-
Comment -
I bet all of them at roughly the same time. Arizona -2 was a 1-unit play, meaning you bet everywhere just once. Teddy Covers pretty much dictates when you must bet. If you wait for him to release, you lose a ton of value.
And you never explained how this was an obvious error.Comment -
This isn't as obvious as most think IMO. The main book that routinely cancels these types of wagers needs to cancel them in order to make their business model work. The main book that doesn't cancel them doesn't need to under their model. Both business models are great for the winning player and we wouldn't want to lose either one of them. FWIW, I wouldn't have made this bet anywhere.Comment -
Even the worst of the worst most basic power ratings would be enough.
Arizona has been favored by less than 9 at home once all year.
It's week 15 now, if you handicap the sport even to the smallest degree, you know who the haves and have nots are.
Barring massive injuries a top 2 team is favored by 2 at home vs a lower to middle of the pack team and you don't know its obvious?
I think you knew CRIS put it up wrong and probably said to yourself I can't bet that but when all the others copied, it gave you the green light because you could then justify it by saying look at the 30 minute market.
Game got taken down everywhere at about 7:50 PST or so, I am pretty sure Teddy Covers doesn't release anywhere close to that early.Comment -
Foul, not an obvious bad line if all books have the same or close to it.Comment -
Frank,
So all the bookmakers are exempt from the worst of the worst and moved lines (in total between books) dozens and dozens of time before realizing their error?Comment -
None of them even realized until CRIS took it off and reposted 8.5 points higher because only 1 book makes their own lines.
CRIS made the obvious line error.
All the other books made the obvious error of booking a semi-sport and blindly following CRIS.
I wouldn't be surprised if Arena betting vanishes next year.
CRIS probably took some bets, bet out five times as much at the offscreens who copy their lines exactly, then said we will honor the bets so the offscreens would do the same.
CRIS probably made more that way then they would canceling and on top of it made every other book look stupid.Comment -
Foul. If all the books offer the line it is not a bad line. You can't presume that players know enough about a sport to recognize a bad line when all books offer it. Unless the books suddenly insist that players have indepth knowledge of the sports they bet on. In that case all bets that all players made without such knowledge should be canceled as well.Comment -
Foul. Every book has the same line and move it from 2 to 3.5 before taking it OTB. That means it took CRIS from 2...2.5....3...3.5.... before finally realizing that wasn't the line they wanted to put up? Pound the books and pound the copy-cat books twice!Comment -
If this is not foul, than a book can claim anything.Comment -
It's because he has no clue about anything to related betting. Seriously, you have to be brain dead to be saying books can claim this if you bet on anything.Comment -
The correlated parlay that could never be canceled: fewer quick money transfer options available to players X ever greater arrogance A books.Comment -
Reverse rolls here and see if it smells.
Player wants Arizona, and everywhere he looks it's the same. He's ok to play it.
Maybe a ploy by the originating book to jackpot those stealing his lines?Comment -
LOL at books stealing lines from other books and then claiming they are somehow allowed to avoid unfavourable wagers
This is fraud.Comment -
Why did Cris move the line multiple times before recognizing an "obvious error"?
It appears that you agree that a book that blindly clones lines cannot ever claim "obvious error" when in reality it is nothing like that (copied EXACTLY what they intended). I'm curious why you're coming down so hard on Justin for an easy open/shut case. Lazy bookmakers get punished for being dumb. They try to angleshoot their way out of paying bets that are fair and should be paid.Comment -
For the record, Cris honored the wager.Comment -
I don't agree that books who blindly copy can't claim error.
If a book accidentally adds a 0 on say a future of +400 to +4000 and some books copied, I don't think copying books should have to automatically eat it because the copied.
I think the fact that every book took off the board then reposted 10 points higher than the opener shows that the original line was a misprint.
Thats way different than an opener that gets hit through each number up the ladder.
What the books should have done was asked the players if they wanted it they could have it but their Arena limits would be 0 from that point on or cancel it.Comment -
There are some stories at the other forums of how back in the early days of offshore gambling, the linesmakers would PURPOSELY set bad opening lines so they could personally bet them (through beards) at the copy cat books- and they got paid! LMAOComment -
you'd be lucky if only your arena limits would be set to 0, if making them uphold the wager if you were given the option ...Comment -
How did 5Dimes handle this?Comment -
Your example makes no sense. A copying book has only one goal: to copy the line. They succeeded in this perfectly. I don't really understand how you can claim an "obvious error" when they were 100% perfect in their goal.
Lets review the facts:
1) Cris posted a line.
2) Books copied this line.
3) Cris says line is fair.
4) Other books rob players.
5) Frank drives the getaway car for the thieves.
If the original book doesn't claim obv error, how can copying books? How would they know its an error? They copied what is claimed a fair line and honored.Comment -
foul. how can it be an "obvios error" when several books show the same line?Comment -
Frank works entirely on this side of the counter and deserves at least the level of professional respect as anyone else in this thread.Comment -
Can't wait to meet you in real life RS. Let's see how much of your keyboard heroism spills over.Comment -
Justin,
I doubt you have been inside an online book then, and I'm not trying to anatgonize but I find it predictable that you have historically ruled against books who try to blur the line, as you are here, hence why you even started the thread. Have at it, personally I'd honor your bets and boot you. As would most.Comment -
bets should be honoredComment -
Come on Justin, really? Easily a bad line (off by 10 points from what the opening line should have been). You're entitled to a timely email that your bet was canceled--and that's it. Otherwise, remember this thread when I take the Bears +17 when the right line is +7. Make sure you fight just as hard for me to keep that bet.
Comment -
this may have been mentioned but whats the timeframe of things here. when were bets placed? when were the cancelled? when does (did) the game kickoff?Comment -
The line wasn't off 10 points. The fair line was about -8, IMO. that was 6 points off the original market, which I frequently think I see.Come on Justin, really? Easily a bad line (off by 10 points from what the opening line should have been). You're entitled to a timely email that your bet was canceled--and that's it. Otherwise, remember this thread when I take the Bears +17 when the right line is +7. Make sure you fight just as hard for me to keep that bet.
But the real issue is: was it an obvious error? It wasn't to me. It apparently wasn't to the sportsbook, or they would not have moved on action. It wasn't to the market, because the entire market copied it.Comment -
Well, the 11-2 team was hosting the 5-7 team, so canceling has to be at least reasonable.Comment
