It's clear you have no idea what market means.
-
Comment -
Amongst other things.Comment -
Neither did SBR.com when a player cashed a 100 to 1 longshot and the industry average was 30 to 35 to 1.
Hey red eye, I don't care, I'm not saying you are a devious shot taker like it was 1500 - 1. But if the market was 30-1 and they had 100-1 that is beyond value shopping, thats betting a line that you know is highly suspect.(at best)
--- Posted by SBR.com at MWComment -
I guess its easier to call someone stupid than to explain why in 1 case it was OK for a book to post a 100 to 1, then lower the payout to the average of BODOG and PINNY, but in this case my claiming that triple payout odds by a book that claims bad line all the time is an issue.Comment -
Hey red eye, I don't care, I'm not saying you are a devious shot taker like it was 1500 - 1. But if the market was 30-1 and they had 100-1 that is beyond value shopping, thats betting a line that you know is highly suspect.(at best)
--- Posted by SBR.com at MWComment -
What do you know, JJGOLD also weighed in on the 2 guys who hit the 100 to 1 when the industry average was 30-1
JJGOLD said
Its fukkin sickening what Red Eye and Kermit did taking a shot
so I am full of shit for questioning 5 dimes lines which many were 3X + other books but its taking a hot if you hit one that is 3.333333 X industry odds.
That is what happens when you hit one of these. Just as Red Eye and Kermit did. JJGold and SBR should both be ashamed. you both shit on me for making this thread when you once backed a book for backing out of a payout which was 3.333333 X times industry average.
And its amazing. in that MW thread where the 2 guys hit a 100 to 1 long shot, noone even mentioned this bet fair bullshitComment -
nobs, I'll explain to you the same thing I just said via PM in response to you.
That SBR.com post that you're quoting: 100% backs up what the people in this thread are trying to tell you!
You need to learn what the word MARKET means in relation to sportsbetting. Do a search on here. Trust me - posting this stuff is only further ruining your arguments and despite 20+ pages in this thread, it's astounding to me that you still have no clue why.Comment -
omfg nobs
Did you even READ that thread you linked?Comment -
SBR.com (from MW) -
My conclusion would be:
The first bet: BCN be allowed to adjust to market because of bad line rule or cancel. It was a bad line. Yes they were lazy or stupid but that is not relevant...it was a bad line.
The sceond bet: This is now an adjusted line(not a bad line); Honor it
The third bet: This is now a twice adjusted line; Absolutely *Honor it
*To allow this 'twice adjusted line' bet to be cancelled would be allowing the book to get away with odds rigging.(baiting players to bet a bad line and canceling them if the players grab the sweet side of the market) If players and websites agreed to allow this twice adjusted line to be cancelled it would set a very unfair precedent for players.Comment -
What a crock. 5dimes should cancel a bad line BEFORE the event/match takes place if it's off. That is downright robbery to allow it to go through and then cancel AFTER the fact. And then to BLAME it on the bettor for taking a shot??? I will be keeping a close eye on this book now and won't hesitate to jump ship if need be. They haven't screwed me yet (except a small play on a Wrestlemania match - which I will never bet on again, ehem Cena/Miz). No wonder SBR removed them from the store after all this.... I had no idea.Comment -
The final resolution. The adjustment to "market" was that BCN agreed to pay out the average of Bodog and Pinny's line.
The title of the thread was "BCN will pay out at the average of BODOG and PINNY"
SBR.COM agreed that it was fair for BCN to pay out at THE AVERAGE OF BODOG AND PINNY.
Yes, I know what Market means and I know what Market meant in that thread. Nobody and I mean Nobody and by that I mean not 1 poster ever mentioned any betting exchanges in that thread, and the term "market" meant other sportsbooks. That is why SBR.com agreed with BCN decision to pay out at THE AVERAGE OF BODOG AND PINNY.
Why did SBR.COM not say that they should pay out at what a betting exchange was offering ?????
WHY ???????????????
Shari I know your twisted spin on this will convince some people, but it wont convince them all.Comment -
Comment -
For the record, it was average of Bodog and VIP not pinny.
From that thread
BCN will be honoring the bets at a line that was the average of VIP and Bodog
at the time of the wager.
I happen to support this decision.
That seems terribly unfair since the "market" means some betting exchange and has nothing to do with the prices that Bodog and VIP are offering.
Comment -
Posted in that thread by G Money ( post # 36 )
So what they are saying if a book post's a future higher than anyone else by 30 or 40 cents then father down the road they can cancel it ?
I guess G money is just an idiot who doesnt know what "the Market" means. He seems to think the market is "anyone else" when in fact all it means is a betting exchange.
But its OK Gmoney, you are the only clueless idiot, as it seems every person in that thread who isnt working for the forum says its a BS decision.Comment -
Brett ( post # 42 )
So while the rest of the offshore world had the A's anywhere from 100 to 1 TO 200 to 1 in late May, the crystal ball bookmaking gurus from BCN had the forsight to sense an A's run and claim that their line was intended to be 20 to 1.
Reading the thread right now shari. Still havent heard a single mention of any betting exchange by anyone.Comment -
OP, are you familiar with implied probability?Comment -
Brett and SBR.com ( post 87 )
Brett ---- but I have seen 80 when other books have 30 for sure
SBR.COM --- Ahh ha! but have you ever seen 100 when the market was 30??
Its Ok, I guess SBR.COM was just to stupid to know what "the Market " meant.Comment -
Post 93
Next March when the NCAA tourney starts, check lines at a bunch of books. You will see some books have the lower seeds at like 100 to 1, while you will see the same teams at 250 to 1 at Pinnacle. That's a pretty big variance in some peoples eyes(not mine because I understand that the BM is only holding a fraction more on the 100 to 1 bet.) You can't compare the futures market to the side and total market. You are comparing apples with pizza. There is much variation with these lines. They are often hand made with less regard for other books lines.
This is a sad industry when we start saying that one book can't have a different line from another. Why is the line offered by the masses the right line?
Still no mention of a betting exchange. All these dumb fuks over at MW seem to think "the market" means other books prices. But its OK, so does everyone else even SBR.COM who clearly stated "the market" as other books.
Not a single mention of a betting exchange in that entire thread.Comment -
post 101
SBR.com -- Hey red eye, I don't care, I'm not saying you are a devious shot taker like it was 1500 - 1. But if the market was 30-1 and they had 100-1 that is beyond value shopping, thats betting a line that you know is highly suspect.(at best)".
Scooter replied
there is NORMALLY tremendous variance in Futures lines.
One book having 30-1 and one book having 100-1 at the same time is NOT out of the ordinary.
damn Scooter also thinks "the market" means different sportsbooks. Why did SBR.COM not correct all those people who thought "the market" meant other sportsbooks ????????
Because that is exactly what the market means. It means all prices available. The term "the market" does not fking mean betfair's prices in anyone mind except yours Shari.
And thats because you have to spin "the market" to mean something else.
Because what we have here is me starting a thread saying triple payouts could easily be called bad lines if one of them actually won.
And we also have SBR siding with a book who cancelled a little over a triple payout after it won.
So the fact is, Yes these bets would have been cancelled had any of them hit, and Yes SBR would have supported 5 dimes and called it a "HIGHLY SUSPECT LINE ( AT BEST)"Comment -
posted by SBR.COM ( post 102 )
IF I was mediating this case and the book showed me a list of the top 10 books that had this in the 30-1 range and the player could not produce a book that was above say 70-1, I would side with the book on the Bad Line rule. But if the player produced a list like you just did it would be a slam dunk for the player.
I did not see the players in this dispute claim that any other book had odds anywhere close to 100 - 1.
Even SBR.COM doesnt ever use the term betting exchange or betfair , but continually defines "market" as other books.
Comment -
nobs, keep reading. Either you're not comprehending that thread or you're choosing not to.
I'm starting to think you don't even know what the situation was. BCN posted 100-1. They then adjusted the lines to 90-1 and took more bets. They then adjusted the line to 70-1. And took more bets.
And please try to understand what John means when he mentions the adjusted lines. He's NOT talking about what BCN finally agreed to pay. It's not even mentioned in that thread what BCN agreed to pay other than the average of Bodog and VIP. He's talking about the fact that they moved the line from 100-1, to 90-1 to something else and accepted more bets before declaring a bad line.
From John on the first page: "BUT you can not move a line and then say the adjusted line is a bad line. You certainly can not move a line twice and say that the twice adjusted line is a bad line too."
Again from John on the first page:
"My conclusion would be:
The first bet: BCN be allowed to adjust to market because of bad line rule or cancel. It was a bad line. Yes they were lazy or stupid but that is not relevant...it was a bad line.
The sceond bet: This is now an adjusted line(not a bad line); Honor it
The third bet: This is now a twice adjusted line; Absolutely *Honor it
*To allow this 'twice adjusted line' bet to be cancelled would be allowing the book to get away with odds rigging.(baiting players to bet a bad line and canceling them if the players grab the sweet side of the market) If players and websites agreed to allow this twice adjusted line to be cancelled it would set a very unfair precedent for players."
He was agreeing with the people who made the bet after they adjusted the lines.
Instead of doing that, BCN said they would honor the bets at an average of Bodog and VIP's price.
Again from John: "These posters are hammering me too for thinking its right for BCN to cancel the first pop at 100-1 but they should honor the next two bets with adjusted lines. The Majors/BCN's proposed settlement is far less than that and not anywhere close to fair in pretty much everyones opinion."
Do you see what he's saying there? The ADJUSTED LINES that he's saying should have been honoured were 90-1 and 70-1 because they moved the line and took more bets. When you declare a bad line, you move it once. You can't keep moving it and accepting money and then go back and declare your moves as bad lines.
Again from John in another post: "I think we all agree they should honor the adjusted line bets."
One more time for you: He's NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. He's talking about the 90-1 and 70-1.
To put it more plainly for you as to why the proposed settlement had people pissed:
shoebox then comes in and posts this:
"SBR and anyone else who wants to see that futures are different and can vary wildly at reputable shops..."
and then posts lines from the Stardust and Mirage on different futures (not the one in question).
(sorry because I know this invalidates your opening post where 5Dimes lines MUST BE OFF because they were so different from the books you listed.)
John then posts this: "Shoe,
OK. You have proved your point. But those are odds to win the WS which is a bigger field right?
Even with the different field you have still proved your point.
IF I was mediating this case and the book showed me a list of the top 10 books that had this in the 30-1 range and the player could not produce a book that was above say 70-1, I would side with the book on the Bad Line rule. But if the player produced a list like you just did it would be a slam dunk for the player.
I did not see the players in this dispute claim that any other book had odds anywhere close to 100 - 1."
More from John: See John 5yrs ago seemed to have your way of thinking because he admitted to not knowing that futures bets can legitimately vary so widely:
"But I have to admit to being in a little shock over Shoes posted future lines."
"Well I didn't know that futures prices varied so much. I've never pretended to be sharp. I'm a known square but I try to be fair in disputes."
The reason why NO ONE agreed with the settlement offer was because BCN took the average of two books with crappy lines. John DID NOT agree with the settlement offer. He said BCN should pay on the ADJUSTED LINES. 90-1 and 70-1.
Just to make it more clear for you:
archimedes: The average of VIP and BoDog? What genius came up with that idea? I think that this is the first time that I've actually LOL'ed at a post. If you asked me to come up with 1,000 different ways for BCN to solve this, using the average of VIP and BoDog would NEVER come to mind.
picksix: They should either tell the scumbags to f-off, or take the bets. Don't 'honor' the bets by using some other shops watered down line. Totally Bush League. This sets back the offshore industy so much it makes me sick.
John again: "But no way can they twice adjust a line and claim a bad line. Russ, no one is that incompetent to see bets coming in and not think to check the market. It would set a horribly unfair precedent if anyone supported it. For the good of the industry they should be held to honor those adjusted line wagers."
AGAIN he said BCN should pay out on the adjusted lines. NOT THE AVERAGE OF BODOG AND VIP. Maybe you're getting confused by the term "adjusted line"?
From Omni_FROG (one of 3 people involved in this dispute): "Leaving stale lines up, getting hit because they are stale, by three different individuals, over three days. Luckily I came in and hit it hard to get them to wake up. But the move from 100-1 to 90-1 was alarming, As I knew they had seen it, but did not adjust. Here is a store with minimum volume, they get a bet every 3 or 4 minutes. They see every bet coming in."
Which is what John agreed with. As soon as they moved the line, those bets should stand. Regardless if the initial line was bad, stale or whatever.
Omni_FROG: Yes, I would have settled that day for market odds. I had the same bet made within 24 hours 30-1, which is still good, for limit. 30-1 would have worked for me. At first, I thought the 100-1 was pretty stale, as I had been buying 25-1 and 30-1. But I had seen that before, especially in low volume shops. To be honest, I thought it was from the time when they were 15 games below .500. It was their max. I figured no one had even noticed it for that amazing A's run, so I popped it like it was good. I have had several 100-1 live, when other shops had 25-1. Same in casinos. I track futures of different teams I am interested in, and get future runs once a day. So I thought it was good. But, again, when they moved it to +90-1, it appeared to be they were oblivious to what the value should truly be, and it went beyond sleepy.
Do you understand that the average of Bodog and VIP wasn't going to be 30-1 and that's why people were bitching about this decision? One of the bettors themselves said they'd settle for 30-1. Obviously that's not what the payout was going to be. John said they should get 90-1 and 70-1 as the book adjusted the line.
And finally from John: "From day 1 I have recommended players NOT play at BCN."Comment -
nobs, with that long post of mine, I'm done in here. You just posted a thread trying to slam John's credibility when all it did was show that 5yrs ago, he was in the same boat as you. Not realising that future bets can vary so wildly and still be valid. Did you see the books mentioned in there? Stardust and Mirage. You do understand why Stardust and Mirage were different than Bodog and Bookmaker, right??
Not everyone has access every line at every book but they do have access to Betfair. It's simple - if you want to know what the market actually is, check out Betfair. That's it. If a book tried to claim a bad line when Betfair was showing it was indeed a fair line, no one would agree with them. They simply couldn't. But in the cases you mentioned in your opening post, Betfair either met or beat all of those lines. Therefore - not bad lines nor could/would Tony cry foul.
You also attempted to show John agreeing to 30-1 (which even one of the bettors said would've been a fair offer) when he was actually saying they should've been paid out on 90-1 and 70-1. The simple fact is that because Omni_DOG said he would've appreciated 30-1 and everyone (including John) was saying that a settlement of the average of Bodog's and VIP lines was unfair, that the final payout offered would indeed be less than 30-1 as Bodog and VIP had crappy vanilla lines.
After seeing "complaints" about bad lines, I'm not surprised many people read the first post in this thread and nominated it. Quite simply, a lot of people simply don't understand betting 101, and neither did I to some extent a year ago. Plus a lot of people have the attention span of a gnat, as proven in here when they read the first post of a thread and link it as "proof" of Tony cancelling bad lines.
I've spent too much time on this already. I understand why you refuse to believe I'm not merely shilling. But everyone else? You can continue to think that everyone in here that's disagreeing with you is a shill or take a look at a few of their names and past posts about SBR, Tony, etc. Durito, sharpcat, raydog, etc... not always the biggest fans of SBR or Tony but they're not agreeing with you. I guess all of their other posts in other threads over the years were simply a ruse to hide their shilliness.
All the best with your bets.
Comment -
how do you un-subscribe?Comment -
really very very good post Nobs, very interesting! Fortunately there are people like you who don't hesitate to denounce such practises ! For me there isn't any doubt, that's obvious that 5dimes intentionally gives better odds to draw the action if bet should be winning. But as you say, the problem is that, on the other side they don't reimburse customers who lost with that supposed "bad line". So that's clear that's a big scam. Sportsbooks should be forced to display list of bad lines that gave no action on their website, that would avoid such scams. Most of "bad lines" don't remain a long time displayed, coz the book notices its mistake, but with 5D the bad line remains displayed forever, 5D only notices its mistake once the result of the match is known, strange isn't it??? Does someone working for 5D regularly visit that forum? I really would ike to have their opinion about your post... What one should do before placing a bet is contact them and tell them "i hesitate to place the bet coz i'm wondering if that's a bad line or not...". I'm sure they wouldn't even change the line, they would keep it to go on attracting customers on that bet... Thanks again for that very interesting post Nobs !Comment -
love when all this self anointed "big brains" and shills like that loser burito
cloud the issue with markets, and movement etc
when it all comes down to some unlucky soul hits one of these bombs and that five crimes homo decides;
a) not to pay at all
or
b) negotiate a dramatically reduced payout
keep typing shari, your good at thatComment -
when exactly (what year) did it become the players responsibility to check and see if a book has posted a 'bad line?'Well, I'd like to believe he gambles regularly. I think he just let his rampant anti-Tonyism get away from him and he just made a mistake that I very well could've a year ago. Because ironically it was that September 5Dimes thread where I learned the importance of checking an exchange, not blindly believing I'm receiving all of the facts in the first post of a thread and of educating myself more before jumping on a bandwagon. And some of the same people in this thread were in there, patiently explaining things over and over and trying to teach some of us basic gambling 101 facts that I ashamedly admit I should've known at that point. I guess I should just consider myself lucky that I chose to listen back then.
mind you
I live about 2 hrs from reno and tahoe...and have placed many sports wagers at LEGITIMATE sportsbooks in Nevada for the last 15 years
once a ticket is printed...if the outcome of the event is what your ticket was written as...you get paid...every time...with a smile
In my sports gambling career...ive never seen what you talk about as common practice
when did this practice start shari91?
Comment -
Well technically they don't have to if they choose not to. But then when a line is declared bad, they're going to feel like a right arse if they starting crying about being ripped off when the line was in fact bad. Would it be great if offshore books followed the same guidelines as Vegas? Sure. But there have been many arguments posted in threads on here as to why that's not the case and in some instances impossible to do, so I guess the whole hoping for a utopian offshore book that follows Vegas to a tee is moot. Because none do.
The whole point is the lines in nobs OP weren't bad at all. In fact, if he'd had the ability to bet at Betfair, he could've gotten even better lines on some of those bets. No one would back Tony up if turned around and declared a bad line. And there have been people who posted in this thread that they HAVE hit longshot golf bets at 5Dimes and were paid with no problem. My guess for that? Because the lines were market. As these ones are.
Either way Granny, I've finally realised that some people don't want to be helped so I throw in the towel. Even though this thread was linked at Peeps by WVU (you'll find it on the 2nd page) and everyone tore a strip off of him for being an ass, some people will just turn around and say those posters are all shills as well I guess. Even though you know most of those guys don't post here and definitely don't have blind love for 5Dimes or SBR. And despite the fact that a longshot hit the week before nobs posted this thread and a longshot also won the Masters yet no 5Dimes complaints were to be found. Finally WVU said this: "ok, I guess I was off on this one. I got carried away seeing that thread at SBR." Because everyone under the sun knows of his dislike for 5Dimes and Tony. Regardless of what someone thinks of Tony, 5Dimes, SBR or even irrelevant me, this thread is way off base. But it's run it's course. Too hard to try to debate something with people who don't even read/understand the links they're posting.Comment -
You know what? I just thought of that when I was writing my reply to you about Peeps. I didn't link the thread because it's not allowed yet I failed to edit out the ones in here. That's being done now. Thanks for the reminder because I would've been in trouble for that.
Comment -
nobody wants you to get in trouble shari91...Comment -
I don't know if the bet's not refunded. I've never heard of anyone coming to the forum and saying "I bet a bad line and they still took my money". (not saying it hasn't happened - I just haven't seen it). But yet again, there's the importance of knowing what the actual market is. A. You wouldn't bet a bad line unless you were a shot-taker because you know the line would most likely be cancelled anyway, or worse cancelled and your account closed and B. if by some chance you forgot to check the market before betting a line, you would still have recourse for an argument after the fact if you later discovered it was a bad line.
The sad part is, from this thread alone I'm assuming that the average gambler wouldn't have a clue if some F book were in fact keeping their money on bad lines because the poster doesn't even attempt to look to see what the actual price of the line should be. They're taking away their own ammo by being ignorant and/or lazy. As well as ripping themselves off by betting at books with "good lines" like the ones Nobs mentioned in his opening post when the market price is much higher.Comment -
I agree. The bad thing is like you said, a lot of these "average gamblers" only have 1 book, even if it is one of the A or A+ books like 5dimes, line shopping to them is out of the question. They bet their team where they are from or the college they attended, regardless what the line is. They could take it on the chin they wouldn't even know it. But worse, is if they bet into a bad line and win, they would be labeled a shot-taker. This 1 book, no line shopping homer, a shot-taker, lol.Comment -
wtf
seriously
5 dimes copies pinny, so on there exotics they look a lot better than the square places that you and your compadres play
the point of this thread:
dude said OMG the take backs on these golf bets are high compared to bodog
5 dimes must be stealing or attempting to steal
that is a false statement and supporting it makes you look like a fool
The people on this website have a reputation for not knowing that much about gambling, and threads like this is where they draw there opinion.
peace outComment
