Horse racing prop question/likely dispute coming despite my best effort...

[sam b.]

I wasn't sure where to post this transcript, but here goes. It's about this prop:

Man o War Stakes (Belmont Park) - Race 9 Will Boisterous Win (All Bets Action)
07/09/11
617
Yes +500
No -700


Hello, my name is Beth Beckham. I'll be assisting you today.
Beth Beckham: Hello Sam
Beth Beckham: Sure, what will be your question?
You: For the horse props, when it says ALL BETS ACTION, does that mean action even if the horse doesn't run?
Beth Beckham: Correct
Beth Beckham: Even if the horse does not run the bet is valid and will be graded as a loss, due to the (All Bets Action) clause.
You: What if the bet wins and the horse doesn't run? Will it be graded a winner?
Beth Beckham: If the prop is a winner, then it will be graded accordingly. However, this will depend on the prop and it it necessary for a specific horse to run
Beth Beckham: Anything else I can help you with?
You: What if it says ALL BETS ACTION, I bet that a horse will not win and the horse doesn't run? Will it be graded a winner? It doesn't say HORSE MUST START.
Beth Beckham: Let me check into that...
Beth Beckham: Where is this prop being offered?
You: Under horse matchups/props. There are a lot of them.
Beth Beckham: However, there is no specific prop stating that a certain horse will not win.
You: Sure there is. Prop 617 states Will Boisterous win Man O War stakes (All Bets Action).
Beth Beckham: Checking on this prop
Beth Beckham: Due to the clause All Bets Action, the bet will be a lost.
You: What if I bet 'NO', will that be a graded as a win?
Beth Beckham: No, it will still be a lost
You: Both sides can't be a loss. Could you please pass this chat to someone else?
Beth Beckham: Yes
Beth Beckham: What do you mean exactly by passing the chat?
Beth Beckham: Do you wish to be transferred to a different agent?
You: Yes. Someone who understands that you can't offer a yes/no prop and both sides be graded as a loss.
Beth Beckham: This is only if the case that the horse does not run
Beth Beckham: Do you understand that part?
You: Not true. If I bet that a horse will NOT win and he doesn't run, how could I have lost that bet? He didn't run!
Beth Beckham: Since this is a prop with the clause All Bets Action, then, if the horse from that specific prop does not run, it is graded as a lost no matter on what side you bet.
You: Oh my. So your sportsbook wins every bet taken if a horse does not run?
Beth Beckham: Only if it has the All Bets Action clause.
You: Could you please transfer me to another agent?
You: Maybe a supervisor?
Beth Beckham: Please give me a moment...
Beth Beckham: I will transfer you to the supervisor on duty, please hold...
Please wait while I transfer the chat to 'Oscar Noble'.
Hello, my name is Oscar Noble. I'll be assisting you today.
Oscar Noble: Hello Sam.
You: Hi Oscar. I'm having a little difficulty understanding one of the props offered under horse matchups.
You: Prop 617 says Man O War Stakes: Race 9 Will Boisterous win? (ALL BETS ACTION)
You: If I bet on NO and he doesn't win, do I win the bet?
Oscar Noble: If you bet on the NO and he doesn't win you will win the wager but that horse must race.
You: What if he scratches and does not run?
Oscar Noble: If you bet on the YES or the NO and the horse is a scratch you lose the bet.
You: So your book wins all of the action it took in on the YES and the NO? You don't have to pay anyone?
Oscar Noble: Because it is All Bets Action
Oscar Noble: That line is a proposition and not a matchup. And it says that All bets are action
You: The bet says Will Boisterous win? Not Will Boisterous run?
Oscar Noble: It says will Boisterous win. But if it's a scratch the wager will be a lost.
You: How can I bet on a horse NOT TO WIN, then he doesn't win and I lose? That makes no sense. Where is this rule written, that a scratch is a loss?
Oscar Noble: If you take "NO" and if it is a scratch the chances to win the wager will be higher in this case that you are saying.
Oscar Noble: If the horse does not start you lose the bet.
You: You are wrong. This is not an odds to win bet. It is a yes/no prop. Would you mind if I use this transcript to reference to managers and supervisors at your sportsbook and other sportsbooks?
Oscar Noble: This prop is obviously for the race. If that horse does not start it will be a lost.
You: Did you look at the prop? Would you mind if I use this transcript to reference to managers and supervisors at your sportsbook and other sportsbooks?
Oscar Noble: You can use this transcript. If you want to you can email my manager. His email is XXXXX@XXXXXXXXX.XXX

You: OK. Thanks for your time tonight.
Oscar Noble: You're very welcome.
Oscar Noble: Have a good one.

[topgame85]

They can't have it both ways. Need to make up their mind on this one.....

[topgame85]

Please tell me what site this is. Hopefully not betonline........

[Hareeba!]

Sounds utterly absurd.
Have you checked their rules?

[jw]

Hmnn - I would be disputing this one too.


If they insist all bets action - then a non runner is not able to win the race ..
so "will x win race = NO" should be a winning bet even if it does not run ... if they insist all bets have action.

[davidchong]

Man o War Stakes (Belmont Park) - Race 9 Will Boisterous Win (All Bets Action)
07/09/11 617 Yes +500 No -700

Its a refund, you cant qualify a bet witout a result. In this specific case the prop involve two option, win or lose.
The horse should run to ahve action in this prop.

The *all bets action is used when any scractches occurs, not involving the main horse in the match or prop.


The book is going wrong applying the rule in this case.

[davidchong]

Oscar Noble: This prop is obviously for the race. If that horse does not start it will be a lost.

This is applied on future bets, or, who will win this race and the list of all horses is displayed...

Then NO is the winner...., the NO works as the field of the race, when you take NO you are in the block of the other horses......

[BGboothA]

Hilarious to read. Ad now I am really curious what book this is.

[ThaWoj]

yeah thats crazy how they theyre so nonchalant about it.

Oscar Noble: If you bet on the YES or the NO and the horse is a scratch you lose the bet."

[mtneer1212]

It is not a refund. NO is the winning side since the horse did not win the Man O War. This is qualifed through "all bets action"

[ehp6737]

what a joke.

[pokerplayer22]

So what book is this???

[aggieshawn]

It has to be betonline. They have the weirdest prop bets.
This of course is just a money grab. Avoid the bet. Thus they will not place these props anymore since they receive no action.

Withdrawing your funds is the only action you have to make your point known with online books.

[Art Vandeleigh]

The player is getting an advantage over playing at the track or an on-line mutual pool because it's a fixed price horse racing wager, and the player can take advantage of any sudden price movement/new information about the race. The bookie (not an exchange - a bookie!) is countering this advantage by saying all scratched horses are losers. If you're taking the advantage of an advanced fixed price, you have to be willing to accept this extra risk of a possible scratch.

[Hareeba!]

The player is getting an advantage over playing at the track or an on-line mutual pool because it's a fixed price horse racing wager, and the player can take advantage of any sudden price movement/new information about the race. The bookie (not an exchange - a bookie!) is countering this advantage by saying all scratched horses are losers. If you're taking the advantage of an advanced fixed price, you have to be willing to accept this extra risk of a possible scratch.

I've been betting into such antepost markets on Betfair for a decade now and never seen where laying a scratching was settled as anything but a winning bet.

But it all comes down to the rules at this particular book. What do they say? It would be quite remarkable if they differed from what makes sense and a good reason never to make such a bet there if this decision is in accord with them.

[Art Vandeleigh]

I've been betting into such antepost markets on Betfair for a decade now and never seen where laying a scratching was settled as anything but a winning bet.

Well, if you lay a horse 2 weeks before the race, and a major contender was scratched, your chances of winning your lay bet have been reduced. If instead the horse you layed had a very poor workout reported or rumors of a possible injury, the betting will probably reflect this in higher win odds for the horse, making your bet more advantageous. Sometimes you gain, sometimes you lose depending on what the news is. If you're a bookie taking both sides action, you're in a position to ONLY lose on ANY significant news.

[Hareeba!]

Well, if you lay a horse 2 weeks before the race, and a major contender was scratched, your chances of winning your lay bet have been reduced. If instead the horse you layed had a very poor workout reported or rumors of a possible injury, the betting will probably reflect this in higher win odds for the horse, making your bet more advantageous. Sometimes you gain, sometimes you lose depending on what the news is. If you're a bookie taking both sides action, you're in a position to ONLY lose on ANY significant news.

I don't follow that logic at all.
If a major contender is scratched the bookies should be celebrating.
This is the whole point of "all in" betting.
Bookies offering such markets need to keep aware of what's happening.
That's the trouble with bookies these days .. they're too lazy to bother and screw the punter instead.

Stick to exchanges for a fairer deal.

[Art Vandeleigh]

I don't follow that logic at all.
If a major contender is scratched the bookies should be celebrating.

?????

He said the betting option was +500/-700 on his horse.

If there were 10 horses this bookie was taking back/lay action on, and a major contender was scratched, why would this necessarily cause celebration at this bookie? It seems to me if they grade these scratches as wins for the layers, the bookies willl be in position to get killed. If they refund, they open themselves to being exploited to backing/laying the other horses at stale odds with no compensation.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to follow what you're saying, I'm sure you have much more experience with exchanges than me.

[thezbar]

If I'm running the book and this happens its no bet / refund. I don't know the verbage issues but common sense says no payout either way.

[mikeyg]

What book?????

This is the most absurd case of scamming i have seen. You can't have two sides being graded as a loss.

They should give you money just for having to deal with this absolute bullsheet

[HedgeHog]

Sounds like a Jazette Book ( i.e. Sportsbook.com).

[BigDaddy]

the no -700 gets paid

i'm not understanding the problem?

[Hareeba!]

?????

He said the betting option was +500/-700 on his horse.

If there were 10 horses this bookie was taking back/lay action on, and a major contender was scratched, why would this necessarily cause celebration at this bookie? It seems to me if they grade these scratches as wins for the layers, the bookies willl be in position to get killed. If they refund, they open themselves to being exploited to backing/laying the other horses at stale odds with no compensation.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to follow what you're saying, I'm sure you have much more experience with exchanges than me.

It's always been the way that favourites carry more money than outsiders. So the scratching of a favourite generally leaves more money in the bookies' bags than is paid out on the lay.

Why should they be open to laying horses at stale odds?
Any half significant scratching always results in a realingnment of the market unless the bookie is asleep on the job.

[mikeyg]

Any new developments in this case? And what book? C'mon

[sam b.]

I got it resolved. The rep and supervisor on the chat were completely wrong. The person in charge of these props told me directly that if I beat him to a scratch and bet the NO, then I'm a winner. So I did it on Saturday and he cut my limits saying that wasn't the kind of action he was looking for. Going forward, the prop will be worded MUST START FOR ACTION instead of ALL BETS ACTION. That makes a lot more sense to me. I don't want to say which book because I don't want them to see this and cut me off completely. There are some good guesses in this thread.

[mtneer1212]

I got it resolved. The rep and supervisor on the chat were completely wrong. The person in charge of these props told me directly that if I beat him to a scratch and bet the NO, then I'm a winner. So I did it on Saturday and he cut my limits saying that wasn't the kind of action he was looking for. Going forward, the prop will be worded MUST START FOR ACTION instead of ALL BETS ACTION. That makes a lot more sense to me. I don't want to say which book because I don't want them to see this and cut me off completely. There are some good guesses in this thread.

The ALL BETS ACTION was what got them into trouble. Good resolution.

[Hareeba!]

I got it resolved. The rep and supervisor on the chat were completely wrong. The person in charge of these props told me directly that if I beat him to a scratch and bet the NO, then I'm a winner. So I did it on Saturday and he cut my limits saying that wasn't the kind of action he was looking for. Going forward, the prop will be worded MUST START FOR ACTION instead of ALL BETS ACTION. That makes a lot more sense to me. I don't want to say which book because I don't want them to see this and cut me off completely. There are some good guesses in this thread.

Seems a very lazy solution for the book imho.

Sure they need to protect themselves from someone trying to pick them off after a scratching but that is far better achieved by voiding bets placed after the scratching time.

For sure I'd never be laying horses at a book which has such a rule.

[mikeyg]

Great to see you got it resolved, but tread carefully in the future at this book. One gross incompetence like this are usually followed by many more