Player thoughts on a possible dispute?

[mtneer1212]

Gotta side with the book on this one....... they had the rules posted, they voided the bets and notified the player before the game. If the bets would have lost, would the player have claimed that the bets shouldn't have counted since there is a 1K limit on each game?

[sideloaded]

Gotta side with the book on this one....... they had the rules posted, they voided the bets and notified the player before the game. If the bets would have lost, would the player have claimed that the bets shouldn't have counted since there is a 1K limit on each game?

No rule was posted.

[BigDaddy]

pay the bets

fix the software.

BTW for people talking about lowering the grade of parlaymakers


they are not even rated to begin with.

[aggieshawn]

most books will not let you bet over the house limits

[aggieshawn]

automatic max limit wager controls

[jgilmartin]

No rule was posted.

Does anyone besides the player and Parlaymakers actually know this? That is why this one is tricky. If it actually was posted as it is now, they are operating fairly, IMO. If they just added that line on the Teasers page AFTER this guy made his bets, that's horrible. It's too bad Google doesn't have the page cached. Could have solved this thing in a matter of minutes.

[sideloaded]

Does anyone besides the player and Parlaymakers actually know this? That is why this one is tricky. If it actually was posted as it is now, they are operating fairly, IMO. If they just added that line on the Teasers page AFTER this guy made his bets, that's horrible. It's too bad Google doesn't have the page cached. Could have solved this thing in a matter of minutes.

Actually Max in this thread admitted he canceled the bets after the rule was changed. Its there in black and white.

Again, wagers canceled after we changed the rules not before.

[BChrisB]

Does anyone besides the player and Parlaymakers actually know this? That is why this one is tricky. If it actually was posted as it is now, they are operating fairly, IMO. If they just added that line on the Teasers page AFTER this guy made his bets, that's horrible. It's too bad Google doesn't have the page cached. Could have solved this thing in a matter of minutes.

I think this is the one part Justin is working on to figure out.

[Max009]

Actually Max in this thread admitted he canceled the bets after the rule was changed. Its there in black and white.

It is real clear.....the bets were placed and canceled after the rule change. Pretty straight forward. Not all bets were canceled just the duplicate ones.

[sideloaded]

Now you add the placed part.

[relaaxx]

It is real clear.....the bets were placed and canceled after the rule change. Pretty straight forward. Not all bets were canceled just the duplicate ones.

it isn't real clear to me now(just because you say so, is not enough). and it wasn't real clear to the player(at least that is what he claims) when he made the bets . when were the rules changed - right in the middle of betting these 5 bets. i'm suppose to notice a new change while i am betting. and i knew you would not disappoint. just can't keep your mouth shut. WAGERHUB -- all over again.

[skrtelfan]

The software is a tool. If you go to your bank tomorrow and their software messes up and puts 50 million in your account do you think the bank lets you keep it because the software said so?

Horrible analogy. No bank in the world gives 50 million gifts to customers, but there are plenty of sportsbooks that will allow multiple pops. I use some pretty small books that are largely incompetent but their software still keeps me from betting more than the max bet once.

[horsiehung]

im very surprised this never came up before...the 'line popping' issue will provide alot of direction this should swing..

[Hareeba!]

I use some pretty small books that are largely incompetent but their software still keeps me from betting more than the max bet once.

And I use several books which DO allow me to place another bet at the same price after having placed one at the quoted maximum. (and Pinnacle is one of them. Doesn't PM claim to offer what Pinnacle does?)

If the software accepts the bet, then the book should have no right to cancel it.

The books I referred to wouldn't permit me to cancel a duplicated bet should I change my mind so why should I have to put up with a bookie doing that?

[Dark Horse]

Max, sometimes it's not about being right or wrong, but about doing what is best. You can not win this issue in the court of public opinion. But you can create plenty of goodwill. What do you want people to remember about this six months from now? Players have a very long memory where it comes to stuff like this. I'd write off the 4K under 'shit happens', and at least get some free advertising in return.

[tachi]

If the software accepts the bet, then the book should have no right to cancel it.

last year Ladbrokes refused to honour winnings of 7m GBP.
the player said he will go to the court,but nothing happened.

If a bet is against the rules,the book has the right to cancel it
before or after the game.

[Hareeba!]

last year Ladbrokes refused to honour winnings of 7m GBP.
the player said he will go to the court,but nothing happened.

If a bet is against the rules,the book has the right to cancel it
before or after the game.

but my understanding is that there were no published rules which overrode the operation of the software when these bets were made?

[wtt0315]

he should be able to keep the winnings of max

[BChrisB]

It's like the same as correlated parlays (I guess.) All I'm saying is one book always you to do it this way, another allows you to do it another way. When it doesn't allow you to do one way or another you find out really quick.

I really don't like the fact that they say that they have these supposed "rules" that they get alerted for when it happens, then it's up to them to decide whether or not to stick to them. You need to be consistent, not pick and chose when you want the rules to be enforced.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but if your going to be a sports book you have to realize that the vast majority of players are not seasoned veterans (though many of us like to think we are.) Most of us are under the firm belief (from the players side) if our bet is accepted and confirmed, out bet is in. Books need to understand the mentality of the player. When you have your software set-up to accept a bet only to cancel it later all your going to do is cause a lot of resentment.

It's important to have your software consistent with the rule you enforce. Otherwise, expect the bad publicity, because your going to get it.

[lukahh]

And I use several books which DO allow me to place another bet at the same price after having placed one at the quoted maximum. (and Pinnacle is one of them. Doesn't PM claim to offer what Pinnacle does?)

Indeed. Pinnacle offers this, and PM has been marketed as Pinny for Yanks.

Very tough case... book did notify the player, but it is less than satisfactiory.

Pay 50% of the bets as consolation and FIX the system!

[increasedodds]

I would say the book does not have to pay, but the book should be rated no higher than a D-.

If the book wants to maintain a rating higher than D-, they should have to pay.

I'm glad I don't play at books like this one!

[Santo]

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.

[relaaxx]

Max, sometimes it's not about being right or wrong, but about doing what is best. You can not win this issue in the court of public opinion. But you can create plenty of goodwill. What do you want people to remember about this six months from now? Players have a very long memory where it comes to stuff like this. I'd write off the 4K under 'shit happens', and at least get some free advertising in return.

this is obvious -- max does not seem bright enough to figure it out or to listen to anyone - i hope the result is the player gets paid or this place goes the way of WAGERHUB.

[jgilmartin]

IF the rule was published prior to the bets being placed (and right now it's one person's word against another's as to whether or not this is the case), it should trump the software. For example, if the software accepts a wager on a clearly bad line (for example if +900 should actually be -900), or the software accepts a wager 20 minutes after the game has started, aren't these situations where the book would be acting fairly to cancel wagers?

[Arilou]

If the rule was in place before the wagers were placed, it seems fairly easy to say that they did nothing wrong as they cancelled before the start of the game and notified the player as such. Fixing software to prevent such things isn't always as easy as it sounds, and I can see the book looking at this as a chance for players to ask for bigger teasers; the first bet stands and the book has the choice to allow or disallow the rest depending on any number of factors. Sure, that sucks for the player, but he didn't have to ask for more, and this isn't a case where the lines moved against the book.

Of course, if they added the rule in order to cancel the wagers then that's pretty bad. Even if the software can't be fixed, they can move their lines to protect themselves... oh wait. No, they can't. Interesting business model they have there.

[noyb]

if the rule about not duplicating teaser wagers was really right in front of you when you had to confirm the bet, but the bettor said: **** it, and did it anyway, i can't see how he can complain about the void or feel entitled to the winnings while double betting.

but regardless of this, it's 2010, fix the damn software, it can't be that difficult.

[chilidog]

Max said that the guy made multiple identical wagers. After they posted the rule on the page, the guy made 4 more identical wagers. They only cancelled the 4 additional identical wagers, but left the prior ones play out. I really don't see the issue here.

[ChewFu]

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".

Seeing as books have plenty of rules prohibiting various things, I think it's reasonable to assume that multi popping is allowed in the absence of a stated rule. It's to the book's credit that the duplicate wagers were cancelled before the event (albeit ten minutes before) and that the bettor wasn't freerolled, but if there's no rule preventing it, I don't see how the book can legitimately apply a rule retrospectively and withhold winnings.

Even if the rule was in place, allowing multiple bets to be placed because the software isn't up to the job, before subsequently cancelling them, doesn't fill potential customers with confidence. The book should take this one on the chin and pay up.

[eyeball]

Max said that the guy made multiple identical wagers. After they posted the rule on the page, the guy made 4 more identical wagers. They only cancelled the 4 additional identical wagers, but left the prior ones play out. I really don't see the issue here.

I agree with the above post, the book payed 4 multiple wagers and cancelled the other 4 AFTER the notice.

The player I beleive saw the rule but thought he would take a shot at the book by placing 4 more wagers.
Software or no software the player betting this kind of money knew what he was doing, I don't really see where the book did anything wrong here. Especially since they did not let the game play out and than accept all 8 bets as a loss.. THEY CANCELLED BEFORE THE GAME STARTED.

[ShamsWoof10]

We did have a message stating that duplicate wagers would not be allowed. The player had several duplicate wagers prior to the message being posted which were allowed. After the message, duplicate wagers were canceled.

If the player saw this message and still put the wager in, much less MULTIPLE TIMES, then he has a reading comprehension problem...

The message said he can't exceed a limit I'm assuming he saw and disregarded many times... The message was not put up to be ignored or challenged so the book is right here without a doubt and you dirt bags (who have the nerve to consider yourselves honest) are trying to find a technicality... For you fruit loops that say you multi pop at another book you leave out that no message pops up saying you can't you pinheads...

"durito" and "dark horse" I want you to take a walk... When you get to an intersection and the sign says "don't walk" ...walk anyway why bother paying attention to the sign...

Hey "Hedgey" it looks like you are not the only one who has a hard time with reading rules lol...

[eyeball]

Solid Post

[floridagolfer]

Seems to me it ought to be relatively easy to write a rule that says multiple max bets cannot be made at the same line as a bet that's already been made. But if a line changes half a point, you ought to be able to place a second bet at the limit.

[chilidog]

If the player saw this message and still put the wager in, much less MULTIPLE TIMES, then he has a reading comprehension problem...

Not necessarily. He may have just thought that if the software allows the play, then it's good. I know that I have thought that before in my earlier days, before I knew better. Granted, if the guy is betting $1,000 a play, and betting 5+ times, then he's no newbie, and knew exactly what he was doing. Assuming that we have all of the facts in place, then I side with the book. They did nothing shady. Had they waited until the game played out, and then cancelled the wagers, then that would be a different story. But considering that they let the identical plays stand before they posted the rule, and cancelled the wagers that were made after they posted the rule (and they cancelled the bets before the game started, and alerted the player as such), then I really don't see the issue here.

[bubba]

Not necessarily. He may have just thought that if the software allows the play, then it's good. I know that I have thought that before in my earlier days, before I knew better. Granted, if the guy is betting $1,000 a play, and betting 5+ times, then he's no newbie, and knew exactly what he was doing. Assuming that we have all of the facts in place, then I side with the book. They did nothing shady. Had they waited until the game played out, and then cancelled the wagers, then that would be a different story. But considering that they let the identical plays stand before they posted the rule, and cancelled the wagers that were made after they posted the rule (and they cancelled the bets before the game started, and alerted the player as such), then I really don't see the issue here.

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.

[MadTiger]

BTW for people talking about lowering the grade of parlaymakers they are not even rated to begin with.

Double-secret probation.