[Optional]

I agree Rangerz. We have not seen a clear explanation. But we haven't seen the rules you claim to know either. Please post the wording as it was offered if you have a screenshot of it.

[Wohlford]

I agree Rangerz. We have not seen a clear explanation. But we haven't seen the rules you claim to know either. Please post the wording as it was offered if you have a screenshot of it.

Now we're getting somewhere!

If SBR Matt is in communication with BOL as you implied earlier, no doubt BOL has been able to provide that wording to SBR, right? And SBR is no doubt considering that information in reaching its own conclusion on the propriety of BOL's allegedly wrongful voiding, right?

Certainly, if OP had distorted/changed the wording of the Prop he pasted in Post #1, BOL would have pointed that out to SBR and SBR would relay that to us, correct?

Is SBR looking into these matters? Will it report back to the community with its findings?

And if BOL is not forthcoming with SBR with this information, surely SBR will draw an inference adverse to BOL, correct? I mean isn't that only logical?



For the record, the relevant wording offered by OP was: "G20 Summit in Hamburg 7/7. Donald Trump will sit down together with Vladimir Putin for a first in-person official bilateral meeting of the two leaders. Will POTUS use the exact phrase/word listed? Must be heard clearly on live feed."

[rangerz2478]

I agree Rangerz. We have not seen a clear explanation. But we haven't seen the rules you claim to know either. Please post the wording as it was offered if you have a screenshot of it.

We will have to ask OP if he has screenshots but he copied the exact rules in post 1.

[piterp]

I only jumped back into the thread as I was getting sick of Wohlford attacking SBR mostly.

Asking SBR about fair action it is not attack and when most players agree with complain and only who not agree is you that must be something wrong here -just try thinking like normal player

[jsgreen1]

Trying to post a screenshot of the exact rules but can't get it to work...

[jsgreen1]

https://ibb.co/ctEtmk

[Optional]

https://ibb.co/ctEtmk

Thanks Jsgreen1. The point was that Rangerz was making claims at me about rules but he could not produce anything that wasn't already in this thread to back up the statements he was making.

[rangerz2478]

Thanks Jsgreen1. The point was that Rangerz was making claims at me about rules but he could not produce anything that wasn't already in this thread to back up the statements he was making.

Umm what?

I was quoting the rules the entire time from post 1, and I even said MULTIPLE times that betonline is free the to chime in if OP was fabricating anything he has posted in this thread, including the rules. Since the start of this thread I have said that betonline should be actioning the wager based on their rules. I had no reason to believe the rules OP posted were incorrect due to the fact neither betonline or SBR has said otherwise. Of course if the rules were something different from what the player had posted, the arguments of myself and others in this thread would hold no merit.

Once more: Its been stated in this thread 500 times by myself and others that it has to be betonline's responsibility to clearly state what qualifies as action. The rules state "meeting" and "live feed." They had a "meeting" on a "live feed." NOWHERE in the rules did it define meeting. Two people sitting down and shaking hands is a cut and dry meeting.

Now that what I have stated in this thread over and over has been confirmed with proof of the rules, your reaction is what?

[jsgreen1]

At the least, do I get an all expenses paid invite to the SBR Punta Cana Bash ?

[jsgreen1]

Once more: Its been stated in this thread 500 times by myself and others that it has to be betonline's responsibility to clearly state what qualifies as action. The rules state "meeting" and "live feed." They had a "meeting" on a "live feed." NOWHERE in the rules did it define meeting. Two people sitting down and shaking hands is a cut and dry meeting.

Exactly. Ty

[Wohlford]

Thanks Jsgreen1. The point was that Rangerz was making claims at me about rules but he could not produce anything that wasn't already in this thread to back up the statements he was making.

Great! Now that you've seen the screenshot, are you and SBR ready to get off the fence and make a clear ruling on this?

Stop hedging and take a side!

[Optional]

Great! Now that you've seen the screenshot, are you and SBR ready to get off the fence and make a clear ruling on this?

Stop hedging and take a side!

Dude, the OP posted that wording in his very first post.

This is not new info and not "the rules" Rangerz was trying to imply he knew all about.

I haven't changed my mind one iota from my very post in reply to the vid... it's very questionable that this video constitutes a meeting as described.

Disagree if you like but also try to accept that this is my genuine opinion, I think I am more right than you are, but both arguments have some merit.

Yelling at SBR to provide a "ruling" as you call it isn't going anywhere. The "ruling" is that SBR tried to help and the book ruled out changing position as they don't agree this bet is gradable. (thats a paraphrase of what SBR forum posted pages back)

People who insist 6k is a big amount that would obviously encourage BOL to cheat are just wrong.

In fact what it mostly exposes is that those people think THEY would choose to steal from a player over 6k in this position.

[Optional]

At the least, do I get an all expenses paid invite to the SBR Punta Cana Bash ?

How about to the IFBC conference next year?

Shoot an email reply back to Matt and ask, he may just hook you up.

[trytrytry]

there was a meeting

there was a live feed

there was audio that could be heard

it was the two exact persons

====

the props wagered and shared by this post up player are wins.

===========

betonline in a decision that has hurt them with SBR new and old readers is now a documented story moving to other forums.

Soon Id imagine facebook where they are super active, and twitter and will continue to cost them much post up money for football and beyond.

they chose to not grade because they thought when writing the prop the meeting might take on a longer different format of some sort. The payer handicapped more of a meeting format that happened, saw a potential overlay. betonline was capping and offering lines with a longer format as in longer "time of talking" which would lead to a higher probability of any words including these to be said which would perhaps more properly match their high vig prop offered lines. SBR tired to get the player paid what more can you ask of them.

Betonline will suffer with new and old post up players looking for an A top class book. The decision not to pay out the winning 6k prop wagers due to their unfortunate interpretation of what an ungradable prop wager is that ruling will have an effect. for many players just betting -110 football and baseball games and getting great BOL service this will have no effect and should not. They do tons right and have for years.

nice you will get an invite to that football meeting however, very classy by SBR and Optional.

[Optional]

there was a meeting

there was a live feed

there was audio that could be heard

Ok Try, have you watched the video? Please do again before you reply either way.


Here is the bet wording: G20 Summit in Hamburg 7/7. Donald Trump will sit down together with Vladimir Putin for a first in-person official bilateral meeting of the two leaders. Will POTUS use the exact phrase/word listed? Must be heard clearly on live feed.


Was that a video of an "official bilateral meeting of two leaders"?

No it was not. It was a 2min50sec PRESS CONFERENCE.

The presidents each answered a question from the press corp. And answered speaking to the press corp.

The only time the two leaders even spoke to each other was to shake hands hello and again at the end on the 3 minute press conference. Plus one or two quips which could not be heard at all, let alone clearly.

I'll ask the same question again as I did pages back... If you had bet on Trump to utter those phrases, would you think you had been fairly treated to be graded as a loss based on that 2 minute press conference, when the prop said it was about an official bllateral meeting of two leaders?

You can't just brush that off. It is 100% as relevant as the OPs claim.

Personally I regret ever getting more involved in this thread past my first post now. I am convinced Betonline have made no further comment as they think it's a pretty stupid argument. There was no televised official bilateral meeting.



Now given that people will want to keep arguing... can anyone point to a time in this video where the leaders have anything akin to an official meeting? Even speak directly to each other audibily? Please actually watch it again before replying!

[rangerz2478]

Dude, the OP posted that wording in his very first post.

This is not new info and not "the rules" Rangerz was trying to imply he knew all about.

I haven't changed my mind one iota from my very post in reply to the vid... it's very questionable that this video constitutes a meeting as described.

Disagree if you like but also try to accept that this is my genuine opinion, I think I am more right than you are, but both arguments have some merit.

Yelling at SBR to provide a "ruling" as you call it isn't going anywhere. The "ruling" is that SBR tried to help and the book ruled out changing position as they don't agree this bet is gradable. (thats a paraphrase of what SBR forum posted pages back)

People who insist 6k is a big amount that would obviously encourage BOL to cheat are just wrong.

In fact what it mostly exposes is that those people think THEY would choose to steal from a player over 6k in this position.

Knew all about? I was reading the thread and assuming OP was telling the truth based on the fact neither betonline or SBR chimed in stating otherwise. Do you take issue with this?

[Optional]

Knew all about? I was reading the thread and assuming OP was telling the truth based on the fact neither betonline or SBR chimed in stating otherwise. Do you take issue with this?

Rangerz, the only reason I ended up arguing with you lot was you and a couple of others making pronouncements that you were obviously right and citing rules like you had more info then the rest of us. You just aren't being fair minded. I'd be with you if I thought the book had cheated the guy, no matter what the book.

As a moderator I do not want to argue on the forum that a player should not be paid, unless they are scammers. So I tried to be as gentle as possible pointing out that the video really is not an official meeting. I hoped BOL would just say oh well the prop wasn't smart from the start, lets just pay this bloke. But the truth is I really did not think the OP had a leg to stand on if it came to an argument even if I did not want to say it up front.

[rangerz2478]

Optional here is the problem with your argument...

You are trying to interpret what they meant by meeting. You have your opinion and that's fine. We can obviously disagree on this and there is no reason to debate it. Here is the official definition of a "meeting"

• 1.
  an assembly of people, especially the members of a society or committee, for discussion or entertainment.
• 2.
  a coming together of two or more people, by chance or arrangement.
  [

[rangerz2478]

The video posted meets the official definition of a meeting. If betonline required a specific interaction to be filled in order for the wager to have action, it needed to be stated in the rules. It did not and as trytry said, there was a meeting, there was a live feed. Based on the rules (the ones you keep attacking me on for some reason) the wager should have action. Our argument is based on the rules, and yours is on your OPINION of what they meant by the rules. Which is the better argument?

[rangerz2478]

It is the books responsibility to post clear and concise rules on exotic wagers like these.

You would think at the very LEAST, betonline would take responsibility for screwing up the rules and pay the player due to their own error. I am beyond amazed they are refusing to do that.

[trytrytry]

thanks for the thoughtful dialogue Optional

OK so BOL is saying this was a meeting (I mean obvioulsy this is a physical meeting of the two persons, and actually they were both sitting down as well, we can all see that) but the meeting had a dominant Press conference format. And a dominant press conference format was not written either way in its definition so they did not pay?
Is that pretty close to BOL reason for canceling "both sides" of this prop?


what if they actually did have a sit down meeting with audio like BOL desired, and none of the words were mentioned. then there was also some press conference questions as they sat together talking and answering like this and the words were said. Would BOL take the money then?

I think the prop has to have some % factor that the meeting could be many different formats and unknown at that. thats inferred in the prop wager itself.

I personally think both sides US and Russia agreed to a sit down meeting with audio that would be a handshake some nice words together and a dominant press conference format. that is the type of a official (its was obviously official, both sides knew where to go, both showed up, neither side surprised or claimed fraud or some trick) bilateral sitdown meeting USA and Russia wanted. and did.

if I bet the other way an lost Id be great with that (other than down a couple units of course dont like betting wrong sides) I actually got more audio dialogue then I expected to hear at an official bilateral meeting between those two guys to be honest.

Ok Try, have you watched the video? Please do again before you reply either way.


Here is the bet wording: G20 Summit in Hamburg 7/7. Donald Trump will sit down together with Vladimir Putin for a first in-person official bilateral meeting of the two leaders. Will POTUS use the exact phrase/word listed? Must be heard clearly on live feed.


Was that a video of an "official bilateral meeting of two leaders"?

No it was not. It was a 2min50sec PRESS CONFERENCE.

The presidents each answered a question from the press corp. And answered speaking to the press corp.

The only time the two leaders even spoke to each other was to shake hands hello and again at the end on the 3 minute press conference. Plus one or two quips which could not be heard at all, let alone clearly.

I'll ask the same question again as I did pages back... If you had bet on Trump to utter those phrases, would you think you had been fairly treated to be graded as a loss based on that 2 minute press conference, when the prop said it was about an official bllateral meeting of two leaders?

You can't just brush that off. It is 100% as relevant as the OPs claim.

Personally I regret ever getting more involved in this thread past my first post now. I am convinced Betonline have made no further comment as they think it's a pretty stupid argument. There was no televised official bilateral meeting.



Now given that people will want to keep arguing... can anyone point to a time in this video where the leaders have anything akin to an official meeting? Even speak directly to each other audibily? Please actually watch it again before replying!

[Optional]

thanks for the thoughtful dialogue Optional

OK so BOL is saying this was a meeting (I mean obvioulsy this is a physical meeting of the two persons, and actually they were both sitting down as well, we can all see that) but the meeting had a dominant Press conference format. And a dominant press conference format was not written either way in its definition so they did not pay?
Is that pretty close to BOL reason for canceling "both sides" of this prop?


what if they actually did have a sit down meeting with audio like BOL desired, and none of the words were mentioned. then there was also some press conference questions as they sat together talking and answering like this and the words were said. Would BOL take the money then?

I think the prop has to have some % factor that the meeting could be many different formats and unknown at that. thats inferred in the prop wager itself.

I personally think both sides US and Russia agreed to a sit down meeting with audio that would be a handshake some nice words together and a dominant press conference format. that is the type of a official (its was obviously official, both sides knew where to go, both showed up, neither side surprised or claimed fraud or some trick) bilateral sitdown meeting USA and Russia wanted. and did.

if I bet the other way an lost Id be great with that (other than down a couple units of course dont like betting wrong sides) I actually got more audio dialogue then I expected to hear at an official bilateral meeting between those two guys to be honest.

Valid points.

But the trouble with the what ifs is that an Official Bilateral Meeting actually did take place. Toward the end of the PC Trump mentions they are about to go into that meeting.

If the press conference was the only meeting they had at all, then the claim might have more merit, but only barely.

But there was an official meeting, and there was no video feed of it.

No one is arguing this wasn't a bad prop to offer. Not sure why they ever thought a live feed would happen of an official presidential meeting. But at the risk of wearing out my keys saying it... it's just not clear enough either way for SBR to be making 'rulings' or demands. Best that could be expected was a genuine attempt by SBR to get him paid based on the ambiguity if we could.

[trytrytry]

I feel that its pretty clear that BOL states "a first" bilateral meeting

that sit down taped meeting official and bilateral meeting was the first. The fact they moved rooms or places and did a second or a third is meaningless to the prop
we saw and hear the first meeting.



which was videotaped and words could be heard, that is the format of the first meeting both sides agreed to and wanted .

Perhaps It was not the format BOL linesmakes anticipated when setting the line but the prop player risking the money thought otherwise and played it, thats the nature of props.

but it happened it was A meeting by all the definitions

BOL point (that I assume you are paraphrasing here) the point that it was not every official bilateral meeting Trump and Putin had is not relevant.

it was "a"
it was the first
its was official
it was bilateral
it was sit down
etc
etc
I think BOL wrote the conditions really tight actually easy to check the factors and grade.

It was everything actually.

[rangerz2478]

I feel that its pretty clear that BOL states "a first" bilateral meeting

that sit down taped meeting official and bilateral meeting was the first. The fact they moved rooms or places and did a second or a third is meaningless to the prop
we saw and hear the first meeting.



which was videotaped and words could be heard, that is the format of the first meeting both sides agreed to and wanted .

Perhaps It was not the format BOL linesmakes anticipated when setting the line but the prop player risking the money thought otherwise and played it, thats the nature of props.

but it happened it was A meeting by all the definitions

BOL point (that I assume you are paraphrasing here) the point that it was not every official bilateral meeting Trump and Putin had is not relevant.

it was "a"
it was the first
its was official
it was bilateral
it was sit down
etc
etc
I think BOL wrote the conditions really tight actually easy to check the factors and grade.

It was everything actually.

Pretty simple stuff.

[Wohlford]

I feel that its pretty clear that BOL states "a first" bilateral meeting

that sit down taped meeting official and bilateral meeting was the first. The fact they moved rooms or places and did a second or a third is meaningless to the prop
we saw and hear the first meeting.



which was videotaped and words could be heard, that is the format of the first meeting both sides agreed to and wanted .

Perhaps It was not the format BOL linesmakes anticipated when setting the line but the prop player risking the money thought otherwise and played it, thats the nature of props.

but it happened it was A meeting by all the definitions

BOL point (that I assume you are paraphrasing here) the point that it was not every official bilateral meeting Trump and Putin had is not relevant.

it was "a"
it was the first
its was official
it was bilateral
it was sit down
etc
etc
I think BOL wrote the conditions really tight actually easy to check the factors and grade.

It was everything actually.

Open and shut. There's not even any ambiguity. BOL should pay the player his justly earning winnings and that's it.

Anything less is theft.

SBR, please step up to the plate for the Player here and fulfill the website's purpose.

[rangerz2478]

Open and shut. There's not even any ambiguity. BOL should pay the player his justly earning winnings and that's it.

Anything less is theft.

SBR, please step up to the plate for the Player here and fulfill the website's purpose.

Both BOL and SBR want the thread to just die and go away.

[jbayko]

I just came across this thread. Like OP, I was also taken by BetOnline with these cancelled props. I got in pretty early before the dramatic line movement and stood to make a very tidy profit.

I was also pretty livid about BetOnline's response to my complaint. Here's my problem with them not counting what is in the video as an "official" meeting. Did they really think that live feed cameras were going to be allowed in the closed room where they talk about top secret strategy in Syria, North Korea, Ukraine, golden shower piss tapes, etc? That is ridiculous - it's never happened before. What is seen in the YouTube video is EXACTLY what one would expect in this type of situation.

I am usually very happy with BetOnline, but in this case, they were being intentionally obtuse because they stood to lose on every single one of those markets they posted.

Oh, BTW - to grade another market, they conveniently counted the handshake that occurred in this very SAME "unofficial meeting". It's disgusting.

[rangerz2478]

I just came across this thread. Like OP, I was also taken by BetOnline with these cancelled props. I got in pretty early before the dramatic line movement and stood to make a very tidy profit.

I was also pretty livid about BetOnline's response to my complaint. Here's my problem with them not counting what is in the video as an "official" meeting. Did they really think that live feed cameras were going to be allowed in the closed room where they talk about top secret strategy in Syria, North Korea, Ukraine, golden shower piss tapes, etc? That is ridiculous - it's never happened before. What is seen in the YouTube video is EXACTLY what one would expect in this type of situation.

I am usually very happy with BetOnline, but in this case, they were being intentionally obtuse because they stood to lose on every single one of those markets they posted.

Oh, BTW - to grade another market, they conveniently counted the handshake that occurred in this very SAME "unofficial meeting". It's disgusting.

WOW did they?!? Did you have bets on the handshake? Assuming you took a loss?

Comment from betonline or sbr? The fact they would grade that wager but not the others is incredibly shady on every level.

[4nic8ing]

Oh, BTW - to grade another market, they conveniently counted the handshake that occurred in this very SAME "unofficial meeting". It's disgusting.

Ummmmmm, if this is true post a screen shot of the graded ticket. That would be game, set, match for this situation and show the obvious thievery on the canceled props.

[trytrytry]

Ummmmmm, if this is true post a screen shot of the graded ticket. That would be game, set, match for this situation and show the obvious thievery on the canceled props.

We can continue to point out dozens of reasons why BETONLINE STOLE this persons funds, its all documented here. the info (I dont have any prof of that one way or the other) that they graded easily other prop on the meeting would not shock me at all. That would be easy to grade.

The rules they had were super clear, they wrote it well and easy to grade. It was a win for the sides on the "no words" used.


They will not pay and it seems sbr will not even make the much needed one minor minor rating downtick so post up players can be aware. I mean they are a A+ rating here. A+ ? really A+ for this?

A much justified move to an A rating (still in the top 2% of all books rated here at SBR) with a comment that they choose to withhold from post up players winning prop bets so be careful on any prop aciton at BOL until they have a period of time where all things graded properly.


Players can read the ratings see that to to consider alternatives. Not a blacklist, not a run for this hills, many post up players have good reason to use this book, 95% never look at high vig prop options, but at least show that post up players at SBr sponsor books can not be stolen from without a once tick downgrade.

[rangerz2478]

Ummmmmm, if this is true post a screen shot of the graded ticket. That would be game, set, match for this situation and show the obvious thievery on the canceled props.

Definitely curious to see if that's the case cause if true, it goes from being pretty sure they cancelled for their own benefit, to without a doubt positive they selectively cancelled for their own benefit.

[rangerz2478]

Also jbayko's post shows it WAS more than just OP's $6,000 that was on the line here

[jbayko]

@rangerz2478 @4nic8ing @trytrytry

Sorry it took so long. I haven't visited since my last post. Here are all of the wagers I placed. Notice that the "won't say" wagers were all cancelled while the handshake was counted as a loss.

[jsgreen1]

"NFL Regular Season - Jimmy Garoppolo - 1st Regular Season Game of 2017 - New England Patriots +500 "

Any thoughts on this Optional or anyone else? I will make a new thread and file a new complaint obviously, but would love thoughts.. Betonline says they will pay when he takes a snap.

Is this a joke or simply a criminal organization? I lean toward criminal and tend to believe SBR is as well.

[Alfa1234]

"NFL Regular Season - Jimmy Garoppolo - 1st Regular Season Game of 2017 - New England Patriots +500 "

Any thoughts on this Optional or anyone else? I will make a new thread and file a new complaint obviously, but would love thoughts.. Betonline says they will pay when he takes a snap.

Is this a joke or simply a criminal organization? I lean toward criminal and tend to believe SBR is as well.

I'm confused, what exactly was the bet? Him taking a snap? Did they grade the bet as a loss?