Player thoughts on a possible dispute?

[chilidog]

how about the book put a message stating " you cannot place multiple wagers over 1k on teasers EVEN THOUGH OUR SOFTWARE ACCEPTS THEM. THEY WILL BE CANCELLED"

this would be an acceptable deterrent. i almost always assume if the software accepts it, then it is good. there message may also not of been noticeable. i have missed small messages when placing wagers before.

Sure, in a perfect world, that would be ideal. Even now, I assume the same - if the book accepts the wager, then it should be the same. Books aren't stupid, and they know the rules. It's their own fault (or they're being shady) if they accept wagers such as correlated parlays.

A friend of mine is a linesman at a pretty popular book here in Costa Rica that you are all familiar with, and I asked him exactly what would happen if he ****** up and put out a bad line. He laughed, and told me that he would be fired, that the books take that pretty seriously. It's a little weird to me, at times, reading people's stories, and actually interacting with the books locally. They're fun people to hang out, and I have never had one single payment issue. Nada. The stories that they tell me are funny, heh. I think that people here aren't exactly forthcoming with all of the details, because hearing the book's side of the story isn't something that is usually posted here.

Personally, I started gambling in Las Vegas, so I never knew of all of the offshore woes until I started reading SBR and reading everybody else's problems. I've never had a single issue with payouts, customer service, nada, even from some books that are rated pretty bad here, but I signed up for in the beginning, when I didn't even know about SBR.

[Hareeba!]

This really should be pretty simple.

If there was a published rule saying you can't do it then that over-rides whatever the software allows you to do, but it's a pretty slack way for the book to operate.

If not, then if the software permits it, the wagers should be honoured.

[tomcowley]

This really should be pretty simple.

If there was a published rule saying you can't do it then that over-rides whatever the software allows you to do, but it's a pretty slack way for the book to operate.

If not, then if the software permits it, the wagers should be honoured.

This.

I even had a weird variation a few years ago.. get an email, blah blah you were warned not to do this anymore, bets voided (after the fact). Me: Uh, no, WTF are you talking about? Book: We put a note on your account. Me: Where would I see it? Book: It displays when you log in. Me: Send in screenshots in Firefox and IE, neither showing anything, tell them to try it themselves. Book: Uh, guess we need to make notes actually display.. bets reinstated, don't do it anymore. Me: ok, deal.

[Max009]

Ultimately this appears to come down to whether a published rule trumps the software, at least from an arbitration perspective (goodwill, pr are separate issues), and I'm not 100% sure of the answer to that, though would lean to the published rule forming part of the contract.

The rules trump the software. Software can have programming errors, network problems that can cause errors, hackers, just general gaps in functionality, a lot of reasons for it not to be able to handle every situation.

If you were to adopt the stance that the software trumps the rules then you would have to accept it both ways...when the software did something favorable for you and unfavorable.You would be a lot more vulnerable with the software as the final word than the rules. The rules protect the players as much as the books.

[bubba]

The rules trump the software. Software can have programming errors, network problems that can cause errors, hackers, just general gaps in functionality, a lot of reasons for it not to be able to handle every situation.

If you were to adopt the stance that the software trumps the rules then you would have to accept it both ways...when the software did something favorable for you and unfavorable.You would be a lot more vulnerable with the software as the final word than the rules. The rules protect the players as much as the books.

when was the rule changed in relation to the wagers? that day? was it reasonable for the player to see the rule changed? was the rule change put on the homepage in noticeable big/red colored letters? does a player need to check the rules of his sportsbook(s) every day?

[relaaxx]

the rules are there to protect the players as much as the book. if that were true ,players would have some say in the rules. another brillant statement from parleymaker's mouth piece max. i love when books come on here to tell you how they are right and you of course are wrong. page after page - day after day - more and more people become aware of this problem. if half the people agree with the book - you still have offended a lot of people. the longer it goes on the more come to hate the book. but max keeps it going because he can't help himself. he has to make us see he is right.

is it possible the rules were changed between the 5 bets. i think max had a slip of the tongue when he said he cancelled the bets after the rules were changed. then came back and said the bets were placed and cancelled after the rule change. so now i am suppose to be aware of a rule change while i am making bets. between bet 1 and 2 maybe a minute goes by and there is a rule change that i should know about. that is not listed in the rules. even if it comes up in the bet i may not see it or take the time to read it. i just bet it, before the line has a chance to change, fast. the software takes it. i think i have a bet. but no i'm an idiot , just because the bet is confired that is no reason to think i have a bet. ridiculous, i place a bet - it's confired - i have a bet - period. either way i think the bets should not have been cancelled and max should shut up. the more you keep this thread going the more money it will cost you. told you that yesterday when the thread started as did others. but you just can't help yourself. so come back daily keep spouting out i'm right your wrong crap. WAGERHUB = PARLEYMAKERS. at least i hope they end up the same way.

[sideloaded]

i think max had a slip of the tongue when he said he cancelled the bets after the rules were changed. then came back and said the bets were placed and cancelled after the rule change

I think this is the key issue. Everyone says "well the rules said" no not really even according to max he said he canceled the wagers AFTER the rule was changed. Then when I called him on it he added the part about being placed and canceled after the rule change. Real stand up guy.

[chilidog]

I think this is the key issue. Everyone says "well the rules said" no not really even according to max he said he canceled the wagers AFTER the rule was changed. Then when I called him on it he added the part about being placed and canceled after the rule change. Real stand up guy.

Dude, he plainly said that he cancelled the wagers that were made AFTER the rules were published, and that he let the wagers play out that were placed BEFORE the rule was published. What part of this don't you understand? If you're going to shout off the rooftops, at least shout out all of the known facts, not just cherry-picking the ones that you feel are most beneficial to your argument.

[sideloaded]

If software allows you to do something against the rules at the bank like take out 50k from the ATM, they won't let you keep it. It's the rules that matter. Software is a tool, nothing more.

Again, wagers canceled after we changed the rules not before. Wagers before the rule change accepted as normal.

No one is arguing about the amount of money...that is your amateur hour comment not ours.

Hmmm. So by saying he canceled the wagers after the rule was published thats somehow better? WTF is your point? Shouldn't the new rule apply to NEW bets not ones already taken? Seriously I don't see what your point is at all.

[ChewFu]

Hmmm. So by saying he canceled the wagers after the rule was published thats somehow better? WTF is your point? Shouldn't the new rule apply to NEW bets not ones already taken? Seriously I don't see what your point is at all.

I think Max phrased it poorly. As I understand it, wagers placed before the rule was in place were honoured; those place after the rule was implemented were voided before the event.

[relaaxx]

where and when did the rules get published. was it in the middle of the 1st and 2nd bet. max says the rule was on the bet page itself - the player says he seen no rule when he placed the bet. other than that disagreement these rules were not anywhere in the rules yesterday. why would anyone want to play here. some manager going on and on about 4k. glad i did not deposit there. i want to think that who ever i do business with is reasonable and does not have a big mouth(arrogant).. there is no good reason for max to say anything. SBR will say what they think and why,sooner or later. that will be good enough for me. the players with opinions are all right. in the sense of having the right to voice that opinion. but the book should just shut up. unless you are giving the customer what he wants, just shut up and let it be handled quietly, while we in the forum go on and on in all directions. the forum is not here because too many people were ripping off books. remember why we are here.

[Max009]

when was the rule changed in relation to the wagers? that day? was it reasonable for the player to see the rule changed? was the rule change put on the homepage in noticeable big/red colored letters? does a player need to check the rules of his sportsbook(s) every day?

On our site, you have to click a button that says Create Teaser...as soon as you do that the message appears at the top of the page.

As I stated before, the duplicate wagers placed before the message were allowed to stand and duplicate wagers after the message are the ones canceled.

I think the player just missed the message and as the software change was still being implemented the wagers went through. I said before, i don't think the player is taking a shot at us and I don't think the player thinks we are taking a shot at him. I think it is more of a case that as a professional type player he was a little frustrated at the situation. He still has 5 figure plus teaser action with us this weekend with wagers in accordance with the new rules.

I am sure this little episode will pass but it is always good to have these types of public dialogues, my own frustrations aside.

[bubba]

On our site, you have to click a button that says Create Teaser...as soon as you do that the message appears at the top of the page.

As I stated before, the duplicate wagers placed before the message were allowed to stand and duplicate wagers after the message are the ones canceled.

I think the player just missed the message and as the software change was still being implemented the wagers went through. I said before, i don't think the player is taking a shot at us and I don't think the player thinks we are taking a shot at him. I think it is more of a case that as a professional type player he was a little frustrated at the situation. He still has 5 figure plus teaser action with us this weekend with wagers in accordance with the new rules.

I am sure this little episode will pass but it is always good to have these types of public dialogues, my own frustrations aside.

its easy to miss small text when placing a wager. this should have been done more noticeably.

max- how much time was there between the wagers being placed and the cancellations??

[shipitkthx]

Hmmm. So by saying he canceled the wagers after the rule was published thats somehow better? WTF is your point? Shouldn't the new rule apply to NEW bets not ones already taken? Seriously I don't see what your point is at all.

You are seriously ******* braindead.

[sideloaded]

You are seriously ******* braindead.

Please explain.

[shipitkthx]

Please explain.

It was painfully obvious that Max meant "we paid all wagers made before the message and canceled all of those made after."

You are either A. Trolling or B. Suck miserably at reading comprehension. Not to mention this has been explained to you multiple times by other people in this thread but you continue to ignore it and ramble on. You are a ******* retard and are doing nothing but cluttering up this thread. Go hang out with JJGold, I hear he has a similar routine going that pays him quite well.

[sideloaded]

It was painfully obvious that Max meant "we paid all wagers made before the message and canceled all of those made after."

You are either A. Trolling or B. Suck miserably at reading comprehension. Not to mention this has been explained to you multiple times by other people in this thread but you continue to ignore it and ramble on. You are a ******* retard and are doing nothing but cluttering up this thread. Go hang out with JJGold, I hear he has a similar routine going that pays him quite well.

Love internet tough guys. Let me guess you work for parlay makers?

[shipitkthx]

Love internet tough guys. Let me guess you work for parlay makers?

LOL did I threaten you somewhere? You asked me for an explanation and I gave you one. You are either trolling or retarded. What part of that makes me an "internet tough guy"?

EDIT: No I don't work for PM. I don't work in the industry at all. I don't even have a PM account, and frankly I could give two shits if they succeed or go under.

[sideloaded]

I'm still developing facts on this one... But assume the following is true:

A player makes a limit bet (1k).
30 seconds layer, player repeats. He does it 5 times, betting a total of 5k.
Book has no rule on point prohibiting "multi-popping".

10 minutes before the game starts, the book voids 4 of the wagers, and emails player notifying him of this.

The bet wins.

How would you handle those facts? (I reiterate that the facts are still being developed, but it would be an interesting dispute if it played out this way).

It's painfully obvious that parlay makers is adding this rule on to cover their ass or the created the rule right in the middle of the bettor placing his bets. So I would assume the fair thing to do is chalk this up to a lose and apply the new rules to wagers going forward. If you want to call me retarded then fine. I guess your dad didn't hug you enough as a child.

[sideloaded]

double post.

[shipitkthx]

It's painfully obvious that parlay makers is adding this rule on to cover their ass or the created the rule right in the middle of the bettor placing his bets. So I would assume the fair thing to do is chalk this up to a lose and apply the new rules to wagers going forward. If you want to call me retarded then fine. I guess your dad didn't hug you enough as a child.

Point me to where there is any indication that the rule change was made while the bettor was making his bets. Pinnacle had an issue very similar to this (changing rules before a software change was made) and noone was griping about it. The fair thing to do is post a warning message and honor all bets made prior to that warning. By Max's explanation, the warning was listed at the top of the teaser page where the bettor should have seen it. Unless there is some evidence that his statement isn't true, the book is fine here. And I'm calling you a retard because you are acting like one. And I have great parents, thank you very much.

[sideloaded]

Point me to where there is any indication that the rule change was made while the bettor was making his bets. Pinnacle had an issue very similar to this (changing rules before a software change was made) and noone was griping about it. The fair thing to do is post a warning message and honor all bets made prior to that warning. By Max's explanation, the warning was listed at the top of the teaser page where the bettor should have seen it. Unless there is some evidence that his statement isn't true, the book is fine here. And I'm calling you a retard because you are acting like one. And I have great parents, thank you very much.

Whose the retarded one?

[shipitkthx]

Whose the retarded one?

What??????

[relaaxx]

It's painfully obvious that parlay makers is adding this rule on to cover their ass or the created the rule right in the middle of the bettor placing his bets. So I would assume the fair thing to do is chalk this up to a lose and apply the new rules to wagers going forward. If you want to call me retarded then fine.

that's what i see. right in the middle of wagering , you are suppose to notice a change in rules. rules 1 way - 30 seconds later rules change - and you are responsible for the new change. i just would not have noticed the fine print. i would have been just putting in the number of bets i wanted at the limits i always had. fast. before line changes. changing rules should be done in a way that people know about them. like being in the rules. not some foot note on a bet ticket. which i do not believe there ever was a foot note on the bet ticket when the other 4 bets were made. i just do not believe max or PM. i would rather believe the player. even if they can prove the foot note on limits were on the ticket, that still is not enough. you can't change the rules like that. that fast. they seem to be more in cover our asses mod.

[shipitkthx]

that's what i see. right in the middle of wagering , you are suppose to notice a change in rules. rules 1 way - 30 seconds later rules change - and you are responsible for the new change. i just would not have noticed the fine print. i would have been just putting in the number of bets i wanted at the limits i always had. fast. before line changes. changing rules should be done in a way that people know about them. like being in the rules. not some foot note on a bet ticket. which i do not believe there ever was a foot note on the bet ticket when the other 4 bets were made. i just do not believe max or PM. i would rather believe the player. even if they can prove the foot note on limits were on the ticket, that still is not enough. you can't change the rules like that. that fast. they seem to be more in cover our asses mod.

Pinnacle did this recently and cancelled bets made after the notice but before the game started. If this exact same thread was made re: Pinny I don't think we'd be seeing the same responses.

[relaaxx]

Pinnacle did this recently and cancelled bets made after the notice but before the game started. If this exact same thread was made re: Pinny I don't think we'd be seeing the same responses.

if the notice was made in the exact same way. i for 1 would have the same response. 1 big difference is you will not see anyone from pinny on here. good books get customers by what they do and what other people say, not by what they say. the worst books lose players for what they do and say. there just seems like there is a lot to explain at the worst books. lots of threads - that last way too long. and again only the worst books come on here themselves to explain. the 1 exception is when they come on here to agree. it's just good business. they will make money by being MORE than fair. only 1 i know of, WAGERCHIEF. the only book that comes on here to give whoever it is, with whatever the problem is a MORE than fair shake, every time. and i don't even play there.

[Dark Horse]

the 1 exception is when they come on here to agree. it's just good business. they will make money by being MORE than fair. only 1 i know of, WAGERCHIEF. the only book that comes on here to give whoever it is, with whatever the problem is a MORE than fair shake, every time. and i don't even play there.

That's right. Wagerchief deserves a lot of credit for that. A few months back they couldn't pick up a ** deposit I had sent. The Chief came in here and gave me a free deposit instead. Above and beyond the call of duty.

[JoeVig]

I think I like Tony@Dimes solution to this problem. Post up the additional $4,000 and ask the teams to run the game again.

[eyeball]

I think this is the key issue. Everyone says "well the rules said" no not really even according to max he said he canceled the wagers AFTER the rule was changed. Then when I called him on it he added the part about being placed and canceled after the rule change. Real stand up guy.

[eyeball]

Look if the Book canceled the 4 bets BEFORE the game started than they are not at fault.

The player made 4 addtional bets after the message was posted.


These books have the right to cancel any bet at anytime, they could of only allowed one bet of a dime.

Basically I think they got caught by a player taking a shot, and made up a rule after the first 4 bets.

But they have that right to do that... If you don't like it play with a local

Its like changeing the line after you put your bet in

[wrongturn]

Pinnacle did this recently and cancelled bets made after the notice but before the game started. If this exact same thread was made re: Pinny I don't think we'd be seeing the same responses.

But when pressed, pinny would let the bets stand and close the door. Can parlaymaker do that? Probably not.

[Dark Horse]

It's just a he said/she said issue, unless there's a time-stamped record of the change in rules. I thought SBR kept automated records, but I guess not (I do remember rule updates at SBR in the past).

If it's he said/she said, who wins? Who has the burden of proof? Who has the outdated software? Who gave only 10 minutes prior notice, and didn't even take the trouble to call so the player could bet the game somewhere else? I suppose the book will slip by every one of these questions. And that would cross parlaymakers off my list of future potential outs.

[Max009]

It's just a he said/she said issue, unless there's a time-stamped record of the change in rules. I thought SBR kept automated records, but I guess not (I do remember rule updates at SBR in the past).

If it's he said/she said, who wins? Who has the burden of proof? Who has the outdated software? Who gave only 10 minutes prior notice, and didn't even take the trouble to call so the player could bet the game somewhere else? I suppose the book will slip by every one of these questions. And that would cross parlaymakers off my list of future potential outs.

We don't call people. We don't have their phone number because you can play anonymously. All we have is the email.

It is ironic that the player with the issue is still wagering with us and yet people who have never played with us are convinced we are somehow taking a shot at the player. I would suggest since the knowledgeable experienced player doesn't think we are taking a shot at him then nobody else should either.

[Dark Horse]

You did not take a shot at the player. You canceled the wagers. In time, technically. But you take no responsibility for your outdated software. So you reason everything, every little detail, in your favor. Just be aware that there are competing books who do emphasize classy behavior.

[relaaxx]

We don't call people. We don't have their phone number because you can play anonymously. All we have is the email. It is ironic that the player with the issue is still wagering with us and yet people who have never played with us are convinced we are somehow taking a shot at the player. I would suggest since the knowledgeable experienced player doesn't think we are taking a shot at him then nobody else should either.

max - you are consistant - you just can't keep yourself from pointing out why you are right. what are you trying to accomplish by taking shots at posters here. your arrogance is profound and childish.