The Greek NBA Draft Prop Bet Dispute

[Gardfather]

This is disturbing. There was nothing wrong with that line and the book has no right to just cancel a play because they don't like the odds they gave. Players don't have that option, ALL WAGERS ARE FINAL. The online industry is being given slack to do whatever they want.

[KEdge2k]

VERY disappointing that this bet is not being honored. This was NOT a bad line, other books graded the exact same wager as a winner.... notice is not an issue for me here in this one.

Raleigh should get paid, period. This was not a bad line. I'm actually kinda shocked that the Greek isn't paying him considering their sterling reputation.

[odysseus]

Thegreek has arbitarily voided prop bets when they are 20 pts out. This is outrageous considering their lines can move 30 pts after a bet on one side, they move all over the place.

[goblue12]

Shame when sportsbook.com has a higher tolerance for winners than an A+ SBR sponsored book.

[BrianLaverty]

Shame when sportsbook.com has a higher tolerance for winners than an A+ SBR sponsored book.

Very ignorant statement. If you don't know anything about the industry, then don't post. They do play games with there props once in a while, but they also very seldomly kick out players and are very slow to limit regular plays. I know people who regularly put in 5-figure bets at the greek. Sportsbook would never ever allow that. Don't be ignorant and speak about something you don't have a clue about.

[nyplayer33]

hope this is not a trend

[andywend]

I read through the entire thread and it is clear that Greek is in the right and Raleigh is trying to pull a fast one here.

1. Raleigh admits to reading through mock drafts where some of them listed 2 SEC players while others listed 3 so the line of under 3 (+240) seems way off.

2. He admits that Greek sent him an email indicating the line should have been 2 and he can re-bet if he wishes. A line of under 2 (+240) seems way more logical than under 3 (+240). They sent this email letting Raleigh know his wager was cancelled due to the obvious line error well in advance of the draft.

3. This talk about the email going into his junk folder with Raleigh never reading it is pure B.S. Even if its true, Greek sent the email to his registered email address and there is nothing more they can do.

This is a clear and simple case of someone betting a max wager into a line he KNEW was wrong. Greek caught the error well before the event started and sent an email informing the customer of the wager cancellation. The player was pissed because the "free money" he thought he had was snatched back from him.

After his obvious line error wager wins, he decides to pull this charade.

Internet sportsbooks put up such a wide array of prop bets and occassionally mistakes will be made due to human error. As long as wagers are only being cancelled due to obvious line errors and are done before the event starts, I see no problem with it.

I would estimate that 99% of bettors have, at one point or another, bet into a line they knew was off trying to pull a fast one and the vast majority of the time, the book finds the error and cancels the wager. Its a no harm/no foul situation as long as the player doesn't keep doing it.

If Wally ever gets around to reading this thread, he would be in the right to tell the player his business is no longer welcome at The Greek.

[QQPALLADIUM]

this coming from "someone" who tried to bet intrade stale lines on the dow...

[Scooter]

I read through the entire thread and it is clear that Greek is in the right and Raleigh is trying to pull a fast one here.

1. Raleigh admits to reading through mock drafts where some of them listed 2 SEC players while others listed 3 so the line of under 3 (+240) seems way off.

andywend- Your analysis illustrates part of the problem with not accepting "Book the bet,Pay the bet."

Raleigh did the research, and realized the line was off.

You have no way of knowing if the person who came up with the line for the Greek had done a poor job of researching the prop, had read outdated info on the subject, etc.

You are taking the point of view that books always know what an accurate line is when they originate props/lines, and the only times they are way off is when they type the wrong digit into the computer.

This is not a realistic viewpoint.

Justin7 in this thread has pointed out the many times when he's found opening numbers that are way off.

Brick and mortar casinos make mistakes all the time when they offer promotions - i.e., offer high ev situations where they clearly have done a poor job of analysis.
Some casino promotions which are planned to run for weeks are cancelled after a few hours, when they begin to see the losses.

[andywend]

this coming from "someone" who tried to bet intrade stale lines on the dow...

Looks like I have a whacko internet stalker on my hands as those Intrade stale lines happened about 2 years ago?

1. Stale lines are quite a bit different than obvious line errors.
2. Intrade is an exchange, NOT a sportsbook.

Those wagers wound up being cancelled as well even though the prices were somewhat close to fair market value which is NOT the case with the wager Raleigh made.

Now go back under that rock you came from.

[andywend]

Scooter,

I agree with your "book the bet, pay the bet" stance but there has to be allowable exceptions. What if Raleigh was able to bet under 3 SEC players drafted @ +2400 and he hit it for $500 to win $12,000. Do you believe Greek should have to pay him? How about if Greek receives 500 more max wagers in a 5 minute timeframe at those odds? One mistake could bankrupt even a solid book.

I bet very heavily with the Greek and have been doing so for years. I know how they operate and they simply don't cancel wagers unless the mistake is clear and obvious. They don't take shots and don't limit anyone (including large winners).

I know exactly what Raleigh did and I have done the same thing myself on occassion. When the bet gets cancelled, I don't complain about it as I know I shouldn't have taken the shot in the first place.

While Vegas doesn't pull any of this wager cancellation B.S., their prop betting offers are extremely limited as compared to what the internet sportsbooks offer because the internet books can correct their mistakes.

Since the wager Raleigh placed was offered @ +240 and Greek sent him the email well in advance of the draft telling him the line should have been 2 instead of 3, Greek is in the right here.

If Justin7 does a full and complete investigation into this betting dispute, I am confident he will come to the same conclusion.

[donjuan]

Andywend,

Are you intentionally trying to make as many holes in your argument as possible?

[arabbeast13]

this coming from "someone" who tried to bet intrade stale lines on the dow...

lol

[skrtelfan]

So ok to take shots at other players but not at books, ok. Which book do you work for, Andywend?

[THEGREAT30]

updates

[KEdge2k]

Yeah, can we get some updates? This is a ridiculous ruling. It wasn't a "bad line" that was so clearly bad that the player was a shot taker. He thought there was value in a prop and he bet into it. If the line is so far deviated from what the rest of the market is showing (i.e. +2400 instead of +240), then that's clearly a bad line and the bet should be voided. That's not the case here.

[QQPALLADIUM]

same as wsex...you bet big...yet if you were a winnah they would have cut your limits...so we know what you are...and how do you find the time to "bet" when all you do is post on internet boards...and your intrade shot was not even close to fair value...you had a 50 point head start....

I agree with your "book the bet, pay the bet" stance but there has to be allowable exceptions. What if Raleigh was able to bet under 3 SEC players drafted @ +2400 and he hit it for $500 to win $12,000. Do you believe Greek should have to pay him? How about if Greek receives 500 more max wagers in a 5 minute timeframe at those odds? One mistake could bankrupt even a solid book.

I bet very heavily with the Greek and have been doing so for years. I know how they operate and they simply don't cancel wagers unless the mistake is clear and obvious. They don't take shots and don't limit anyone (including large winners).

I know exactly what Raleigh did and I have done the same thing myself on occassion. When the bet gets cancelled, I don't complain about it as I know I shouldn't have taken the shot in the first place.

While Vegas doesn't pull any of this wager cancellation B.S., their prop betting offers are extremely limited as compared to what the internet sportsbooks offer because the internet books can correct their mistakes.

Since the wager Raleigh placed was offered @ +240 and Greek sent him the email well in advance of the draft telling him the line should have been 2 instead of 3, Greek is in the right here.

If Justin7 does a full and complete investigation into this betting dispute, I am confident he will come to the same conclusion.[/quote]

[chase hardy]

He said there was a similar line at bookmaker, and its only 300.00 wager, i think the greek should pay. Thats nothing to them.

[Maniac]

Was the re-offered price Under 2 @ +240 or was the juice on the under different from +240 ? IF the juice was the same then they have a (pretty weak) reason to suggest a mistake entering 3 instead of 2, but if the juice off of the 2 was any different then I cant see how they can blame anything other than their trading team messing it up with their research/lack of research.

The argument regarding other firms offering similar prices on this is a very tricky one and the questions it raises are as follows:

1. Did the Greek copy the prop from one of the other firms mentioned and was there a rule difference between the books involving Kanter, such as him being included in the pricing up for other firms but the greek not counting him in and not realising their mistake till after they had taken a number of bets.

2. Did the other books copy the Greek's price on this prop and end up following each other over a cliff on a possible bad line that they didnt realise about, and still may not realise about it being bad so just settled it as normal.

Either scenario sadly would be nigh-on impossible to establish as it would involve either firm admitting that they blindly copied prop prices, if this is what indeed happened...

[HedgeHog]

It's one thing if the book posts an NFL team +6 when they meant to post -6. That's an obvious typo. But books are now canceling plays in small markets like props, or that recent Arena football game where they had a linesman not capable of setting arena lines that had to copy from another book, and he copied the bad -2 opener rather than a real -12 one.

The other day I screwed up and accidentally made three bets I didn't want to make because I wrote down the wrong rotation numbers. I noticed my error immediately, but those particular books have rules that they don't cancel bets after they were made. In my opinion, any book that won't let you cancel a bet when you notify them immediately and the line hasn't moved, also shouldn't be canceling bets as "bad line." It should be a two way street.

Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to be a shot-taker. Books should be allowed to cancel all obvious bad lines-- as long as they do it early, with notice and cancel action on both sides of the bet (the morons that bet the wrong rotation # shouldn't be penalized in this instance).

PS A Book's willingness to allow you to correct your mistakes on good lines should have no bearing on their right to cancel an obvious bad line.

[skrtelfan]

Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to be a shot-taker. Books should be allowed to cancel all obvious bad lines-- as long as they do it early, with notice and cancel action on both sides of the bet (the morons that bet the wrong rotation # shouldn't be penalized in this instance).

PS A Book's willingness to allow you to correct your mistakes on good lines should have no bearing on their right to cancel an obvious bad line.

Glad to see you're up to your usual tricks of slandering people without any sort of proof, and you've offered nothing to refute my point. I find it hilarious that you call me a "moron" for making 3 mistakes out of tens of thousands of bets placed this year, many made on a phone at books with lousy software (and these were all small bets, the book's max was either $300 or $500), yet when a linesman who doesn't even set lines, his only job is to copy freaking numbers from another book, can't copy the freaking number correctly, the player is a "shot taker." If you keep it up you may be able to top Andywend as this forum's biggest idiot book shill.

[diondublin]

So the industry norm is that you can just cancel a bet when you feel like it, i have placed thousands of bets in vegas and when you have the ticket the bet is always honored. What is the rationale behind this, how can any book just cancel a bet after they take it, does this not leave the door open for a massive amount of issues, why wouldnt a book just cancel any bet when the line moves against them.

As to Justin's attempting to ascertain the obviousness of the line, a simple Google search would show any number of Mock drafts that had 3 SEC players being drafted in the first round, Harris,Knight, and Tompkins who ended up being picked 37th, there were also a number of mock drafts that had the Spurs taking Chandler Parsons from Florida at the end of the first round and a couple that had Travis Leslie of Georgia going in the first round, I thought there was value in the line and that is why i bet it but to say it was an obvious mistake by the Greek is outrageous in my opinion given the facts of the case, when you bet under 3 and two is virtually guaranteed and there was a high likelihood that a third could be taken I dont see how this is a bad line in any way.

What was the approximate chance of 4 or more SEC being taken in the first round. Is it an UNDER at 3 that could hardly lose?

[parlayin]

Update?

[sharpcat]

Update?

There is no update SBR mugged another player for a sponsor book.

[HedgeHog]

Glad to see you're up to your usual tricks of slandering people without any sort of proof, and you've offered nothing to refute my point. I find it hilarious that you call me a "moron" for making 3 mistakes out of tens of thousands of bets placed this year, many made on a phone at books with lousy software (and these were all small bets, the book's max was either $300 or $500), yet when a linesman who doesn't even set lines, his only job is to copy freaking numbers from another book, can't copy the freaking number correctly, the player is a "shot taker." If you keep it up you may be able to top Andywend as this forum's biggest idiot book shill.

I wasn't referring to line copying. I was referring to your absurd general argument that Books that don't allow you to cancel mistake bets should not be allowed to cancel obvious bad line bets. It shows a shottaker mentality. How does it make me a shill for calling you on this?

[Royalfan]

They guy was announced by Stern as a Kentucky player anyway. When I looked at lines there this prop was no longer up, but it did not state anywhere they used ESPN spefically, nor should they. NBA.com is official and he was listed as a Kentucky player there. The whole key to this situation was if he was going to be graded by the book as a Kentucky player, an international player, or both. If not graded as Kentucky player, then the line was obvious error, thus the cancellation. This whole thing stems from the confusion on how that player should be graded. Given the very early cancellation, Greek owes nothing here in my opinion.