Player thoughts on a possible dispute?

[Justin7]

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).

[chilidog]

Well, at least they voided the plays before the game started. I doubt the line changed 5 times within a short period of line, which typically would've allowed him to bet the max limit on each line change. Since that's not likely, it sounds more like the book's software should've detected that he already placed a max wager on that game for the day, and not allowed the plays. So, they cancelled the bets manually, before the game started. I don't really see the issue here, but really, more facts would be needed.

[JohnnyC]

Gotta side with the book otherwise the player is freerolling the voided wagers. But they need to put a rule in.

[tachi]

"We reserve the right to cancel,limit any bet..."
every book has this rule.
they voided the plays before the game started.
Where is the problem?

[pjesnik24]

only problem I see is if the line has changed a lot

[durito]

You can't make up rules after taking bets. There are books that let you hit the limit more than once without the line moving. There are books that don't let you bet more than the max even if they line has moved. Put in a rule and/or fix the software. Pay the bets you booked in the meantime.

Let me guess, the book is Carib?

[tomcowley]

Have to pay. A book can't void wagers (on good lines, not past-posted, against no rules) just because it doesn't feel like taking the action. What's next, lopsided action on MNF, keep only the worst prices on the heavy side, void the rest because you don't like the exposure. I mean seriously, wtf? Allowing full-discretion voids on any line at any time is freeroll city.

[Justin7]

Here's another thought. I hate it when books free-roll a player by canceling a wager after a game. From the same angle, I hate it when a player free-rolls a book.

If you reinstate the wagers (which won), the player got a free-roll. If you thought the book shouldn't void the wagers, do you just say "screw it"?

[tomcowley]

The book freerolled itself by acting so retarded in the first place. I had a similar dispute where Cris voided just because it felt like it. I'd sent complaint to management and SBR before tip, but nothing happened. I ended up losing. I certainly wasn't going to donate my stake after the fact when I don't know if I would have gotten paid if I'd won. The book completely brought it on itself in my case and this one.

[David]

Anything in their rules regarding betting limits?

[wrongturn]

If there is no rule against multiple max bets on same line, I don't know what the problem is. The book should add a new rule, or better, make software change. Although it is common sense that betting max multiple times on same line is no no, but that does not justify books voiding action before, or worse after game, without rule backing.

[Thremp]

The book freerolled itself by acting so retarded in the first place. I had a similar dispute where Cris voided just because it felt like it. I'd sent complaint to management and SBR before tip, but nothing happened. I ended up losing. I certainly wasn't going to donate my stake after the fact when I don't know if I would have gotten paid if I'd won. The book completely brought it on itself in my case and this one.

Cowley is wise.

[Dark Horse]

The book is at fault. The player was not freerolling, because he never intended to, and because he can't be expected to check his e-mail every 10 minutes. With this short of a cancellation window before kickoff, it may have been different if the book had taken the 'trouble' to make a phone call over a 4K wager. The player, in all likelihood, could no longer bet the game elsewhere. The book should pay.

[forsberg21]

The book did no harm.

- The book cancelled the wagers BEFORE the game started
- The player was NOTIFIED by email that the wagers were voided

In fairness to the player, the book did accept the bets, even though there were "soft" limits. The book has to clear up the problem with their software.

All in all, the book absolved itself of all liabilities when it cancelled the wagers and notified the player about the cancellations BEFORE the game started. If this happened during/after the game, then the player would have a very strong case.

[ehp6737]

The book cancelled wagers before hand AND notified him of such. End of story. No freerolling on either side appliciable here. But it sounds like there are software and rules changes the book needs to update for the future to eliminate these types of CS issues.

[durito]

You can't just cancel wagers because you don't like them.

What's next voiding anytime a player gets a good # before the market moves. As long as they email before the game is that ok?

[trixtrix]

Sportbet used to do this ALL the time

[Dark Horse]

You can't just cancel wagers because you don't like them.

What's next voiding anytime a player gets a good # before the market moves. As long as they email before the game is that ok?

Exactly.

Why are we treating this as an anonymous book?

[SBR Lou]

Exactly. Why are we treating this as an anonymous book?

If you check the SBR homepage, it is up.

[vitalyo]

You can't just cancel wagers because you don't like them.

What's next voiding anytime a player gets a good # before the market moves. As long as they email before the game is that ok?

I agree 100%! Lets say book takes $525.000 @-110 in wagers on team "AAA"+9.5
And only $475.000 @-110 on team "BBB"-9.5 .

So if i can cancel wagers on team "AAA" for $50k .
That way i even money 475K on each side with 10% wig
I can always guarantee my self a profit . And call it a honest businesses because i cancel this wagers before the game time

GL.

[MadTiger]

Well, at least they voided the plays before the game started. I doubt the line changed 5 times within a short period of line, which typically would've allowed him to bet the max limit on each line change. Since that's not likely, it sounds more like the book's software should've detected that he already placed a max wager on that game for the day, and not allowed the plays. So, they cancelled the bets manually, before the game started. I don't really see the issue here, but really, more facts would be needed.

Gotta side with the book otherwise the player is freerolling the voided wagers. But they need to put a rule in.

"We reserve the right to cancel,limit any bet..." every book has this rule. they voided the plays before the game started. Where is the problem?

Exactly.

The limit is $1,0000 for this wager, and they are limiting their exposure to $1,000. What if the guy repeated it 24 times, instead of 4 times? It would make a joke of their limits.

The fact that they had to void it manually shouldn't change the PRINCIPLE of the thing, nor should the amount of times he popped them. The limit is the limit.

After further review, the ruling on the field stands.

[Hareeba!]

If there's no rule posted AND the software accepts the bet the book has to honour it. No valid reason to cancel wagers.

[katstale]

I think Vitamin has it right. If the software accepts the bet, you didn't bet too much. No book would ever need to "layoff" action if they could use this system. Book should correct THEIR problem and pay the guy. CODB

[tomcowley]

Plenty of books allow multiple max bets after time, linemove, or something. Pinny, Greek, Dimes, Cris doesn't care if you hit something again over the phone, etc. It's certainly not a universal rule, at all, that a betting limit is anything more than the maximum in one hit at one time. Hell, I even double-maxed a NBA halftime in Vegas of all shit places, not long ago, with full management knowledge, after they moved 5c from my initial hit.

[Hareeba!]

Plenty of books allow multiple max bets after time, linemove, or something. Pinny, Greek, Dimes, Cris doesn't care if you hit something again over the phone, etc. It's certainly not a universal rule, at all, that a betting limit is anything more than the maximum in one hit at one time. Hell, I even double-maxed a NBA halftime in Vegas of all shit places, not long ago, with full management knowledge, after they moved 5c from my initial hit.

Agree with this with one exception: Greek won't permit a follow up bet on the same day unless the line has changed.
There are many books where the stated max can be hit several times at the same price.
I know of one place where you can just keep hitting it as often as you like and seen it done more than 20 times and they never void.

[Dark Horse]

If you check the SBR homepage, it is up.

Good. So it's parlaymakers.

You know, the one who has agreed to binding arbitration with SBR...

[ucbearcats1027]

i dont no about this doesnt seem right

[Dark Horse]

Exactly.

The limit is $1,0000 for this wager, and they are limiting their exposure to $1,000. What if the guy repeated it 24 times, instead of 4 times? It would make a joke of their limits.

Not at all. You can bet it again, but each bet gives the book time to adjust the line.

Of course, since it is parlaymakers, which copies Pinny's lines, they may have left themselves more vulnerable. But that is their problem. Not the player's.

[Hareeba!]

Not at all. You can bet it again, but each bet gives the book time to adjust the line.

Of course, since it is parlaymakers, which copies Pinny's lines, they may have left themselves more vulnerable. But that is their problem. Not the player's.

Quite agree

[durito]

lol parlaymakers. do they still let you pick your lines?

[bubba]

im leaning towards player. how far before they were cancelled were the wagers placed?

[Kaabee]

MadTiger makes a good point. What if the guy did it way more than 5 times? Nothing to stop you from betting your whole roll $1000 at a time. A $1000 limit becomes $100,000 in a few minutes. The line will move of course, but the book obviously didn't intend for players to do this and obviously the software needs to be fixed.

[jgilmartin]

From SBR home page:
Parlaymakers stated that the teaser wagering page had the following warning when the player placed duplicate wagers: "Multiple Teaser wagers on the same teams with the same lines that exceed the wager limit for Teasers will not be allowed."

Unfortunately Google does not have a cache of the "Create Teaser" page (https://www.parlaymakers.com/parlays/teaser_category)

Does anyone who has bet teasers at Parlaymakers remember if the notice was up before last Thursday?

[Hareeba!]

MadTiger makes a good point. What if the guy did it way more than 5 times? Nothing to stop you from betting your whole roll $1000 at a time. A $1000 limit becomes $100,000 in a few minutes. The line will move of course, but the book obviously didn't intend for players to do this and obviously the software needs to be fixed.

Yes the book should make their software apply whatever their policy is.

But as I posted earlier, there are many books which do allow you to keep betting up to the max on the same line and odds. I personally have done it at one site 11 times and seen it done more than 20 times.

So, if the software permits it and there's no rules to the contrary posted on their site the book has to honour the wagers.

[relaaxx]

You can't just cancel wagers because you don't like them. What's next voiding anytime a player gets a good # before the market moves. As long as they email before the game is that ok?

agree completely. would any book let me cancel my wagers 10 minutes before game time - when does a bet=a bet. how long do you have to wait to see if your bet is good. player should be paid. once bet is accepted, that's it, it's a bet. so sick of this-books cancelling bets after the fact, like parlays, months later(which i had none). maybe they have some point. who cares. a bet is a bet. both sides should stand by the CONTRACT. the rules always give them the right to do whatever they want. doesn't make it right.