on this one, even Optional agreed I should be paid yet they are unwilling to do a thing about it.
    BetOnline ripped you off pure and simple. I'll take this as a cautionary tale and stay clear of them.

    EDIT: If SBR doesn't step in and very clearly take the player's side here, then I think we can all learn a lesson about SBR as well.
    Last edited by Wohlford; 08-07-17 at 04:16 PM.

  12. #47
    jsgreen1
    jsgreen1's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-15-17
    Posts: 33
    Betpoints: 420

    Quote Originally Posted by Wohlford View Post
    BetOnline ripped you off pure and simple. I'll take this as a cautionary tale and stay clear of them.

    EDIT: If SBR doesn't step in and very clearly take the player's side here, then I think we can all learn a lesson about SBR as well.
    Fact. What a shame..

  13. #48
    Wohlford
    Wohlford's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-12-11
    Posts: 165
    Betpoints: 108

    Quote Originally Posted by jsgreen1 View Post
    Fact. What a shame..

    Has SBR come back with an official response to the complaint you filed?

  14. #49
    trytrytry
    All I do is trytrytry
    trytrytry's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-13-06
    Posts: 17,802
    Betpoints: 9038

    Its a drop from the A to a B or B- rating (have to think SBR will do that so people can be sure to know they are not an A book any longer due to this stealing of post up players funds)

    they do many things right and can still be considered a minor book to use for those with 15+ books. like other B- books on the list

    BTP
    Week 9
    5-0-0 569 pts

    BTP
    Week 8
    3-2-0 138 pts


  15. #50
    jsgreen1
    jsgreen1's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-15-17
    Posts: 33
    Betpoints: 420

    Quote Originally Posted by Wohlford View Post
    Has SBR come back with an official response to the complaint you filed?
    The "official" response they came back with was, in no uncertain terms, we're going to steal your profits because days after the event took place we now realize that eh we shouldn't have posted these lines, so, yeah you're out of luck..

    Their exact lies were: It was a mistake putting the market up. But not a market that could have been graded properly. BetOnline voided both sides of the market; nobody won or lost. It had nothing to do with handle or what side would have cashed or not. There was not a clear way to grade it.
    Last edited by jsgreen1; 08-09-17 at 09:04 AM.

  16. #51
    Wohlford
    Wohlford's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-12-11
    Posts: 165
    Betpoints: 108

    Quote Originally Posted by jsgreen1 View Post
    The "official" response they came back with was, in no uncertain terms, we're going to steal your profits because days after the event took place we now realize that eh we shouldn't have posted these lines, so, yeah you're out of luck..

    Their exact lies were: It was a mistake putting the market up. But not a market that could have been graded properly. BetOnline voided both sides of the market; nobody won or lost. It had nothing to do with handle or what side would have cashed or not. There was not a clear way to grade it.
    I saw that forum post. It was absolutely ridiculous and SBR should be ashamed.

    But, separate from this post, I was under the impression that you filed an official grievance with SBR and that SBR might provide a formal response to your complaint form (not just a response to this forum thread). Have they? Will they?

  17. #52
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by trytrytry View Post
    Its a drop from the A to a B or B- rating (have to think SBR will do that so people can be sure to know they are not an A book any longer due to this stealing of post up players funds)

    they do many things right and can still be considered a minor book to use for those with 15+ books. like other B- books on the list
    Outside of optional's opinion in this thread, SBR's silence on the issue shows the side they have taken. They are going to take the side of the book who pays for their rating. Does SBR look into complaints regarding sponsored books? Absolutely, and many times the books will admit wrongdoings and correct the issue, thanks to the help of SBR.

    But in a case like this, where the sponsored book refuses to admit wrongdoing or correct the issue, there is no chance SBR would make a public comment against the book's decision. This is despite the fact every poster here has acknowledged the player should be paid.

    The rating will not change.

  18. #53
    evo34
    evo34's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-09-08
    Posts: 992
    Betpoints: 3650

    Normally, I side with the book in these types of things. But this is terrible. The only thing worse is SBR's non-sensical response. I don't play gimmicky props for the exact reasons the OP got screwed on his bets, but if a book is going to offer bets on an event, accept extremely lopsided action on the event over a period of days, it should pay out on the event. Period.

  19. #54
    evo34
    evo34's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-09-08
    Posts: 992
    Betpoints: 3650

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478 View Post
    Scene: Same sit down press conference as posted video.


    Trump: "We are having very productive meetings, with NATO being a focal point."

    Putin: "It is nice to see America with such a great leader. We hope to improve relations with America. Great job Donald."


    Is there any doubt to a single person here whether the props would have been actioned under this scenario?
    Of course. This is pure, SBR-approved theft.

  20. #55
    evo34
    evo34's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-09-08
    Posts: 992
    Betpoints: 3650

    Quote Originally Posted by jsgreen1 View Post
    Update: just received an email from Matt that the decision is final. Absolutely and utterly shocked at this outcome. The entire forum is completely one sided on this one, even Optional agreed I should be paid yet they are unwilling to do a thing about it.
    Why do I feel like this is "Matt"?

    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: TheGuesser

  21. #56
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by Wohlford View Post
    I saw that forum post. It was absolutely ridiculous and SBR should be ashamed.

    But, separate from this post, I was under the impression that you filed an official grievance with SBR and that SBR might provide a formal response to your complaint form (not just a response to this forum thread). Have they? Will they?
    It sounds like the only official response SBR provided was what SBRforum said above, and the update OP posted from Matt.

    Crickets elsewhere despite Optional saying he leaned toward OP being paid as the best solution. Very odd situation, even knowing what I posted in post 52.

  22. #57
    Optional
    Optional's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date: 06-10-10
    Posts: 30,223
    Betpoints: 1856

    SBR is always on the players side when it comes to genuine disputes like this. But it's not like we are the police or an official body who can make orders on a book. They have to be convinced if they don't initially agree.

    Matt is as tough as they come. If he could not convince BOL that they should be paying then they just won't be convinced.

    And if SBR acted like we are never wrong and meted out some sort of punishment each time a book does not agree about a questionable decision like this, then quite rightly none of them would be open to discussing these things with us at all.

    SBR Bash
    Punta Cana
    Attendee 2/4/2017


  23. #58
    evo34
    evo34's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-09-08
    Posts: 992
    Betpoints: 3650

    Quote Originally Posted by Optional View Post
    And if SBR acted like we are never wrong and meted out some sort of punishment each time a book does not agree about a questionable decision like this, then quite rightly none of them would be open to discussing these things with us at all.
    So what incentive does a book have to ever go along with an SBR recommendation?

    Also, I'm not sure that's even relevant here since the OP is claiming that SBR totally agreed with the book in this case. He quotes SBR's email to him: "It was a mistake putting the market up. But not a market that could have been graded properly. BetOnline voided both sides of the market; nobody won or lost. It had nothing to do with handle or what side would have cashed or not. There was not a clear way to grade it. "

    Assuming this quote is accurate, how is this supporting the player? The best part is "nobody won or lost." If one guy hammered obscure props that would have netted him $6k, it seems to me that one party lost $6k and one party won $6k by nullifying the wagers.

  24. #59
    piterp
    piterp's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-02-13
    Posts: 103
    Betpoints: 588

    SBR is always on the players side just some bookmakers are untouchable

  25. #60
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by Optional View Post
    SBR is always on the players side when it comes to genuine disputes like this. But it's not like we are the police or an official body who can make orders on a book. They have to be convinced if they don't initially agree.

    Matt is as tough as they come. If he could not convince BOL that they should be paying then they just won't be convinced.

    And if SBR acted like we are never wrong and meted out some sort of punishment each time a book does not agree about a questionable decision like this, then quite rightly none of them would be open to discussing these things with us at all.
    I've been on the players side from the beginning here like every other poster. But the part I have found most troubling is the reaction by betonline/sbr once it was proven how one sided the action was. Early in the thread (and up to this point as well) the only real comment we had from betonline was that "it had nothing to do with handle or what side would have cashed or not."

    So I gave betonline the benefit of the doubt there, and asked OP the question I did in post 19. Had the opening/closing prices came close to balancing out, then we could've taken betonline at their word that this decision had nothing to do with handle, as frustrating as that was would've been for the player. At least we could've said, "betonline really didn't have a dog in this fight and ruled in a way they thought was fair for everyone."

    That was proven to be 1000% false by what the player post in post 20. Betonline did have a dog in this fight. A big one.

  26. #61
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Meanwhile, neither betonline or SBR has had a comment whatsoever about this. You would think someone who is solely on the players side on these disputes would have a comment about this wouldn't you?

    If this was a court room and Matt was the player's lawyer, this would be the easiest case ever for him

    Judge: So let me get this straight, the defense has put out a single statement that was ultimately proven false by the facts?

    Matt: Yes, your honor.

    Judge: We are done here.

  27. #62
    cyclingbettor
    cyclingbettor's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-26-15
    Posts: 55
    Betpoints: 1377

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478 View Post
    I've been on the players side from the beginning here like every other poster. But the part I have found most troubling is the reaction by betonline/sbr once it was proven how one sided the action was. Early in the thread (and up to this point as well) the only real comment we had from betonline was that "it had nothing to do with handle or what side would have cashed or not."

    So I gave betonline the benefit of the doubt there, and asked OP the question I did in post 19. Had the opening/closing prices came close to balancing out, then we could've taken betonline at their word that this decision had nothing to do with handle, as frustrating as that was would've been for the player. At least we could've said, "betonline really didn't have a dog in this fight and ruled in a way they thought was fair for everyone."

    That was proven to be 1000% false by what the player post in post 20. Betonline did have a dog in this fight. A big one.
    I'm a little confused by all of this...what does post 20 prove? Are we assuming that because the line moved by a bunch there must have been huge money being placed on the one side of the wager?

  28. #63
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by cyclingbettor View Post
    I'm a little confused by all of this...what does post 20 prove? Are we assuming that because the line moved by a bunch there must have been huge money being placed on the one side of the wager?
    That's correct.

    And there is no assumption needed here, it's the facts. IF this was a bet on an NFL game, betonline could've taken a $20k wager and the line may have only moved half of a point. So in those cases it's tough to tell exactly where the action is.

    But on props like these, they move the lines for the most part on every max bet they take in. So to see a line open at -135 and close at -400, there is really no dispute to where the overall action was.

  29. #64
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Also, look at the time stamps from first bet to last bet. On all 3 markets, they were placed roughly 8 hours apart. It's possible the player could've made like 10 straight bets on the ones he really liked, and later on the action could have swung back the other way, balancing it out a bit. But that did not happen here with bets on the same market 8 hours apart. The meeting was scheduled for 7/7 so I am guessing the odds went off the board very shortly after the last wagers were placed.

    It is also possible the player has doctored his tickets, something we have seen before on here and I saw plenty of at my time over at covers. If this is true, then betonline is free to chime in with the real tickets. But judging by their silence, I assume that's not the case.

  30. #65
    cyclingbettor
    cyclingbettor's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-26-15
    Posts: 55
    Betpoints: 1377

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478 View Post
    That's correct.

    And there is no assumption needed here, it's the facts. IF this was a bet on an NFL game, betonline could've taken a $20k wager and the line may have only moved half of a point. So in those cases it's tough to tell exactly where the action is.

    But on props like these, they move the lines for the most part on every max bet they take in. So to see a line open at -135 and close at -400, there is really no dispute to where the overall action was.
    I think we're on the same page as to which side the action would have to be on, I guess where we differ is in our assumptions about how much money is involved.

    I should point out that I have no insight whatsoever into the inner workings of a sportsbook, or how much action it takes to cause a line move, so feel free to ignore anything I say on the subject. That being said, in my experience with betting smaller markets - and by smaller I mean things like NBA player props - those lines jump around like dancing mosquitoes. I have to imagine the Trump/Putin prop market is even smaller than the NBA player prop market, so I doubt if it would take much to move the lines by that much. I mean, the one guy betting 6k would probably be enough, wouldn't it?

    At the end of the day, the story remains the same either way, but I think you folks are radically overestimating the amounts of money involved. Just my 2c.

    ps - Don't forget the disclaimer about being free to ignore anything I say on the subject...

  31. #66
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by cyclingbettor View Post
    I think we're on the same page as to which side the action would have to be on, I guess where we differ is in our assumptions about how much money is involved.

    I should point out that I have no insight whatsoever into the inner workings of a sportsbook, or how much action it takes to cause a line move, so feel free to ignore anything I say on the subject. That being said, in my experience with betting smaller markets - and by smaller I mean things like NBA player props - those lines jump around like dancing mosquitoes. I have to imagine the Trump/Putin prop market is even smaller than the NBA player prop market, so I doubt if it would take much to move the lines by that much. I mean, the one guy betting 6k would probably be enough, wouldn't it?

    At the end of the day, the story remains the same either way, but I think you folks are radically overestimating the amounts of money involved. Just my 2c.

    ps - Don't forget the disclaimer about being free to ignore anything I say on the subject...
    I actually don't think we disagree on anything at all.

    I don't disagree with anything you posted here. Your nba player prop example is a valid one. I used to bet player props pretty often on all sports before betonline lowered my prop limits to $0.

    These were smaller markets for sure and I would bet the nba player props generate more action than these. But the same idea applies to the nba props where if you see a massive line change from start to finish on a prop, it's easy to tell where the action went.

    I have never tried to guess exactly how much action was taken on these props outside of OP. It's possible there was a good amount of action on top of his, and it's possible his 6k was the majority of the total action. It's pointless for me to guess because I don't know. The only part I do know is that the action was extremely one sided.

  32. #67
    cyclingbettor
    cyclingbettor's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-26-15
    Posts: 55
    Betpoints: 1377

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478 View Post
    Betonline did have a dog in this fight. A big one.
    I guess it was statements such as this that led me to believe people were jumping to conclusions about the amounts of money involved.

    As we have both indicated, I don't think there is any doubt as to which side had more action. I just don't think we can draw any conclusions about how big that action was. Which would be the determining factor in the size of the dog.

    In any case, I don't have a dog of any size in this fight, so I need to stop making posts in this thread...

  33. #68
    rangerz2478
    rangerz2478's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-12
    Posts: 981
    Betpoints: 8472

    Quote Originally Posted by cyclingbettor View Post
    I guess it was statements such as this that led me to believe people were jumping to conclusions about the amounts of money involved.

    As we have both indicated, I don't think there is any doubt as to which side had more action. I just don't think we can draw any conclusions about how big that action was. Which would be the determining factor in the size of the dog.

    In any case, I don't have a dog of any size in this fight, so I need to stop making posts in this thread...
    Pointless to debate the size of the dog cause we don't know, we just know cancelling the wagers benefited them to a minimum of $6,000.

    I don't have a dog in the fight either, but I don't need one to be able to determine right from wrong. And betonline is in the wrong here, plain and simple. By handling this case the way they have, they are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent that should concern any player who currently plays there, and any player who is considering playing there this football season.

  34. #69
    milwaukee mike
    PRETTY TIED UP
    milwaukee mike's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 08-22-07
    Posts: 21,158
    Betpoints: 24

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478 View Post
    Also, look at the time stamps from first bet to last bet. On all 3 markets, they were placed roughly 8 hours apart. It's possible the player could've made like 10 straight bets on the ones he really liked, and later on the action could have swung back the other way, balancing it out a bit. But that did not happen here with bets on the same market 8 hours apart. The meeting was scheduled for 7/7 so I am guessing the odds went off the board very shortly after the last wagers were placed.

    It is also possible the player has doctored his tickets, something we have seen before on here and I saw plenty of at my time over at covers. If this is true, then betonline is free to chime in with the real tickets. But judging by their silence, I assume that's not the case.
    my guess is the bets had to be 8 hours apart because quite often, betonline doesn't allow you to re-pop a max bet 61 seconds later... their system gives you an error message for quite a while sometimes until they actually change the line

    could've easily been frozen out of betting for an hour at a time
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/16/2017

    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/09/2017

    BTP
    Week 8
    4-1-0 115 pts


  35. #70
    piterp
    piterp's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-02-13
    Posts: 103
    Betpoints: 588

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478 View Post

    By handling this case the way they have, they are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent that should concern any player who currently plays there, and any player who is considering playing there this football season.
    Its typical method to avoid payments find some stupid excuse for example technical problem -but it is not customer responsibly so people in UK sue bookmakers with court and they win
    Last edited by piterp; 08-13-17 at 08:56 AM.

First 12345 ... Last
Top