[jonsports501]

I placed a bet for the 2nd Set Winner
Bet: 1322824162Albert Ramos Vinolas To Win Set 2Albert Ramos Vinolas To Win Set 2 -vs- Carlos Taberner To Win Set 2LIVE Match Money LineLiga MAPFRE de Tennis - Men @ 2020-07-17

Ramos Lost set 2 (5-7). However, this match went 3 Sets, with the 3rd set played as a super tiebreak set. According to Pinnacle rules

"Pro Set:If a match is decided on a Pro Set, instead of the normal length of the match, all wagers are refunded except wagers on the 1st set line and the match money line.----If a match plays with a super tie-break as or is switched to having a super tie-break, then all wagers will be refunded on that match except for the 1st set winner and money line winner. Both the 1st set winner and money line winner will have action and will be graded as normal."

Therefore my bet should have been voided, as all other bets on this match were voided. PS3838 refuses to void bet according to rules and claim that because 2nd set ended under normal rules the bet has action, however THIS IS NOT what their rules clearly state.

My broker is AC and they have seemed not interested in arguing my point.

It's such a cheap bet, only 500 euro but for PS3838 to so blatantly disregard their own rules is disturbing.

[jedihyoju]

500 euro is such a cheap bet????

you must be loaded lol

anyways 2nd set was straight up lose without doubt but that rule clearly does say refunded if you are telling the truth.

Very interesting hmmm...

[jonsports501]

You're right, without this rule it would be a straight lost and I wouldnt fuss. But this rule is in place. (https://www.pinnacle.com/en/help/betting-rules#Tennis) I assume it because if players were aware the third set is played as a super tie breaker it changes the play in the 2nd set.

[Optional]

I placed a bet for the 2nd Set Winner
Bet: 1322824162Albert Ramos Vinolas To Win Set 2Albert Ramos Vinolas To Win Set 2 -vs- Carlos Taberner To Win Set 2LIVE Match Money LineLiga MAPFRE de Tennis - Men @ 2020-07-17

Ramos Lost set 2 (5-7). However, this match went 3 Sets, with the 3rd set played as a super tiebreak set. According to Pinnacle rules

"Pro Set:If a match is decided on a Pro Set, instead of the normal length of the match, all wagers are refunded except wagers on the 1st set line and the match money line.----If a match plays with a super tie-break as or is switched to having a super tie-break, then all wagers will be refunded on that match except for the 1st set winner and money line winner. Both the 1st set winner and money line winner will have action and will be graded as normal."

Therefore my bet should have been voided, as all other bets on this match were voided. PS3838 refuses to void bet according to rules and claim that because 2nd set ended under normal rules the bet has action, however THIS IS NOT what their rules clearly state.

My broker is AC and they have seemed not interested in arguing my point.

It's such a cheap bet, only 500 euro but for PS3838 to so blatantly disregard their own rules is disturbing.

Was the match rules always 2 sets plus a Super Tie breaker if needed?

If so, it makes no sense with most tennis tournies using this format during covid that your bet should be void.

But I will PM you an email address where you can get an official opinion.

[jonsports501]

Was the match rules always 2 sets plus a Super Tie breaker if needed?

If so, it makes no sense with most tennis tournies using this format during covid that your bet should be void.

But I will PM you an email address where you can get an official opinion.

Hey, thanks for this reply. Im not quite sure what you're asking. I dont know where the match was originally 2 sets plus a Super Tie Breaker or if it was originally best of 3. Either way I contend that no matter the original format intended. Pinnacle/PS3838 rule regarding matches played that ended in a Super Tie Breaker is quite clear. All bets should be voided except for 1st Set Winner and Moneyline.

This rule was the subject of a previous post in this forum where the wager was a win after 2 sets, despite the 3rd set being a super tiebreaker, and that bet was indeed deemed an appropriate void due to this published rule.

re: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...y-won-bet.html

[Optional]

I think that old case was about it being Changed to a pro set instead of a regualr third set.

Not sure if you have been betting much tennis but many (most?) tournies are using this 2 set plus Super Tie break format during Covid.

If the rule was as cut and dried as you are thinking, then there would be hundreds of matches no 2nd set bets would be valid for.

I don't have the answer here. But the people I sent you the email for should be able to either come up with a coherant explanation or have the bet adjusted. They are good usually. Let us know how it goes.

[jonsports501]

I used to bet only tennis, but havent been doing so since COVID, just recently got back in to prepare for the start of the tours coming on 1 Aug. So yeah, i have no experience with the application of this super tiebreaker rule. I do know however that it was spelled out explicitly within their rules and despite there being hundreds of matches where the 2nd set bet is void, this is their rule - until it is changed.

Moreso, I cant think of any other situation where this rule would be applicable or how it can be interpeted in any other manner. Honestly, I dont mind losing the bet, I'm just looking for a coherent answer consistent with the published rules.

My account is through Asian Connect so Pinnacle refuses to address me directly, however, the responses I'm getting through my broker leads me to believe they arent exactly delivering my argument as I present it and continue to ask me to just accept the decision...and I would if it made sense.

[Optional]

Use the email I sent. AC88 won't argue for you usually. They just ask the first line agent CS people.

I have checked their rules and get your point. But am still thinking there is something we must be missing.

[tristan]

Use the email I sent. AC88 won't argue for you usually. They just ask the first line agent CS people.

I have checked their rules and get your point. But am still thinking there is something we must be missing.

Indeed there must necessarily be something we're missing, because if they applied that rule that would be really easy to make money for tennis matches when 3rd set is decided by a super tie-break : Supposing for example player A vs player B. You wait end of 1st set to know the winner of 1st set. Then you bet on winner of the 2nd set, and of course you bet that winner of the second set will be the same as for the 1st set. Then 2 possibilities:
-either your bet is won
-or winner of the second set is not the same as the first set but your bet is not loss, it will be cancelled because there will be a super tie-break as a 3rd set.
No seriously , with that rule, either you win or your bet is cancelled, too easy, there must be a misunderstanding...

[jonsports501]

Indeed there must necessarily be something we're missing, because if they applied that rule that would be really easy to make money for tennis matches when 3rd set is decided by a super tie-break : Supposing for example player A vs player B. You wait end of 1st set to know the winner of 1st set. Then you bet on winner of the 2nd set, and of course you bet that winner of the second set will be the same as for the 1st set. Then 2 possibilities:
-either your bet is won
-or winner of the second set is not the same as the first set but your bet is not loss, it will be cancelled because there will be a super tie-break as a 3rd set.
No seriously , with that rule, either you win or your bet is cancelled, too easy, there must be a misunderstanding...

All bets on the 2nd set, win or lose, are voided according to this rule. If there is a misunderstanding the onus is on the sportsbook, not the client, especially when their regulations are spelled out explicitly. There have been wagers addressed in this form, where a bet that won after the 2nd set was then voided because the 3rd set was a super tiebreker. See this thread: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...y-won-bet.html

[Optional]

All bets on the 2nd set, win or lose, are voided according to this rule. If there is a misunderstanding the onus is on the sportsbook, not the client, especially when their regulations are spelled out explicitly. There have been wagers addressed in this form, where a bet that won after the 2nd set was then voided because the 3rd set was a super tiebreker. See this thread: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...y-won-bet.html

That bet was a +1.5 set handicap bet. I think the suggestion by someone in that thread that Pinny voided under this same rule might be erroneous.


Pinny said it was for this reason;

Dear Client,



Our traders have informed that the handicaps and total for this match were posted for a match to be played best of 2 out of 3 sets.


However, that did not happen as they played a super tiebreak in the third (10-3), therefore your wager has been cancelled.

[jedihyoju]

After reading optional's opinion as well

I think the rule that you are referencing is before covid-19 rules.

I agree with optional that most of the tennis matches are being played 3rd set super tiebreaker now.

If 2nd set is voided automatically when they play 3rd set there will be so many ways bettor's can cheat

sportsbook without risking.

Unfortunately this is first time but I have to agree with sportsbook's decision on this

[jonsports501]

After reading optional's opinion as well

I think the rule that you are referencing is before covid-19 rules.

I agree with optional that most of the tennis matches are being played 3rd set super tiebreaker now.

If 2nd set is voided automatically when they play 3rd set there will be so many ways bettor's can cheat

sportsbook without risking.

Unfortunately this is first time but I have to agree with sportsbook's decision on this

Maybe, but a published rule is a published rule. This is a current published rule, still published even after my inquiry. If they have changed the rules to adhere to new format of games post COVID then they need to amend their regulations. They havent. There rule as stated is "If a match plays with a super tie-break as or is switched to having a super tie-break, then all wagers will be refunded on that match except for the 1st set winner and money line winner. Both the 1st set winner and money line winner will have action and will be graded as normal."

Like Ive stated above, I dont mind losing the bet. What I do mind is sportsbook's arbitrarily applying their own regulations when ever they want to. Had I wont this bet and they voided it, would I have an argument? I dont think I would.

[tristan]

All bets on the 2nd set, win or lose, are voided according to this rule. If there is a misunderstanding the onus is on the sportsbook, not the client, especially when their regulations are spelled out explicitly. There have been wagers addressed in this form, where a bet that won after the 2nd set was then voided because the 3rd set was a super tiebreker. See this thread: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...y-won-bet.html

No , read more carefully what i wrote: if bet is won, it means winner of the second set is the same as winner of the 1st set (as the strategy would be to bet that way), and so match ends after 2 sets, no 3rd set with super TB, and no bet void then..

[jonsports501]

No , read more carefully what i wrote: if bet is won, it means winner of the second set is the same as winner of the 1st set (as the strategy would be to bet that way), and so match ends after 2 sets, no 3rd set with super TB, and no bet void then..

Ahh, yeah youre right. Didnt think about that. If set 1 winner wins set 2 there is no super tie breaker. I think however if it is known a super tiebreak set is known of the format. I dont know. I just know what is written in their regulations.

[Pinocchio]

The same people that would otherwise cite any (however dumb or unfair) rule from a book's website are in favour of just ignoring posted rules all of a sudden?

How about this: change the f.king rule!
But no, let's just ignore it and arbitrarily rule against it when we see fit.

F book level bullshit.

[Bridgepointe]

The rule that you quote refers specifically to Pro Set matches, Pro Set matches are the best of one set.

If the match that you bet on went to a second set then this is not a Pro Set match and the rule you quote is not relevant.

[horja1]

The rule that you quote refers specifically to Pro Set matches, Pro Set matches are the best of one set.

If the match that you bet on went to a second set then this is not a Pro Set match and the rule you quote is not relevant.

This

"Instead of playing multiple sets, players may play one "pro set". A pro set is first to 8 (or 10) games by a margin of two games, instead of first to 6 games. A 12-point tie-break is usually played when the score is 8–8 (or 10–10). These are often played with no-ad scoring."

[jonsports501]

The rule that you quote refers specifically to Pro Set matches, Pro Set matches are the best of one set.

If the match that you bet on went to a second set then this is not a Pro Set match and the rule you quote is not relevant.

Thanks for this take, however the rule also mentions super tiebreaker, "If a match plays with a super tie-break as or is switched to having a super tie-break, then all wagers will be refunded on that match except for the 1st set winner and money line winner. Both the 1st set winner and money line winner will have action and will be graded as normal" Moreso, the rule accounts for a 1st set being played as it gives action to 1st Set Winner and Match Moneyline, meaning more than one set is intended to be played by this rule.

So i understand your point about "pro set" however I am using their regulations of super tiebreaker to make my argument.

[Bridgepointe]

Do you agree that the match that you bet on was not a Pro Set match?

[jonsports501]

Do you agree that the match that you bet on was not a Pro Set match?

The match I bet on does not fit your definition of a Pro Set match. It did however, as expressed by Pinnacle, include a super tiebreak, as other bets - totals and handicaps, were voided in that match.

[Bridgepointe]

The rules underneath the heading Pro Set do seem a bit disorganized so maybe you have some sort of a point. The first paragraph makes perfect sense, the second paragraph doesnt seem to belong under the heading Pro Set.

It still seems that if you go strictly by their rules then this section is not relevant to your bet and if you go by common sense then your bet is certainly a loser so Im not sure that you will get your refund here, but good luck.

[jonsports501]

The rules underneath the heading Pro Set do seem a bit disorganized so maybe you have some sort of a point. The first paragraph makes perfect sense, the second paragraph doesnt seem to belong under the heading Pro Set.

It still seems that if you go strictly by their rules then this section is not relevant to your bet and if you go by common sense then your bet is certainly a loser so Im not sure that you will get your refund here, but good luck.

The rule specifically mentions "super tie breaker" which is what occurred in this match.

Again, I dont mind losing this bet. It was a bad bet. I do however mind sportsbooks not adhering to their published rules. It makes me wearying of what other rules they decide they will adhere to. And honestly they are written for a reason.

[tristan]

May i ask you when/at what moment of the match did you place your bet Jons?

[jonsports501]

May i ask you when/at what moment of the match did you place your bet Jons?

the bet was only 560€. It’s a small lost comparatively.

[jonsports501]

After much hounding, tweeting, and sending the same emails over and over again. I finally got this bet void. Honestly, I would have given up on this were not for the obnoxious AC88 attempting to gaslight me into thinking this rule didnt say what it explicitly says. Every time i was ready to move on they would email me with another excuse why my bet was settled correctly, further annoying me and motivating me to send out another round of emails and tweet some more.

I appreciate you all for being a soundboard and not giving me at least some understanding that I wasnt insane.

[Optional]

After much hounding, tweeting, and sending the same emails over and over again. I finally got this bet void. Honestly, I would have given up on this were not for the obnoxious AC88 attempting to gaslight me into thinking this rule didnt say what it explicitly says. Every time i was ready to move on they would email me with another excuse why my bet was settled correctly, further annoying me and motivating me to send out another round of emails and tweet some more.

I appreciate you all for being a soundboard and not giving me at least some understanding that I wasnt insane.

Nice work getting the void.