Fair or foul?

[Frank]

It comes down to the book's rules. If they rely on "Obvious error", was it obvious? All 5 sportsbooks with the line up slowly adjusted the price based on action. The error was not obvious to any of the 5 books dealing it.

If there were an obvious error, I would expect the sportsbook to take the market down, put in the correct price. That didn't happen. Instead, all the books continued to take action and move in baby steps.

Sure there were a few baby steps to 2.5 then 3 then 3.5 then BAM -3.5 to OTB to -12

My guess is you have a stake in part of the action and it's blurring your vision. You trying so hard to justify that it wasn't a bad line gives it away.

Play fair.

[Justin7]

Sure there were a few baby steps to 2.5 then 3 then 3.5 then BAM -3.5 to OTB to -12

My guess is you have a stake in part of the action and it's blurring your vision. You trying so hard to justify that it wasn't a bad line gives it away.

Play fair.

At what point was it an obvious error?

[Frank]

Even in your 1st post of the thread you wrote "obvious error"

Now you are unsure.

Quit trying to justify it.

[Dr.Gonzo]

I am no shot taker every book across the board was showing the exact same line when I made my bet.

How am I a shot taker?

The books offered me a bet and I accepted it because I felt it had value, isn't that the purpose of gambling? or am I supposed to only take wagers that I am going to lose?

How is a player supposed to know that 50 books all put up a bad line? this is no different than correlated parlays where the player has no idea of what the book considers correlated unless the book does not allow the wager in the first place.

This.

[donjuan]

It's ridiculous to cancel this. Books post retarded lines on small markets all the time. Ever seen props on 5 Dimes which they copy directly from Sportsbook go from +100 to >-200? Was +100 a "bad" line? No, it was just a brain-dead line. How are we to determine which is actually a bad line and which is just an idiot linesman when the later is extremely common?

[Stefan]

what ever is the "correct" line ?

isn't it always just a matter of opinion ?
it's not a casino game with fixed probabilities


did they also void bets on those who took the other side at +2

You are right, the "correct" line is a matter of opinion. It's a misunderstanding, I meant the "corrected" line.

The corrected line is so far away from the original line. I think it's an obviously error.

[d2bets]

Did any other books have much higher spreads at the same time?

[chachi]

Ever seen props on 5 Dimes which they copy directly from Sportsbook go from +100 to >-200? Was +100 a "bad" line? No, it was just a brain-dead line. How are we to determine which is actually a bad line and which is just an idiot linesman when the later is extremely common?

Tell me about it, I often use the phrase with friends in skype/chat that 'my fuggin cat could set better odds than these clowns'

[kisado]

When the entire market has the same line on a game, how can it be a bad line? Either the entire offshore market are a bunch of idiots, or it's a line they should pay out on. Book the bet, pay the bet.

[Frank]

Good hit Justin.

I hope the couple dimes that weren't canceled were worth the blacklisting in the "shot taker" blackbook for you and your beards.

[tomcowley]

All the clones put up the line they meant to put up. There was no human input error at any clone (like flipping the spread, putting in the line from the game above it, etc).

[lukahh]

is it the books in one family or accross the board?

i guess copying include obvious errors, no matter how we hate copycats

[Justin7]

Good hit Justin.

I hope the couple dimes that weren't canceled were worth the blacklisting in the "shot taker" blackbook for you and your beards.

Frank,

I have placed positions 56 different outcomes in Arena this year. Of those 56 bets, 6 had greater theoretical errors than what was seen today. None of those were voided. From a typical handicapper's perspective, the Arizona line was good, but not moreso than I would expect to see every week or two in small markets.

If you call this "shot taking", you have no clue what the bettor's perspective is, or how frequently lines are grossly off in Arena Football and other small markets. The "corrected line" of Arizona -11.5 was only marginally better (from both a theoretical modeling viewpoint, as well as actual line movement perspective) to Arizona -2. I could also cite how the two lines were almost equally bad from a perspective of the actual result, but a sample size of one would diminish that.

If a sportsbook wants to cite "obvious error" to void a bet, it had better be obvious from an objective point of view. In this case, the line looked like an decent weak line in Arena. Weak, yes, but no worse than I've seen many other times this year.

Subjectively, what were the books thinking? They didn't say "oops, this was a bad line" after one bet. Every book out there moved on action. Eventually 5dimes over-adjusted their line moving it 5 or 6 points. It was bet back.

Frank, you are arguing that a book should not have to use its brain, and get a free pass whenever it copies a weak line. If a book chooses not to do its own oddsmaking, it cannot argue that "a different book made an obvious error that we missed, so we want to void bets" when the whole market offered that line. You either win by your own merits, or risk loss by cheating off someone else's work.

This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever seen from a solid book. If you think betting a market line you think is off is "shot taking", you need to spend more time handicapping, and see what kind of junk is regularly offered.

[JohnnyC]

this thread is a waste of everyone's time arena is a joke lock this therad J u jergoff

[trixtrix]

i remember back when no one knew anything about ufc (2005-2006) i believe it was, tra telligman started off as a -200 fav vs. tim sylvia, when markets closed off tim sylvia was a -300 fav (don't quote me to a high degree of accuracy here). ALL bets stood.. my how times have changed..

[RickySteve]

I've never understood why the market openers don't do this all the time.

[tachi]

It's ridiculous to cancel this. Books post retarded lines on small markets all the time. Ever seen props on 5 Dimes which they copy directly from Sportsbook go from +100 to >-200? Was +100 a "bad" line? No, it was just a brain-dead line. How are we to determine which is actually a bad line and which is just an idiot linesman when the later is extremely common?

Asian bookies also had such cases.They copy the odds from each other and then void.
I guess some common sense applies to determine if it's a bad line or not.

[FreeFall]

Frank,

I have placed positions 56 different outcomes in Arena this year. Of those 56 bets, 6 had greater theoretical errors than what was seen today. None of those were voided. From a typical handicapper's perspective, the Arizona line was good, but not moreso than I would expect to see every week or two in small markets.

If you call this "shot taking", you have no clue what the bettor's perspective is, or how frequently lines are grossly off in Arena Football and other small markets. The "corrected line" of Arizona -11.5 was only marginally better (from both a theoretical modeling viewpoint, as well as actual line movement perspective) to Arizona -2. I could also cite how the two lines were almost equally bad from a perspective of the actual result, but a sample size of one would diminish that.

If a sportsbook wants to cite "obvious error" to void a bet, it had better be obvious from an objective point of view. In this case, the line looked like an decent weak line in Arena. Weak, yes, but no worse than I've seen many other times this year.

Subjectively, what were the books thinking? They didn't say "oops, this was a bad line" after one bet. Every book out there moved on action. Eventually 5dimes over-adjusted their line moving it 5 or 6 points. It was bet back.

Frank, you are arguing that a book should not have to use its brain, and get a free pass whenever it copies a weak line. If a book chooses not to do its own oddsmaking, it cannot argue that "a different book made an obvious error that we missed, so we want to void bets" when the whole market offered that line. You either win by your own merits, or risk loss by cheating off someone else's work.

This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever seen from a solid book. If you think betting a market line you think is off is "shot taking", you need to spend more time handicapping, and see what kind of junk is regularly offered.

Sounds like your opinion and choice was already made up before asking the question? So why ask it?

[Scooter]

FOUL.

Pay the bet.

[notsosharp]

you cant place odds knowingly and realize you made a mistake and state bad line. bad line is when you meant -2 but accidentally put +2.

[Arilou]

Justin7, are you saying that if a book wants to offer a minor sport it has to either:
A) Have someone who knows enough about the sport to site an obvious error
or
B) Accept that if it copies an incorrect line, it is stuck with it

I can easily see a situation in which such a sport would, in either case, become unprofitable to deal to the extent that such an offering would become restricted to day of game or similar.

Ideally you would view this as an economics question. A book can choose to offer a product earlier and/or for higher early limits, or it can choose to honor bets in corner cases where it screws up, and loses 200 cents to make up for all its good writes. Balancing these two requirements creates a production possibilities frontier, and as the error gets bigger the case for voiding it gets bigger. You also can't wait to see if it gets bet back before deciding whether to cancel because that's obviously BS: Once it gets put back at -12, a decision must be made, since you don't want me letting it stand if and only if it crashes.

I think that a 10-point error has to big enough that it's not worth crippling the product to do this. A 6-point error could go either way depending on the circumstances; I don't know the details. But if you rule that adjusting the line as if it were not an obvious error precludes obvious error, then you're saying that an error can't be obvious unless a person who doesn't know the sport can spot it, and let's face it - who wants to actually know arena football?

[Justin7]

Justin7, are you saying that if a book wants to offer a minor sport it has to either:
A) Have someone who knows enough about the sport to site an obvious error
or
B) Accept that if it copies an incorrect line, it is stuck with it

I'm saying that if a book is dealing a sport, it had better have someone that knows the sport and the market for it.

[wrongturn]

Books should give players two choices: bet stands and close account, or void bets. This should be a standard way for handling so called "bad line" in sports and wrong payout setting in casino. If we keep debating on how much off is okay to void without down grading consequence, then books will never learn that they have to own up to their mistakes. And why so if free roll is also an added benefit.

[Scooter]

I'm saying that if a book is dealing a sport, it had better have someone that knows the sport and the market for it.

I don't agree with this.

This would eliminate most of your outs for Arena Football, wouldn't it?

The statement is urging the elimination of small markets from most sportsbooks.
I don't see how that helps any of us.

[AimingHigh]

I think that a 10-point error has to big enough that it's not worth crippling the product to do this. A 6-point error could go either way depending on the circumstances; I don't know the details. But if you rule that adjusting the line as if it were not an obvious error precludes obvious error, then you're saying that an error can't be obvious unless a person who doesn't know the sport can spot it, and let's face it - who wants to actually know arena football?

But who says it was a 10-point "error"? The 10-point shift at the original book was an over-correction that was then bet back... at what point in the process are we meant to know what was an error? If the -12 was bet back, perhaps those that took that deserve to have their bets void as that was also an error. We all know that aint gonna happen. If a book isn't expert in a field and wants to try to make money by copying others' lines (which they presumably don't even pay for) then they have to roll with the punches. If you copied from your neighbour in an exam in school, do you get to ask to rewrite your answer if the answer you copied is graded wrong? Nope. The answer you wrote, copied or not, is treated as your answer. OK, so it's not a perfect analogy, but the basic idea applies - you don't get to call foul because your cheat didn't work out in your favour.

[djefferis]

Foul if majority hung same line

[Frank]

Frank,

I have placed positions 56 different outcomes in Arena this year. Of those 56 bets, 6 had greater theoretical errors than what was seen today. None of those were voided. From a typical handicapper's perspective, the Arizona line was good, but not moreso than I would expect to see every week or two in small markets.

If you call this "shot taking", you have no clue what the bettor's perspective is, or how frequently lines are grossly off in Arena Football and other small markets. The "corrected line" of Arizona -11.5 was only marginally better (from both a theoretical modeling viewpoint, as well as actual line movement perspective) to Arizona -2. I could also cite how the two lines were almost equally bad from a perspective of the actual result, but a sample size of one would diminish that.

If a sportsbook wants to cite "obvious error" to void a bet, it had better be obvious from an objective point of view. In this case, the line looked like an decent weak line in Arena. Weak, yes, but no worse than I've seen many other times this year.

Subjectively, what were the books thinking? They didn't say "oops, this was a bad line" after one bet. Every book out there moved on action. Eventually 5dimes over-adjusted their line moving it 5 or 6 points. It was bet back.

Frank, you are arguing that a book should not have to use its brain, and get a free pass whenever it copies a weak line. If a book chooses not to do its own oddsmaking, it cannot argue that "a different book made an obvious error that we missed, so we want to void bets" when the whole market offered that line. You either win by your own merits, or risk loss by cheating off someone else's work.

This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever seen from a solid book. If you think betting a market line you think is off is "shot taking", you need to spend more time handicapping, and see what kind of junk is regularly offered.

Out of those 56 positions, how many times did you limit bet into 5 different books into a 40% mature market?

Correct me if I am wrong but I have read numerous posts from you whining or scolding players who don't save pieces of the pie.

My guess is you don't do that unless you see this situation like yesterday.

Lines are always jumping in this league. Baby steps from 2 to 12 is one thing. 2 to 2.5 to 3 to 3.5 to OTB to 12 barring injury is a way different story and you know it.

Sure the books messed up big time. Every single one did that put up numbers. I get your point saying books need accountability at some point.

Your arguments saying it wasn't a bad line are flat out wrong.

As to you saying you aren't a shot taker, you published a book and freely admitted to pounding a line 10 points off of market price all over town for 13K. That's not shot taking?

Greed will come back and bite you in the ass someday.

Karma.

[Justin7]

Your arguments saying it wasn't a bad line are flat out wrong.

Every bet I make, I think the book's line is bad. 1000's of times per year. The question is: was it an obvious error? I thought the line was better than others I have bet this year.

As to you saying you aren't a shot taker, you published a book and freely admitted to pounding a line 10 points off of market price all over town for 13K. That's not shot taking?

THAT is an example of taking a shot I freely take shots at Harrahs, because they don't play fairly. The flagrantly violate gaming law (i.e. offering a line, and refusing to take a bet on a line). They kick out winners and generally harass anyone with a brain. I wouldnt' do this same thing to Hilton or Cantor, because they are professionals.

With internet sportsbooks, I don't take shots. If I think a line is an obvious error, I ask them to check it before betting. That would not have helped here, because 1. it was not obvious, and 2. checking the market would not have corrected it.

[alalha]

totally unfair for the book to cancel wagers

[Thremp]

The idea about cloning is that "obvious error" should never be used for cloned markets. They need someone to give it a passing look (which apparently no one bothered to do at any of these 5 books).

[Justin7]

June 19, 2011. 12:41pm. Thremp agrees with Justin7. Have to mark that in my calendar.

[Ian]

Bets at -2 should be honored 100%.

[Frank]

Every bet I make, I think the book's line is bad. 1000's of times per year. The question is: was it an obvious error? I thought the line was better than others I have bet this year.



THAT is an example of taking a shot I freely take shots at Harrahs, because they don't play fairly. The flagrantly violate gaming law (i.e. offering a line, and refusing to take a bet on a line). They kick out winners and generally harass anyone with a brain. I wouldnt' do this same thing to Hilton or Cantor, because they are professionals.

With internet sportsbooks, I don't take shots. If I think a line is an obvious error, I ask them to check it before betting. That would not have helped here, because 1. it was not obvious, and 2. checking the market would not have corrected it.

Ok I get it now. It's ok to take shots sometimes but not always.

Only where you feel slighted in some way.

That's like saying stealing is ok if you are only stealing from other thieves.

I now understand your twisted logic.

You got integrity issues.

[nosniboR11]

if the bet is accepted has to be honored , if not then the book sucks, like 5dimes

[Justin7]

Ok I get it now. It's ok to take shots sometimes but not always.

Only where you feel slighted in some way.

That's like saying stealing is ok if you are only stealing from other thieves.

I now understand your twisted logic.

You got integrity issues.

What book do you work for? How much action was voided on this game?