Betonline cancels political wagers that go against them

**jsgreen1** · 07-20-17, 12:11 PM

Where do I file a complaint?

**SBR Ivy** · 07-20-17, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by jsgreen1

Where do I file a complaint?

Hi jsgreen1, you can submit a complaint here http://www.sportsbookreview.com/sportsbook-complaint/

**TheMoneyShot** · 07-20-17, 12:23 PM

Hope you get your $ man.

That's why I don't wager on props. Only straight wagers on sports.

I would hate to be in a situation like this.

**Optional** · 07-20-17, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by jsgreen1

Hello all, long time follower first time poster. Will attempt to make this as short as I can. Betonline posted odds on the Trump/Putin meeting from last week. “Will Trump say x?” “Will Putin say x?” I bet “no” on a wide variety of props. I assumed I would take my chances that the exact phrase (according to their rules) would not be said. Official rules on each bet read like this:

There was a clear live feed as I’m sure nearly all of you saw. The two presidents shook hands, and discussed their meetings in front of the cameras, broadcasted live. Trump did the same thing with other world leaders such as Mexico and Germany. None of the words/phrases I bet “no” on were mentioned so I obviously thought I won. Two days later, Betonline cancelled all wagers. For a couple days I tried to work this out with their c.s. team. Betonline responded by saying there are no recording of the speech therefore all wagers were voided. I am not sure if this was reviewed by managers, or low level employees but every time I responded with the exact link of the meeting, they did not once even acknowledge it. Link below:

Did they really expect the entire first meeting between Trump and Putin to be broadcasted live when the odds were posted? There was always going to be a public/private meeting, and there was a LIVE FEED public meeting, yet Betonline cancelled all wagers. Very, very disappointed in Betonline. I fairly won a good amount of wagers and it seems like they cancelled because it did not go their way. Will follow with an official complaint, but wanted to bring this to the attention of the forum.

That video is not of a meeting, it's about 60 seconds of them basically saying hello, and then 20 mins of journos analyzing stuff.

I get why you are asking the question but if there is no video of a meeting I can't see any other option than voiding the market.

Imagine if you were one of the bettors on the Yes side of those props, would you consider it fair to rule those bets a loss based on that video?

I am sure not.

**trytrytry** · 07-20-17, 03:36 PM

Must be heard clearly on live feed.

your items were not heard clearly on the live feed so you won your props. good bet good overlay. well done.
they will get around to paying you with the appropriate pressure but be polite, this is not life or death amounts im sure limits were low as were your wager sizes. be patient but stick up for you win

**Waterstpub87** · 07-20-17, 03:55 PM

Good hit, Betonline an honest book. Sometimes their front line people are not too sophisticated. File a compliant. Upper level people have been very reasonable to me in the past.

I don't know why they offer bets like this. It seems very ambiguous, and people can always argue both ways on stuff.

**rangerz2478** · 07-20-17, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Optional

That video is not of a meeting, it's about 60 seconds of them basically saying hello, and then 20 mins of journos analyzing stuff.

I get why you are asking the question but if there is no video of a meeting I can't see any other option than voiding the market.

Imagine if you were one of the bettors on the Yes side of those props, would you consider it fair to rule those bets a loss based on that video?

I am sure not.

Respectfully disagree Optional.

If there was no public video of ANYTHING, then I could understand voiding all markets. But as trytry said, the phrases were not heard clearly on live feed and the wagers should have action. If I bet "yes" on those props, would I be frustrated? Sure, but I don't think there is much of an argument to be made to cancel wagers that fulfill the rules listed by betonline themselves.

Also, what is your argument to what OP said about expecting the entire meeting to be broadcasted live when the original odds were posted? There is no way they could've expected the entire interaction between Trump and Putin to be picked up by the cameras. Betonline should not be able to pick and choose which meetings that will rule action on. Would they also cancel the market because the "dinner meeting" which was reported in the last few days was not picked up by a live feed? This looks pretty cut and dry to me. Betonline should do the right thing.

**Optional** · 07-20-17, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by rangerz2478

Respectfully disagree Optional.

If there was no public video of ANYTHING, then I could understand voiding all markets. But as trytry said, the phrases were not heard clearly on live feed and the wagers should have action. If I bet "yes" on those props, would I be frustrated? Sure, but I don't think there is much of an argument to be made to cancel wagers that fulfill the rules listed by betonline themselves.

Also, what is your argument to what OP said about expecting the entire meeting to be broadcasted live when the original odds were posted? There is no way they could've expected the entire interaction between Trump and Putin to be picked up by the cameras. Betonline should not be able to pick and choose which meetings that will rule action on. Would they also cancel the market because the "dinner meeting" which was reported in the last few days was not picked up by a live feed? This looks pretty cut and dry to me. Betonline should do the right thing.

That's fine. I'm just sceptical that brief video of the hellos is really what was intended to be subject of this sort of bet, so don't really think it's as cut and dried as you are saying or the OP suggested. But we will see.

**jsgreen1** · 07-20-17, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Optional

That's fine. I'm just sceptical that brief video of the hellos is really what was intended to be subject of this sort of bet, so don't really think it's as cut and dried as you are saying or the OP suggested. But we will see.

Thanks for all the support..

Optional, my thing is.. The two sat down, shook hands (which was another listed prop - length of handshake) and proceeded to discuss the relationship. Are we really going to have dive into the definition of a "meeting"? If they required an exact interpretation to their liking of what constitutes a meeting, I would think it should have been listed in the rules - but the rules read exactly what I posted above.

Thanks again

**dlowilly** · 07-20-17, 04:54 PM

It's unfortunate that as long as people can collect winnings a book is considered great. Betonline are shot takers IMO. If there is a question and room for them to squirm out they will do so. Have had issues with them in the past with bonuses and freerolling me on a bet I confirmed with cs had been cancelled but lo and behold wasn't when it lost.

**jsgreen1** · 07-24-17, 02:09 PM

Just following up, I submitted my complaint on Friday and haven't heard anything back yet..

**rangerz2478** · 07-25-17, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by dlowilly

It's unfortunate that as long as people can collect winnings a book is considered great. Betonline are shot takers IMO. If there is a question and room for them to squirm out they will do so. Have had issues with them in the past with bonuses and freerolling me on a bet I confirmed with cs had been cancelled but lo and behold wasn't when it lost.

Had a good relationship with betonline for a while but unfortunately have been seeing more and more of this kind of thing of late from them. Would hope they'd do the right thing here so curious how this one turns out.

**mtneer1212** · 07-25-17, 11:00 PM

This was an awful prop that BetOnline should avoid - with that said, what if they would have said ONE of those things in a soundbite.... would that have been graded 'yes', and the others 'no'? How much action could they possibly have gotten on this prop?

They should pay off the player, and stop writing crap props like this.

**jsgreen1** · 07-26-17, 02:09 PM

I strongly believe if the video I posted above included a couple of the phrases and they would've taken an overall win, the bets would have action.

All we can possibly go on in this situation is the official rules Betonline provided. And based on the rules above, they have no right to cancel the market. The only scenario I could say would be a fair cancellation of all markets is if NO public meeting took place. But that clearly happened here.

**SBR Forum** · 07-26-17, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by mtneer1212

This was an awful prop that BetOnline should avoid - with that said, what if they would have said ONE of those things in a soundbite.... would that have been graded 'yes', and the others 'no'? How much action could they possibly have gotten on this prop?

They should pay off the player, and stop writing crap props like this.

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.

**rangerz2478** · 07-27-17, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by SBR Forum

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.

Wouldn't grading it according to their rules be a fair way to grade it? Where in the rules did it constitute how long the meeting had to be or define what a "meeting" is? The video posted should easily be enough to action it based on their own rules.

They admit it was a mistake to put the market up but refuse to pay the winnings of their mistake? Sure as hell sounds to me like a case where betonline took a considerable loss and looked for a way out of it.

**jsgreen1** · 07-28-17, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by SBR Forum

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.

Even if that is the excuse, what is to stop Betonline from posting more futures or props, entertainment/politics/NFL anything, letting the event play out, then calling it a "mistake" market and cancelling everything? Absurd..

**rangerz2478** · 07-28-17, 04:10 PM

To OP: Did you make multiple bets on the same wager? If not, then the following is irrelevant.

But if so. were most of your bets around the same price on each individual bet, or did you have to lay a wide extreme of prices on each market? I ask because when it comes to props like these, it's easy to tell where the action went. It's not like a bet on a NFL game where a 10k wager will move a line half point, if that.

If for example you layed -120 on a specific wager, and your subsequent wagers on the same bet were around the same price, then we can take betonline at their word that handle was not a factor here because they had equal action on both sides. But if your prices ranged from -120 to -200 on the same wager, then they obviously were not able to generate equal action and had a clear rooting interest with one way action.

**jsgreen1** · 07-28-17, 08:29 PM

Well I had multiple on most bets. A few examples from my first to last bet on each...
No trump nato: +450 to +160

359920467 - 1 Jul 06, 2017 03:35 PM Future/Prop $50.00 $225.00 CancelledPolitics - Donald Trump - POTUS to Say NATO - Does Not Use Exact Phrase +450

359946794 - 1 Jul 06, 2017 11:48 PM Future/Prop $50.00 $80.00 CancelledPolitics - Donald Trump - POTUS to Say NATO - Does Not Use Exact Phrase +160

No putin great job: -135 to -400

359919938 - 1 Jul 06, 2017 03:24 PM Future/Prop $67.50 $50.00 CancelledPolitics - Donald Trump - Putin to Say Great Job - Does Not Use Exact Phrase -135

359946775 - 1 Jul 06, 2017 11:47 PM Future/Prop $200.00 $50.00 CancelledPolitics - Donald Trump - Putin to Say Great Job - Does Not Use Exact Phrase -400

No putin great leader: -160 to -400

359920078 - 1 Jul 06, 2017 03:27 PM Future/Prop $80.00 $50.00 CancelledPolitics - Donald Trump - Putin to Say Great Leader - Does Not Use Exact Phrase -160

359946777 - 1 Jul 06, 2017 11:47 PM Future/Prop $200.00 $50.00 CancelledPolitics - Donald Trump - Putin to Say Great Leader - Does Not Use Exact Phrase -400

There are plenty more but just a few examples above to answer your direct question.

Whether in Russian or English, did they expect Putin to say those specific phrases? Well I was willing to take my chances he didn’t and I was obviously correct. I bet a good amount on these and my overall profits on the market should be close to 6k. It would appear to me that their traders realized they mis-priced these and now attempting to “squirm out of it” exactly what dlowilly said above. I mentioned in my last post, what is stopping them from posting futures like these, taking a loss, and then saying oh well cancel all because it was a mistake market?

There was a “live feed” televised meeting. The two shook hands, discussed the relationship, and should be settled based on their own rules. And to rangerz point, the above wagers clearly show the overall loss they took on these. So to say it had nothing to do with handle simply isn’t true. I like betonline and they have been good to me in the past, they pay on time and usually have pretty decent customer service. But this just isn’t right. And it seems like every other poster on the forum who has commented has agreed with me.

**rangerz2478** · 07-30-17, 12:59 PM

WOW those are some monster line moves. Some of those would've taken a good amount of money to move, even if the limits were small.

That dispels the notion that this had nothing to do with handle. (if the tickets are accurate)

Has betonline commented on this? Pretty amazed this hasn't gotten more attention.

**4nic8ing** · 07-30-17, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by rangerz2478

WOW those are some monster line moves. Some of those would've taken a good amount of money to move, even if the limits were small.

These are ultra small markets where each limit bet (probably ultra low limits) will cause the line to move big. Dave Mason is always posting huge tickets hit by players with Parlays so I would be shocked if they didn't pay the player here. I also wouldn't be shocked if this player didn't have the majority of the remaining tickets on these prop bets causing the lines to move.

Betonline should have had better terms for what makes the wager valid if they want to offer obscure phrases in Yes/No format. Best of luck JS.

**rangerz2478** · 07-30-17, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by 4nic8ing

These are ultra small markets where each limit bet (probably ultra low limits) will cause the line to move big. Dave Mason is always posting huge tickets hit by players with Parlays so I would be shocked if they didn't pay the player here. I also wouldn't be shocked if this player didn't have the majority of the remaining tickets on these prop bets causing the lines to move.

Betonline should have had better terms for what makes the wager valid if they want to offer obscure phrases in Yes/No format. Best of luck JS.

Might be true, but if so it proves the point even more that saying "had nothing to do with handle" simply isn't true.

Dave Mason tweets all the time about which side the house is rooting for due to an overload of action on one side. Of course in those situations, a lot more money is bet than on these markets. It may have solely been due to OP, or others players may have have moved it that way. But in either case due where these lines opened/ended, it's impossible to dispute they had one sided action, and a clear rooting interest.

**trytrytry** · 07-30-17, 05:15 PM

They still have not paid you for these winning Political Props? thats incredible.

**trytrytry** · 07-30-17, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by SBR Forum

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.

how about grading this way.

hmmm Putin did not say any of those terms we priced in the PROPS, which were bet a bit at our fine offshore site.

ah pay the winners

======================================== ======

**jsgreen1** · 07-31-17, 06:41 AM

Nothing, no responses at all..

**rangerz2478** · 08-01-17, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by jsgreen1

Nothing, no responses at all..

So the only response bol gave is to what sbrforum posted above? (And was proven false) Does sbr have further comment?

**trytrytry** · 08-04-17, 08:13 AM

for an A type book this is pretty bad for them to steal your funds is it like 6000?

Im a bit shocked them taking your winning funds is not more of a buzz and topic on Forums

hopefully still some behind closed doors discussions are happening, SBR has good people.

and no reply no resolution so close to football will hurt betonline post up business.

Only argument is betonline world class linemakers posted perhaps some weak prop lines (which happens thats that nature of high vig props some are horrible value both ways to customers and some get a some value if you know your stuff, that is why limits are in place etc etc). Is that the position after the meeting happened and results known they then thought hmmm maybe that prop was not a solid set of lines?

**jsgreen1** · 08-04-17, 01:10 PM

Trytry, my bets on these markets were made over the course of two full days. So if they had any issues with the lines, they had more than enough time to adjust. Besides, the only statement from betonline is what sbrforum posted above and I think it’s safe to say their statement that the handle had nothing to do with it is simply not true..

I emailed Matt, the sbr analyst who was working on the case, last Thursday with my response to that and I have not heard back. Nor has there been any sbr/bol comment in this thread with the new information. I am surprised as well this has not generated more buzz, but I have refrained from blasting this out on other forums, Reddit, Twtr, etc. because I have held out hope that Betonline would attempt to make this right.

I posted very early in this thread that I like Betonline and have given them the benefit of the doubt that eventually this would be fixed and we can come to a resolution that works for both sides. I hope you are right that sbr/bol are still having some closed door discussions regarding this but with no comment whatsoever in this thread or via email, it is starting to look like they are trying to sweep this under the rug and make it go away. I have been more than patient but I am not going to let this die.. Very disappointing to see an “A rated” book act this way... I will attempt to email my sbr analyst once more and we will see what happens...

**Wohlford** · 08-04-17, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by SBR Forum

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.

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.

**jsgreen1** · 08-04-17, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Wohlford

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.

Exactly, and to be fair, I would expect Betonline to be the type of book that would do so..

**trytrytry** · 08-04-17, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Wohlford

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.

some are saying they made some error posting this type of PROP?? saying they should not post high vig props like this?

they and other books have the exact same prop types for things like phrases said during the state of the union , trump inauguration speech phrases, and what is said on the debate. what a TV analysis says during a super bowl broadcast, they also have what will so and so coach say after winning superbowl, who will they thanks first. they do these often. this is not some error.

they had the high vig props, the guys had the meeting, it was broadcast and filmed and jsgreen took a gamble and won his props. this is pretty simple they are stealing from the winning customers.

jsgreen is staying very polite thus far, stay patient another week however, no reason to bury them now, you want your funds and they want football post up customers and want to keep an A rating on the forums.

**Optional** · 08-05-17, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by trytrytry

some are saying they made some error posting this type of PROP?? saying they should not post high vig props like this?

they and other books have the exact same prop types for things like phrases said during the state of the union , trump inauguration speech phrases, and what is said on the debate. what a TV analysis says during a super bowl broadcast, they also have what will so and so coach say after winning superbowl, who will they thanks first. they do these often. this is not some error.

they had the high vig props, the guys had the meeting, it was broadcast and filmed and jsgreen took a gamble and won his props. this is pretty simple they are stealing from the winning customers.

jsgreen is staying very polite thus far, stay patient another week however, no reason to bury them now, you want your funds and they want football post up customers and want to keep an A rating on the forums.

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.

**4nic8ing** · 08-05-17, 08:32 AM

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.

**trytrytry** · 08-05-17, 10:23 PM

I really dont agree at all with any forum having that as a final finding in support of a book (sponsor or not) towards a post up player risking funds, playing and winning a clear PROP. Why? Well this is part of it

They BOL are obvioulsy only making a PROP on something that can be seen and it viewed. they make these all the time.

For the superbowl or state of the Union speech they dont make a PROP that reads first thing the winning coach says to his wife at home. WHY? Well because they have no way of knowing so guess what THEY DONT MAKE THAT PROP. As in never... And they know not to make that Prop. Is SBR saying An A rated book does not understand bookmaking and PROP writing? Seems like a C- type book then right? Either for stiffing the player here or just not having a clue either way I suppose C- but I prefer keeping them at A and paying winning players after some honest respectful dialogue between players, forums and sportsbook. This can be fixed easily.

I Dont think they are stupid in fact I know they are not stupid they are top notch in lines and matchups and Props. I've seen them write hundreds, not hundreds, thousands, maybe Tens of thousands of Props over the years and they are clever, solid lines, unique stuff at times, keep the vig high like all props and seem to watch limits etc. They know what they are doing like they did here. In this case Did they have them up soft line based on their guess at the length of time the meeting might go on, or some special format they thought likely and set the lines off that, perhaps, but the Post up player thinking thought different and thought maybe some value here. Play away. thats the classic battle of Props .

they knew there was a meeting that would be covered, there was a meeting, and it would be covered, live video and audio was covered, Clip a pretty long one of the meeting, it was not a photo OP just smile for camera. (were some words said off camera before or after like a coach and wife after the Super bowl, of course nobody is saying they were not). But the political meeting happened and was taped and shown to the world had some discussions and banter and words (there were words) . The special words were not said, and grade it as it was.

I think this is a win for the player, many others also do. Im a bit surprised so little chatter on this here or on forums. When you think the pages of discussion and even months of discussion and opinions that Coreys Mom issue had on the forums... this one is like 3 guys kicking it around.

Well Really hope good dialog is continuing.