5Dimes Correlated Rolling If Wagers

ehp6737 · 09-14-11, 09:22 PM

EDIT OUT YOUR ACCT# and PASSWORD IMMEDIATELY

ehp6737 · 09-14-11, 09:26 PM

Tony was very cool about the whole thing. It could of went much worse for you given the situation.

Laz · 09-14-11, 09:32 PM

Yes, edit your info!

BET THE HOOK · 09-14-11, 09:36 PM

Thanks. I did it the first time I typed the thread but had to redo it because my internet went down for a moment and didnt the second time.

Justin7 · 09-14-11, 09:42 PM

What was the most flagrant correlated play you made?

sharpcat · 09-14-11, 09:50 PM

Very interested to see how SBR handles this dispute.

It has always been SBR's stance that if a books software accepts the wager that they need to honor it so unless the plays are 100% correlated there is no excuse to allow 5dimes to mug the player here.

Might be seeing the "5dimes steals a players winnings and the SBR whitewashing" case go down here

Justin7 · 09-14-11, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by sharpcat

It has always been SBR's stance that if a books software accepts the wager that they need to honor it so unless the plays are 100% correlated there is no excuse to allow 5dimes to mug the player here.

That's not quite accurate.

If there is a 100% correlation in one of the plays, it is fair to void one part. for example, if you bet Dallas -3, parlayed to Dallas moneyline -150, a book can void part of this.

If you bet Dallas -20, parlayed with over 34, that should be honored (even if rules say no correlated parlays) because the software accepted it.

This case might be much more complex. I want to see the wagers.

What if a player bet over 48 for a game, and after 24 points were scored, bet over 24 for the second half? That would be another example of 100% correlation, and part of it could be voided. If it was a moderate correlation (i.e. -20 / over 44 in NCAAF), it should be honored.

BET THE HOOK · 09-14-11, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

What was the most flagrant correlated play you made?

I will have to look but maybe 2nd half side off of a pending teaser that was pretty much a winner already. Or maybe 2nd half side off of a straight wager on the game. I only used plays that were listed when I clicked on the button. And also I make alot of wagers from my smart phone and when you click that button on your android based phone,it doesnt always show you the teames listed on the plays is gives you as options, Sometimes they are off the screen where you cant see them and all you can do is select the wager amount buttons(either if win only or if win or push)
If I am looking at this right I may get my cash back and some money to boot because alot of the wagers were losers and several no actions. I didnt do this on purpose at all. If I was taking a shot at the book I would have deposited my 200k settlement cash and done it right. I simply asked the system for rolling if options and it listed the ones available and sometimes off the screen where you couldnt see the teams listed. If I only made a couple wagers a day I would have known but I make at least 50 plays a day between both books.

sharpcat · 09-14-11, 10:07 PM

Unless the plays are 100% correlated than there is no excuse to void the wagers, the software should not have accepted the wager if the book was not willing to take action on it.

How are players outside of the 100% obvious correlations supposed to know what is correlated and what is not? how much of a correlation is the book willing to accept and how is the player supposed to know this?

Is parlaying the under in the Bengals game and the Browns game correlated if they are calling for heavy rain in the state of Ohio?

How is a player supposed to know what he can or can not bet if the books software does not tell him what is allowed and what is not?

Is 5dimes refunding wagers to players who may have bet highly negative correlated plays? or are those still accepted?

BET THE HOOK · 09-14-11, 10:17 PM

5Dimes takes 10x more types of bets than any other book so I thought it was ok when the software accepted the plays. Honestly I wasnt 100% sure what correlated actually was. Oh well I think Tony will do the right thing. We will see.

wrongturn · 09-14-11, 10:52 PM

If you are ahead by voiding all the wagers, what more right thing do you expect from him?

Santo · 09-15-11, 12:45 AM

Interesting case; Tony's options seem fair if the plays were highly correlated... BTH: Maybe post a list of your plays here (copy/paste and edit out the amounts if you like)? Seems the bug has been fixed so shouldn't be any issues from it.

skrtelfan · 09-15-11, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Unless the plays are 100% correlated than there is no excuse to void the wagers, the software should not have accepted the wager if the book was not willing to take action on it.

How are players outside of the 100% obvious correlations supposed to know what is correlated and what is not? how much of a correlation is the book willing to accept and how is the player supposed to know this?

Is parlaying the under in the Bengals game and the Browns game correlated if they are calling for heavy rain in the state of Ohio?

How is a player supposed to know what he can or can not bet if the books software does not tell him what is allowed and what is not?

Is 5dimes refunding wagers to players who may have bet highly negative correlated plays? or are those still accepted?

That you repeatedly defend EZ Street for stiffing Cory because "Cory clearly used a bot" while criticizing 5Dimes in a case where there bets accepted clearly due to a software glitch is tangible proof that you're either a shill for EZ Street, a shill for the RX, or both. The examples Tony gave are 100% correlated.

HedgeHog · 09-15-11, 06:19 AM

Let's keep the EZ crap out of this thread; it has no place here. I agree with Justin's assessment about reviewing the level of correlation in the various If bets. 100% correlated bets are an obvious a no-no. Also betting 1st half line to full line in the same game is improper as well. That said, OP's side with total bets in the game should be accepted, win or lose.

Got to add that I liked Tony's treatment of the OP. Apparently there was a lot of improper correlation and 5D is allowing the OP to correct the matter on his own fairly and in the manner least detrimental to him. Plus the OP gets to keep his account open. I think he's getting a rare break here IMO.

sharpcat · 09-15-11, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by skrtelfan

That you repeatedly defend EZ Street for stiffing Cory because "Cory clearly used a bot" while criticizing 5Dimes in a case where there bets accepted clearly due to a software glitch is tangible proof that you're either a shill for EZ Street, a shill for the RX, or both. The examples Tony gave are 100% correlated.

Trolling much lately Skrtelfan? Just can't get me out of your mind can you

Tony sited examples of correlated parlays he never said that those were the plays that were made, but I am glad that you were able to confirm that the plays that Tony said are correlated are indeed correlated. Thanks for pointing out the obvious Skrtelfan.

Big difference between a sites R&R stating that you can't use a bot but than you use a bot to play VP in order to abuse their bonus offer, and a book saying that you can not bet correlated plays but not defining what is considered correlated. If the book thinks a wager is correlated they should not accept it so they need to fix their software.

The problem here is that Tony is free rolling players "again" by allowing bets to go through and than canceling those that are correlated. I seriously doubt that if anybody out there was betting IF 1st half over/game under that Tony closed those players accounts and canceled their wagers.

BET THE HOOK · 09-15-11, 07:44 AM

I never said Tony was unfair at all. And honestly I didnt go out looking to use those plays specifically. I clicked on the button to see what plays ars available and if none are then I make a quick cc deposit to play 2nd half. Also when you use a smart phone to wager and you make a rolling if wager,it cuts off most of the wager/team info for lack of room and I just clicked the buttons as shown. I guess I did do what he said I did but not at all taking a shot. I am on a winning streak at all the books I use right now and do not need to cheat. I wouldnt cheat to win anyway. Gonna tell Tony my choice later today because I could never get him back on Live Chat last night and they say he doesnt accept phone calls. Maybe he will be available after I get off work.

BET THE HOOK · 09-15-11, 07:45 AM

By the way the examples Tony listed were not my plays just an example when I asked him what was correlated.

PorkChop · 09-15-11, 07:51 AM

Another example of why they are a A+ book. Wouldn't have went down like this in many other books..

sharpcat · 09-15-11, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by BET THE HOOK

I never said Tony was unfair at all. And honestly I didnt go out looking to use those plays specifically. I clicked on the button to see what plays ars available and if none are then I make a quick cc deposit to play 2nd half. Also when you use a smart phone to wager and you make a rolling if wager,it cuts off most of the wager/team info for lack of room and I just clicked the buttons as shown. I guess I did do what he said I did but not at all taking a shot. I am on a winning streak at all the books I use right now and do not need to cheat. I wouldnt cheat to win anyway. Gonna tell Tony my choice later today because I could never get him back on Live Chat last night and they say he doesnt accept phone calls. Maybe he will be available after I get off work.

Tell Tony what your choice is and you are admitting guilt I would file an SBR complaint and let them sort it out. Regardless if you file a complaint or not 5pennies is probably going to limit your account to where it is not worth your time playing with them.

mtneer1212 · 09-15-11, 08:13 AM

I think Tony is being fair and reasonable here.......... take one of his offers and move on.

shari91 · 09-15-11, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Very interested to see how SBR handles this dispute. It has always been SBR's stance that if a books software accepts the wager that they need to honor it so unless the plays are 100% correlated there is no excuse to allow 5dimes to mug the player here. Might be seeing the "5dimes steals a players winnings and the SBR whitewashing" case go down here

Where are you getting this from and why would you advise BTH not to tell Tony his choice? BTH himself said in his opening post that his balance was $950 and if he cancels the rolling ifs he believes he'll not only get the $950 back but even more money on top of that than what he had before Tony discovered the glitch. That doesn't sound like a fair deal to you? What would you prefer: He just gets the $950 back and not the extra money as well?

HedgeHog · 09-15-11, 09:13 AM

BTH:

It looks like this will all work out alright, which is great. However, in the chat you stated you didn't know what correlated bets are. Seriously?

sharpcat · 09-15-11, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by shari91

Where are you getting this from and why would you advise BTH not to tell Tony his choice? BTH himself said in his opening post that his balance was $950 and if he cancels the rolling ifs he believes he'll not only get the $950 back but even more money on top of that than what he had before Tony discovered the glitch. That doesn't sound like a fair deal to you? What would you prefer: He just gets the $950 back and not the extra money as well?

Tony is not extending out any favors here Shari91.

Since these were leveraged IF bets even if Tony were to cancel the wagers he would have to let the original wager stand and would only be able to cancel the 2nd half of the wager. It would be interesting to see the break down of the wagers because as I said Tony can not cancel the first leg of the IF bet and Tony is a sharp guy so I doubt that he would give BTH the option to cancel the 1st and 2nd leg wagers if it was not to his benefit.

Sounds to me like Tony is free rolling BTH hoping that he takes option B which will benefit 5dimes.

stevenash · 09-15-11, 09:16 AM

Tony was more than fair here.

shari91 · 09-15-11, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Tony is not extending out any favors here Shari91. Since these were leveraged IF bets even if Tony were to cancel the wagers he would have to let the original wager stand and would only be able to cancel the 2nd half of the wager. It would be interesting to see the break down of the wagers because as I said Tony can not cancel the first leg of the IF bet and Tony is a sharp guy so I doubt that he would give BTH the option to cancel the 1st and 2nd leg wagers if it was not to his benefit. Sounds to me like Tony is free rolling BTH hoping that he takes option B which will benefit 5dimes.

But that's not what BTH said in his OP nor was that one of the options Tony gave him. Tony has given him the option of cancelling the original wagers or am I missing something here?? The first option as stated by both of them was just to void the correlated attachments. The second option:

BTH: "(2) or I can cancel the parent wagers win or lose."

Tony: "2) void all correlated plays, as was as the original play they are attached to, all regardless if win or lose"

sharpcat · 09-15-11, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by shari91

But that's not what BTH said in his OP nor was that one of the options Tony gave him. Tony has given him the option of cancelling the original wagers or am I missing something here?? The first option as stated by both of them was just to void the correlated attachments. The second option:

BTH: "(2) or I can cancel the parent wagers win or lose."

Tony: "2) void all correlated plays, as was as the original play they are attached to, all regardless if win or lose"

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here Shari but by "Parent Wager" I am assuming that Tony is saying that he will cancel the original wager which was already looking to be a sure winner when BTH made his leveraged IF play.

So BTH is either going to be left with only his 2nd half plays or cancel both wagers.

Tony can not cancel the "parent Wager" he can cancel the leveraged IF half of the play which would be what I am assuming were all 2nd half plays.

shari91 · 09-15-11, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here Shari but by "Parent Wager" I am assuming that Tony is saying that he will cancel the original wager which was already looking to be a sure winner when BTH made his leveraged IF play.

So BTH is either going to be left with only his 2nd half plays or cancel both wagers. Tony can not cancel the "parent Wager" he can cancel the leveraged IF half of the play which would be what I am assuming were all 2nd half plays.

For the part I bolded I assume that's incorrect as BTH has the option of cancelling just the 2H plays. Tony: 1) void all correlated attachments, win or lose.

So the way I understand it is BTH can either cancel the bet entirely (the parent and the 2H) or cancel just the 2Hs and keep the originals. Maybe I'm wrong though.

sharpcat · 09-15-11, 09:57 AM

(1) I can cancel all the correlated rolling if wagers win or lose(2) or I can cancel the parent wagers win or lose

I guess BTH typed this wrong because my understanding of "Parent" would mean the first wager and the first wager of the play should not be canceled. Tony would be gaining a huge advantage if he were to cancel the first wager and leave BTH with the second wager of the IF bet.

If BTH was taking shots and betting Ravens ML and than coming at the half when they are up by 14pts and making a leveraged IF bet of Ravens 2nd half -3 than he is fortunate if his account does not get shut down, but Tony is not doing him any favors because the "Parent Wager" should stand regardless. Tony is taking a shot because if BTH made the "correlated IF bet" it likely means that the "Parent Wager" was a +EV play so it is highly unlikely that canceling the first wager would be beneficial to the player, Tony knows this also.

bubba · 09-15-11, 10:06 AM

the big question with this is how correlated are these bets. i believe op said he was doing a teaser and 2nd half bet on the same game. (ravens +2 for the game, raves -2 for 2nd half) this is super correlated and is taking a shot at the book imo. but without seeing the wagers or being told what they are, there is not enouph info here.

lol that op tells tony he doesnt know what correlated means.

sharpcat · 09-15-11, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by bubba

the big question with this is how correlated are these bets. i believe op said he was doing a teaser and 2nd half bet on the same game. (ravens +2 for the game, raves -2 for 2nd half) this is super correlated and is taking a shot at the book imo. but without seeing the wagers or being told what they are, there is not enouph info here.

lol that op tells tony he doesnt know what correlated means.

I agree that middling a teaser on an IF bet is a mega shot and is definately 100% correlated but I would want to review all of the plays because maybe not all of them are that bad.

I just do not understand what the point of starting this thread was if all of the plays were 90-100% correlated

I mean even if BTH were telling the truth and was not aware of what a correlated play was he still would had to have known that if he were making plays that were 100% correlated that he was in the wrong for doing so.

No SBR complaint= All plays were nearly 100% correlated and I was taking shots.

SBR complaint= I was just betting plays that I liked and did not understand that some of them were highly correlated and gave me a huge advantage.

stevenash · 09-15-11, 10:20 AM

Ignorance is not an excuse

shari91 · 09-15-11, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

I guess BTH typed this wrong because my understanding of "Parent" would mean the first wager and the first wager of the play should not be canceled. Tony would be gaining a huge advantage if he were to cancel the first wager and leave BTH with the second wager of the IF bet. If BTH was taking shots and betting Ravens ML and than coming at the half when they are up by 14pts and making a leveraged IF bet of Ravens 2nd half -3 than he is fortunate if his account does not get shut down, but Tony is not doing him any favors because the "Parent Wager" should stand regardless. Tony is taking a shot because if BTH made the "correlated IF bet" it likely means that the "Parent Wager" was a +EV play so it is highly unlikely that canceling the first wager would be beneficial to the player, Tony knows this also.

Well like you guys have said, without us seeing the actual wagers it's hard to figure out what really happened or even the best choice for him to take. He does have the option of just cancelling the IFs and potentially turning losers into winners as Tony stated for himself. But we can't judge that obviously with the little info we have.

Tony: if you picked all original winners
Tony: then of course you'll choose to keep all those
Tony: if you had losses on those by keeping the original wagers, then you can choose to kill all the correlated plays

BET THE HOOK · 09-15-11, 10:59 AM

I have 434 wafers since Aug 24 and probably a dozen correlated. Til now I never really knew what correlated meant altogether because I had no reason to. He said it was posted in the rules but I only read all the print if I'm looking for an answer to a question. I just wager what I like and if the system allows it I take it. Also on most of those 2nd halves, I rolled the bet off more than one pending play to make sure I got the play. Not just against a correlated play. So for example I may have 4 rolling its on 2nd half Saints but only one correlated. I maybe viewing my plays wrong but I don't think its gonna cost me. I wish the system had never allowed the action and I would have just made another deposit for halftime bets. Not worried about sending more cash. I trust 5Dimes with my money. I need to review all this after work again but I think I come out ahead if I cancel all the rolling ifs.

bubba · 09-15-11, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by BET THE HOOK

I have 434 wafers since Aug 24 and probably a dozen correlated. Til now I never really knew what correlated meant altogether because I had no reason to. He said it was posted in the rules but I only read all the print if I'm looking for an answer to a question. I just wager what I like and if the system allows it I take it. Also on most of those 2nd halves, I rolled the bet off more than one pending play to make sure I got the play. Not just against a correlated play. So for example I may have 4 rolling its on 2nd half Saints but only one correlated. I maybe viewing my plays wrong but I don't think its gonna cost me. I wish the system had never allowed the action and I would have just made another deposit for halftime bets. Not worried about sending more cash. I trust 5Dimes with my money. I need to review all this after work again but I think I come out ahead if I cancel all the rolling ifs.

saints for the 2nd half coupled with saints for the game is bad.

saints for the 2nd half coupled with raverns in another game is ok.

saints for the 2nd half coupled with over saints for game (or 2nd half) is fine as long as the software accepts it which it did.

saints for the 2nd half and saints to win the division is bad.

seems pretty black and white. by looking at the wagers if it passes the smell test its good as long as software accepts it. all original wagers should stand and all crazy correlated if bets should be cancelled (the later half). seems pretty simple imo