Which books are the most liberal with their "bad line" rule?

**durito** · 03-14-12, 10:32 AM

Should be ~-400, so yes way off.

**TryingMyBest** · 03-14-12, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by durito

Should be ~-400, so yes way off.

I'm aware. It's actually around -300 if you are using Pinny true lines. As of yesterday at least. What if all books had a receiver O/U 1.5 receptions, and one book had them O/U 2.5. That's a difference of 3 dollars. Would you think it fair that they canceled a U2.5 bet?

**durito** · 03-14-12, 11:01 AM

1.5 to 2.5 on receptions is like +3 to -3 on a game, so it's way off. The issue of course is that it's a prop so the market isn't really defined.

**andywend** · 03-14-12, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by TryingMyBest

Very few follow the "if you book it.." mentality anymore. Which books are cancel happy? How do they deal with you if you do bet what they perceive as a bad line?

With Bovada, they had these props up in regards to any seed of the given number winning a game in the tournamanet:

15: +350
14: +200
13: -250
12: -450

I bet the 14, it was canceled, and the reasoning was "an obvious line error". I have not seen another book with this prop so I don't know who they were comparing it against. The guy I talked to said from just looking at the line you could tell this was an obvious error. From the looking at the rundown above does this look so obvious? I fully understand bad lines, and do not bet +5 teams when they should be -5, or +1000 when it should be -1000. But why does it seem like an error in judgement and a typing error can be considered the same thing now?

You took a shot betting into an obvious bad line and Bovada caught it.

Its just that simple.

**TryingMyBest** · 03-14-12, 09:50 PM

Ok, so give me your definition of a bad line. And instead of saying "just drop it you got caught taking a shot" try and give an actual answer

**sharpcat** · 03-14-12, 10:41 PM

A bet that has a 70% chance of winning at +200 is no where close to even being questioned whether it is a fair line or not.

Where does a bookmaker draw the line of a player making an honest bet and a player taking a shot?

**TryingMyBest** · 03-14-12, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by sharpcat

A bet that has a 70% chance of winning at +200 is no where close to even being questioned whether it is a fair line or not.

Where does a bookmaker draw the line of a player making an honest bet and a player taking a shot?

Fair enough and maybe I am in the wrong here. I just saw it as a different animal dealing with a prop with no "market" to compare it to.

To go off the example I used earlier. Even if every book has O/U 1.5 receptions (-115) and some place deals 2 (-115), the under should be about -225. I can't imagine you would ever see that canceled. But if a baseball game is dealt -225 when it should be -115 then of course it's canceled.

**Monte** · 03-15-12, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by TryingMyBest

I'm aware. It's actually around -300 if you are using Pinny true lines.

You are? In another post you said you wouldn't bet +5 if it should be -5, but you bet +200 if it should be -300?
Doesn't make any sense, +5 to -5 is actually a slightly smaller difference...lol

**sharpcat** · 03-15-12, 12:48 AM

You were aware enough to compare to pinnacle, and I am sure the several other well known books who are also offering this prop.
Even if it were not offered any where else its a fairly simple prop to analyze since it is essentially just a reverse 4 team parlay where you are saying that all four #3 seeds will not win.

** Average #14 seed has somewhere in the ballpark range a 30% chance of winning according to the ML's.
*** 1-((1-.30)*(1-.30)*(1-.30)*(1-.30))= 76% that a #14 seed wins at least 1 game of the 4.
******The line was so far off that it would be more likely that the +200 was meant to be -200.

As far as how far off a line needs to be to justify being canceled it will vary from book to book and market to market. Obviously a book is much more likely to let a bad line on a -225 with a 20% edge on a max win of $100-$200 get by than a $200 bet at +200 with a 100%+ edge.

Just a piece of advice if you are taking shots at lines that are as far off as this one was, I would not complain to customer support when they cancel the wager unless you are trying to get limited/boot from the book.

**Monte** · 03-15-12, 12:55 AM

Well to add some examples..i had the Greek cancel a ncaa hoops spread of +2.5 when they said it should have been +1 (this was one where i thought it could be ok)...and CRIS limited me to 300 bucks or something like that after i bet a mlb innings line that was off 25c (but pretty obvious, i knew it was a bad line cos +0.5 and ML didn't match). So even those big books get pissed on much much smaller errors.

**TryingMyBest** · 03-15-12, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Monte

You are? In another post you said you wouldn't bet +5 if it should be -5, but you bet +200 if it should be -300?
Doesn't make any sense, +5 to -5 is actually a slightly smaller difference...lol

Yeah, I am. Regardless of edge, a board full of -5's with one +5 is a lot more obvious than a rogue prop $1.50 cheaper than the selection preceding it.

**TryingMyBest** · 03-15-12, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Monte

Well to add some examples..i had the Greek cancel a ncaa hoops spread of +2.5 when they said it should have been +1 (this was one where i thought it could be ok)...and CRIS limited me to 300 bucks or something like that after i bet a mlb innings line that was off 25c (but pretty obvious, i knew it was a bad line cos +0.5 and ML didn't match). So even those big books get pissed on much much smaller errors.

Hmm interesting.

**TryingMyBest** · 03-15-12, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

You were aware enough to compare to pinnacle, and I am sure the several other well known books who are also offering this prop.
Even if it were not offered any where else its a fairly simple prop to analyze since it is essentially just a reverse 4 team parlay where you are saying that all four #3 seeds will not win.

** Average #14 seed has somewhere in the ballpark range a 30% chance of winning according to the ML's.
*** 1-((1-.30)*(1-.30)*(1-.30)*(1-.30))= 76% that a #14 seed wins at least 1 game of the 4.
******The line was so far off that it would be more likely that the +200 was meant to be -200.

As far as how far off a line needs to be to justify being canceled it will vary from book to book and market to market. Obviously a book is much more likely to let a bad line on a -225 with a 20% edge on a max win of $100-$200 get by than a $200 bet at +200 with a 100%+ edge.

Just a piece of advice if you are taking shots at lines that are as far off as this one was, I would not complain to customer support when they cancel the wager unless you are trying to get limited/boot from the book.

Pinny didn't actually have this prop. When I said "using Pinny" I meant their true ML for each game involving a 14

**bluesquad** · 03-19-12, 05:58 PM

Yeah books usually have this kind of rules, probably bc a lot of their stuff is automated and sometimes while changing a line from another a single missing + or - could make a lot of differences so in this cases where its soo obvious I guess they have the chance to cancel the wager and return the money.

Lets be fair, you knew it was wrong, they saw it also, what is to talk about? you dont have to compare it to anything, you just know when a line is bad depending on the examples and maybe this was a clear example for them.

**TryingMyBest** · 03-19-12, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by bluesquad

Yeah books usually have this kind of rules, probably bc a lot of their stuff is automated and sometimes while changing a line from another a single missing + or - could make a lot of differences so in this cases where its soo obvious I guess they have the chance to cancel the wager and return the money.

Lets be fair, you knew it was wrong, they saw it also, what is to talk about? you dont have to compare it to anything, you just know when a line is bad depending on the examples and maybe this was a clear example for them.

fair enough