[bigboydan]

Player vs. BetJoint (SBR rating C-)

The player used his free-play bonus to make a winning three-team parlay that netted him $4,600. After winning an additional $2,000 and requesting a payout, BetJoint voided the winning bet citing a wagering rule that says players cannot bet both sides of the same game when using free-play funds. After the bettor won the first two legs of this parlay he hedged the third leg using his balance to ensure a profit. The player argues that the controversial rule does not refer to parlays, is hidden, and is meant to trap free-play winners. Players are reminded to read all sportsbook rules and understand their ramifications. Vague and jumbled rules often result in disputes due to different interpretations. SBR to suggest BetJoint compromise, offering to grade the player's wager as a two-team parlay and do a better job outlining its bonus terms.

BetJoint: You are allowed to bet both sides of the same game, PROVIDING THAT IT IS WITH YOUR OWN CASH AND NEVER INCLUDES THE USE OF ANY ‘FREE PLAY’ CREDIT. Any violations of this rule will result in both/all bets on that event being cancelled and those bets will be considered null and void. In such instances, the cash play money will be refunded to customer's account and the customer will automatically forfeit all remaining Free Play credits in his/her account.

[treece]

I guess i won't be playing there anytime soon.

[BigBollocks]

I've never in all my years understood why a player would put in a three team parlay, only to double juice himself and hedge out of the last leg. If you put in a parlay and know that there is going to be too much riding on that last game for your comfort level, simply eliminate that selection and reduce the number of teams in your parlay by the appropriate number.

As for this case, I think BetJoint is clearly in the right and the player broke the rule by betting both sides on a free play (even if it was only PART of a freeplay).

[BettingProphets]

player was definitley in the wrong here

tried to circumvent the rules of the book

open and shut case

[rake922]

Did he lose the extra $2000 bigboydan?

I mean he got that from using winnings which weren't his

[dwaechte]

Sucks for the player, and I wish he got paid, but I think the book does have a strong case here. Whether the player knew it or not, I don't see how that rule doesn't apply in this case.

[biggamer3]

Book seems to be right here

He should have hedged his bet at another out if he wanted to ensure a profit

[purecarnagge]

this is why you play at multiple books people. Let this be a lesson not to do something dumb.

[BigBollocks]

Great points biggamer and purecarnagge. This player made three critical mistakes... #1) He didn't read the free play rules very carefully, which clearly state that if "any" portion of the free play credit is used to bet both sides of a game, the bet is void. #2) He shouldn't be including sides in a parlay that he intends to double juice in order to reduce the number of teams in the parlay. #3) And, perhaps more importantly as biggamer and purecarnage said, he definitely should have had more than one out in order to circumvent the freeplay rule in question.

He could've avoided this situation by simply doing just one of the three things listed above. This case is almost like a parable that highlights three very important things to all newcomers: READ THE RULES, DON'T ADD LEGS TO A PARLAY IF YOU PLAN ON DOUBLE JUICING YOURSELF TO HEDGE OUT, AND HAVE MULTIPLE OUTS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

[ChuteBoxe]

Yes, he should've read the rules more carefully.
Yes, he should've just went with a 2-team parlay, instead of hedging.
No, he shouldn't get beat for his money.

Bottom line, if it was the guy's money, and he lost, they would've accepted it. If he would've lost period, they would've accepted it. It's also shady how the book decided to void the game only AFTER the person requested a payout. If it was such an issue, why didn't they void it when it was graded? Why didn't they void the hedging bet with an email attached explaining that a rule of theirs was broken? They were trying to take a shot at the player here, basically allowing him to hang himself, and now they get all their free money back.

[TLD]

If I had to rule on this case I’d probably rule for the book, grudgingly. They’re within the letter of their rules, and the rules aren’t (quite) unconscionable enough to set them aside.

But what chintzy-ass behavior to have and enforce such a rule in the first place.

As far as hedging the parlay, I’m about as strong an “anti-hedger” as you’ll find (though one of the things I’ve learned from Ganchrow is that there are certain limited circumstances where forfeiting the juice like that is actually the mathematically correct move), but you have to remember we’re dealing with a free play situation here. You want long odds on your free play—either a big moneyline underdog or a many-team parlay. A two-team free play parlay without a hedge (i.e., leaving off the last team) would not return as much money in the long run as a three-team free play parlay with a hedge.

[Deke101]

Hedging reminds me of the TV show Deal Or No Deal. A case that I argue with my friends about constantly. For those of you that are familiar with this game show, say that you come down to two cases; one being $200, and one being $1,000,000 --> which is what happened to a Minnesota woman not long ago. They offer to buy your case at roughly $475,000. What do you do? You go onto the show with nothing, and can only profit. In my opinion, you take any money that they offer you, especially this $475,000 offer, which is one of the highest offers that you can receive. If you press the button, you get to keep your $475,000, however, you can pick a case for either $200, or $1,000,000. At this point, it's double or nothing. Why take the chance and realistically gamble $475,00 at a double or nothing bet. If you went to the show with nothing, then leave with something; and $475,000 is more than 'something'. $1,000,000 sounds great, but that isn't your money yet, and the $475,000 is. I would accept $300,000 in this position. But that's just me. Same goes for a parlay and hedging. Yeah you accept a lower reward, but it guarantees it! Guaranteed money is hard to come by in sports betting. Profit is profit.

[TLD]

The relevant difference with the parlay (leaving aside the free play complication) is that you could have had the “guarantee” without paying the extra juice.

If you bet, say, a three team parlay and hedge the last leg if you win the first two, then yeah, you’ve “guaranteed” a win, but if you’d just bet a two team parlay instead and never included that third team, wouldn’t you also have won? And without having to pay the juice to hedge?

[BigBollocks]

Hedging reminds me of the TV show Deal Or No Deal. A case that I argue with my friends about constantly. For those of you that are familiar with this game show, say that you come down to two cases; one being $200, and one being $1,000,000 --> which is what happened to a Minnesota woman not long ago. They offer to buy your case at roughly $475,000. What do you do? You go onto the show with nothing, and can only profit. In my opinion, you take any money that they offer you, especially this $475,000 offer, which is one of the highest offers that you can receive. If you press the button, you get to keep your $475,000, however, you can pick a case for either $200, or $1,000,000. At this point, it's double or nothing. Why take the chance and realistically gamble $475,00 at a double or nothing bet. If you went to the show with nothing, then leave with something; and $475,000 is more than 'something'. $1,000,000 sounds great, but that isn't your money yet, and the $475,000 is. I would accept $300,000 in this position. But that's just me. Same goes for a parlay and hedging. Yeah you accept a lower reward, but it guarantees it! Guaranteed money is hard to come by in sports betting. Profit is profit.

I agree in terms of $475K or nothing Deke, but the big difference here is that this situation is by your own creation. If you're just looking for profit and know that the third leg will make you uncomfortable, just bet a two team parlay and avoid double juicing yourself in scaling down a three team parlay.

[BigBollocks]

TLD your writing style, reasoning, and way of explaining things are superb. I'd be a lot smarter if I had teachers like you at a younger age. Why don't we hear more from you around these parts?

[TLD]

Thanks for the kind words, Big.

[cobra_king]

TLD your writing style, reasoning, and way of explaining things are superb. I'd be a lot smarter if I had teachers like you at a younger age. Why don't we here more from you around these parts?

Just want to second what BB says here. Always look forward to seeing what you have to post.

[bigboydan]

Just want to second what BB says here. Always look forward to seeing what you have to post.

Add me to the list Cobra Kind and BB. Whatever the subject is on, I always read TLD posts.

[charlie64]

[QUOTE=BigBollocks;560738]I've never in all my years understood why a player would put in a three team parlay, only to double juice himself and hedge out of the last leg. If you put in a parlay and know that there is going to be too much riding on that last game for your comfort level, simply eliminate that selection and reduce the number of teams in your parlay by the appropriate number.

As for this case, I think BetJoint is clearly in the right and the player broke the rule by betting both sides on a free play (even if it was only PART of a freeplay).

I have to agree with BigBollocks on this one
without rules there's choas,and when there is
choas there is death & destruction (lol)
That's why I use Bet On Line gradeA-BOO YA

[pjesnik24]

This is the first time that I agree with the bookie. It was completely player's mistake and he is paying for it.

[Bill Dozer]

I'd like to see the book pay on a two teamer without the last leg. Regardless, everyone should know the book has this gotcha rule.

As far as the rule itself, most bonus hunters know enough to bet the other side somewhere else and get a different line. Otherwise the book gets the juice or, if the line moved, the book should be happy to get the action anyway. It doesn't change the overhead on bonuses except when the house can catch a bonus hunter in their net this way. Silly rule that needs to be clarified and more prominent, maybe listed under "Bonus & Promotions." If the player bet 25 the other way or a $25 parlay using the other side, he could lose that $4600?

[20Four7]

I would unfortunately have to rule in favour of the book here. If your goint to hedge, do so at another book. It's like trying to middle a game, you don't bet the other side at the same book.

[Doug]

I've never in all my years understood why a player would put in a three team parlay, only to double juice himself and hedge out of the last leg. If you put in a parlay and know that there is going to be too much riding on that last game for your comfort level, simply eliminate that selection and reduce the number of teams in your parlay by the appropriate number.

As for this case, I think BetJoint is clearly in the right and the player broke the rule by betting both sides on a free play (even if it was only PART of a freeplay).

Not a totally bad move by the player in this case, since it was a FREEPLAY.

Mistake is hedging final leg at this same SHITbook.

[Ballpark]

Book is in the right. Player in the wrong.
As simple as that.

[chemist]

If a wager is made with cash on one side of a game and with Free Play credits on the other side of the same game, Management reserves the right to cancel both wagers and refund the cash to the customer’s account. In such instances and at the discretion of Management, the customer could also automatically forfeit all remaining Free Play credits in his/her account for abuse of the bonus and /or rollover requirement policies.

Strange policy. You can't wager cash against free play but they say nothing about free play vs free play. So can we assume using parlays for free play conversion is OK?

[frostno98]

I still trying to figure out why the hell do these books wait until a person cashes out before they say anything

[JBC77]

Book seems to be right here

He should have hedged his bet at another out if he wanted to ensure a profit

Exactly.

[Bill Dozer]

It's what I would call a trap rule...a rule that is not a TOS standard, is not listed under a title like "bonus conditions," and requires the player to self govern because the software won't. Then to audit winning accounts upon cashout for the violations is poor. I agree that the player doesn't have a lot of leverage and he should have read the TOS but I think the compromise above is fair. The book stood to win money from that parlay and should honor it as a 2-teamer with the unrelated plays.

[Bill Dozer]

I still trying to figure out why the hell do these books wait until a person cashes out before they say anything

The book says it didn't realize the free-play and cash bet hedge because it involves a parlay.

I made an error describing the complaint. The parlay lost and the cash bet won and that was what was canceled when he cashed out. Again, we would discourage sportsbooks from making these kinds of stipulations that the software itself can't enforce. The player argues that had his cash bet lost he wouldn't have got the refund for it.

That's a good point because the house probably wouldn't have noticed they owed him money when he cashed out. However, mgt. states that they would certainly refund the cash bet if it lost and the player could have pursued it and be in the right. Considering that, this was the only way for the book to handle it. The rule covers it.

[Uga Boga]

I just thought I'd give my input about my experience with Betjoint.

So far so good. I always receive responses to e-mails from support within minutes. Jason Peters seems to be extremely helpful.

I have crashed out twice with no dilemmas whatsoever.

On this issue, I believe the blame falls with both parties. Terms and conditions for bonuses should be made absolutely clear.

[tomcowley]

However, mgt. states that they would certainly refund the cash bet if it lost and the player could have pursued it and be in the right. Considering that, this was the only way for the book to handle it. The rule covers it.

The player cannot win money if he (intends to) violate the trap rule by hedging, yet he can lose money if the first two legs don't win. He's simply getting freerolled from the start by the nonstandard and hidden rule, and when his bet got there, he got robbed.

How is this not freeroll followed by theft? How is this materially different from voiding an entire 3-team parlay after the first two legs have won because the third leg was bet on an obviously bad line (making it an invalid bet according to T&C)? The book is claiming that both sides of the hedged leg are invalid bets and will be voided/no-actioned (which isn't problematic by itself any more than voiding the third leg bad line would be), and then voiding perfectly valid bets along with the invalid bet.


The book is simply stealing 2.6u from the player. He has earned two wins on his first two legs, and ANY policy that results in the voiding of both the entire parlay and the hedge bet (not to mention stealing the freeplay on top of voiding the bets) simply robs the player of his first two wins. Of course the book is happy to refund the straight bet if it loses- they steal 2.6:1 on the bets the player has already won, just as they would steal 2.6u by cancelling a losing parlay and a winning straight bet.

The only fair solutions are to either pay all bets as made or to void the third leg and the straight bet (so the parlay pays as a winning 2-teamer). Anything else is accepting that the book is also justified in cancelling the entire 3-teamer above after two legs have won fairly.

[purecarnagge]

Here is my problem with the book though. They booked the bet. They took his money. If your going to take the money, you have to pay.

Take one of the legs off of it. If it was against the TOS he shouldn't have been allowed to place it.

I'm tired of these books taking advantage of players, they are taking the bets if they aren't voiding them before the game or even during the game before say halftime, then they should be paying them out.

To wait until afterwards and say nope you broke a TOS rule thats in the fine print in another section than where you would expect to find it... Thats pathetic.

Downgrade should be done immediately. Just my opinion. They booked the bet.