Heritage Sports Complaint - Heritage Insider please view

**Kaabee** · 08-24-12, 10:17 PM

how do you figure you still get the 7335?

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Kaabee

I am assuming that you think my complaint is not valid which is fine. I am looking for everyone's opinion on this issue

**Kaabee** · 08-24-12, 10:22 PM

you're parlay lost. there is no 7335.

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Kaabee

you're parlay lost. there is no 7335.

Did you read the above about a Hedge play? I am aware the parlay lost, that was the point of a hedge play. I am questioning the wording of how a Hedge play works and where it does not state the risk amount is not included in the win. If you read above, I won the hedge play but was only credited with the win amount($150) but it does not state anything about risk amount not included like the FP rules do.

**BHS** · 08-24-12, 10:34 PM

Did that 4th team win as well?

If you didn't try to hedge it, were you gonna win?

**Kaabee** · 08-24-12, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by BHS

Did that 4th team win as well?

If you didn't try to hedge it, were you gonna win?

federer was the 4th. you can't hedge until the last leg. 10k mistake. no biggie.

**Keith Richard** · 08-24-12, 10:37 PM

When they give you their example of a hedge play they tell you if you hedged 3300 to win 3000 you would win 2000 after deducting the 1000 risked on the parlay. They don't say if the parlay loses you win 5300 .(3300 to win 3000 minus 1000)

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by BHS

Did that 4th team win as well?

If you didn't try to hedge it, were you gonna win?

No, the 4th team/person lost and the 'hedge play' won which is why I am disputing the rules of the hedge play where it does not state winnings only like it does with the FP rules. The hedge play was $7335 to win $150 and I was only credited with $150.

I know it is a lot to read above so if anyone has any questions, please ask because I would love to hear everyone's opinions.

**Kaabee** · 08-24-12, 10:40 PM

with your logic, books would get destroyed. just include a massive dog as your last leg of every parlay. then just turn around and hedge the full amount on a massive favorite and keep all the winnings.

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Kaabee

federer was the 4th. you can't hedge until the last leg. 10k mistake. no biggie.

That is not correct. The last leg was not Federer; it was his opponent. Federer was the hedge play

**Kaabee** · 08-24-12, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by walkingman

That is not correct. The last leg was not Federer; it was his opponent. Federer was the hedge play

obviously.

**Kaabee** · 08-24-12, 10:48 PM

lets do a simple example.

2 team parlay. Mets +100 against the Cubs. Davydenko +2000 against Federer. 100 to win 4100.

Mets win. Why not then just hedge everything on Federer at -3000? Do you see why this would be bad for the books if you got to keep the risk amount?

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Kaabee

lets do a simple example.

2 team parlay. Mets +100 against the Cubs. Davydenko +2000 against Federer. 100 to win 4100.

Mets win. Why not then just hedge everything on Federer at -3000? Do you see why this would be bad for the books if you got to keep the risk amount?

I completely see your point now Kaabee but it doesn't say anything about winnings only on the wager amount. (At least that is not how I have read it) I feel that the wording is vague and should be black and white like the Freeplay where it says "Winning amount only"

**cloverfield** · 08-24-12, 11:05 PM

I'm going to assume this is some kind of gag thread?
You really think they are going to "float" you the $7000+ and you win that either way??

You thought "hey if Federer at -4890 wins, I'll still get the 7000 they floated me back, plus the $150"

Even in the example you read, "Rams which would allow you to pay the $3,300 from your $3,000 “hedge play.” If the Rams lose, you will win $3,000 on that bet." they are not saying you would win $6300...because the original $3,300 is not included...They are in NO WAY implying you win the "floated" amount.

Is this real life??? The wording is NOT VAGUE in any way.. YOU misunderstood it...big difference

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:12 PM

Heritage Insider -

I know that your company would like a resolution to this issue as much as I would. I would love to have a PM from you and come to a resolution so I will continue to stay at your company. Whether we agree to disagree on the wording, I am sure we can come to a resolution that benefits us both instead of hearing "No, sorry you are wrong."

I appreciate any responses/opinions already and any other opinions after this comment

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by cloverfield

I'm going to assume this is some kind of gag thread?
You really think they are going to "float" you the $7000+ and you win that either way??

You thought "hey if Federer at -4890 wins, I'll still get the 7000 they floated me back, plus the $150"

Is this real life??? The wording is NOT VAGUE in any way.. YOU misunderstood it...big difference

Thank you for your opinion. Maybe it was a 50% misunderstanding and 50% bad wording. Either way, I do appreciate anything anyone has to add to this conversation. I will take 50% blame on this issue and I hope that Heritage Insider will shoot me a PM

**mtneer1212** · 08-24-12, 11:14 PM

Sorry walkingman - You were properly credited. Next time of course, you could put up the cash to hedge your bet........

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by mtneer1212

Sorry walkingman - You were properly credited. Next time of course, you could put up the cash to hedge your bet........

Thank you for the opinion. I completely understand now how 'floating' $7,000 does not make any sense but I still cannot get past the rules not stating 'winnings only'

**cloverfield** · 08-24-12, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by walkingman

Thank you for your opinion. Maybe it was a 50% misunderstanding and 50% bad wording. Either way, I do appreciate anything anyone has to add to this conversation. I will take 50% blame on this issue and I hope that Heritage Insider will shoot me a PM

Even in the example you read, "Rams which would allow you to pay the $3,300 from your $3,000 “hedge play.” If the Rams lose, you will win $3,000 on that bet." they are not saying you would win $6300...because the original $3,300 is not included...They are in NO WAY implying you win the "floated" amount.

They can't word EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME... in some scenarios common sense has to be applied as well. If you were on the outside looking in on this one you'd completely understand.. It's difficult because you "thought" you were going to have $7,000 credited.. it was just never the case and it's a huge let down for you.

get 'em next time bro
Even Emily Haines is going to agree with me on this one

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by cloverfield

Even in the example you read, "Rams which would allow you to pay the $3,300 from your $3,000 “hedge play.” If the Rams lose, you will win $3,000 on that bet." they are not saying you would win $6300...because the original $3,300 is not included...They are in NO WAY implying you win the "floated" amount.

I understand what you are saying but if you place a $110 wager to win $100, do you say I won $210 or do you say I won $100?

**BackDoorCover** · 08-24-12, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by cloverfield

I'm going to assume this is some kind of gag thread?
You really think they are going to "float" you the $7000+ and you win that either way??

You thought "hey if Federer at -4890 wins, I'll still get the 7000 they floated me back, plus the $150"

Even in the example you read, "Rams which would allow you to pay the $3,300 from your $3,000 “hedge play.” If the Rams lose, you will win $3,000 on that bet." they are not saying you would win $6300...because the original $3,300 is not included...They are in NO WAY implying you win the "floated" amount.

Is this real life??? The wording is NOT VAGUE in any way.. YOU misunderstood it...big difference

This

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by cloverfield

Even in the example you read, "Rams which would allow you to pay the $3,300 from your $3,000 “hedge play.” If the Rams lose, you will win $3,000 on that bet." they are not saying you would win $6300...because the original $3,300 is not included...They are in NO WAY implying you win the "floated" amount.

They can't word EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME... in some scenarios common sense has to be applied as well. If you were on the outside looking in on this one you'd completely understand.. It's difficult because you "thought" you were going to have $7,000 credited.. it was just never the case and it's a huge let down for you.

get 'em next time bro
Even Emily Haines is going to agree with me on this one

Thanks Cloverfield for the opinion. Shouldn't they word every possible outcome? Wouldn't that be ideal for something like this even if it is 'common sense' for any decent bettor?

Although, I am still upset over the whole situation, I do appreciate the opinions on where I may have misread information.

**cloverfield** · 08-24-12, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by walkingman

I understand what you are saying but if you place a $110 wager to win $100, do you say I won $210 or do you say I won $100?

Last reply on this subject.
It's not a straight wager.. it's a Hedge Play.
If it's a free play you win $100, if it's real money you win $210... You're trying to fit a circle in a square hole buddy.

You didn't understand it properly. It is explained properly in the example you yourself quoted from Heritage!!!!!
Heritage example: $3,300 to win $3,000 on the Rams in a Hedge Play... you win $3,000 (only the win amount)
Your scenario: $7,335 to win $150...you got credited the $150

pretty simple!

**wrongturn** · 08-24-12, 11:27 PM

When you use "Special Hedge Play", you essentially borrow money from Heritage to bet on the hedge play. After all bets are settled, you need to return the borrowed money. The reason why Heritage allows you to borrow in this case is because you have built up equity in the parlay. Just like you own a house, after 10 years of mortgage, you have built up some equity in your house, which bank allows you to get a loan from it, but you still need to pay back the loan eventually.

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by cloverfield

Last reply on this subject.
It's not a straight wager.. it's a Hedge Play.
If it's a free play you win $100, if it's real money you win $210... You're trying to fit a circle in a square hole buddy.

You didn't understand it properly. It is explained properly in the example you yourself quoted from Heriatge!!!!!

Right but where does it state in the example that the hedge play is basically a freeplay. Like I said earlier, I understand how floating $7,000 does not make sense but I still cannot get past any direct wording for 'winnings only'

I may have read the rules wrong but in my opinion, rules should be black and white without any chance of something like this.

Thanks again everyone.

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by wrongturn

When you used "Special Hedge Play", you essentially borrow money from Heritage to bet on the hedge play. After all bets are settled, you need to return the borrowed money. The reason why Heritage allows you to borrow in this case is because you have built up equity in the parlay. Just like you own a house, after 10 years of mortgage, you have built up some equity in your house, which bank allows you could get a loan from it, but you still need to pay back the loan eventually.

I understand your example and I feel like something that 'basic' should be included in the rules. I am assuming that everyone so far feels like the rules were basic enough but I guess they are not basic enough for me.

**KGambler** · 08-24-12, 11:43 PM

_{walkingman, you are completely in the wrong here. The problem is that you thought you had massive equity in your parlay because there was only one leg to go. But the last leg was a HUGE underdog. The listed "win amount" made you feel like you had a big win locked up with one game to go. In reality, you only had about $200 of equity. About 3% of the time you would win $10,600, and 97% of the time you would simply lose your $90. You do not have much equity. The payout amount is only so large because you have a tiny chance of winning.

You are completely in the wrong. What you are asking for is insane. It is totally unreasonable.

The example they give (which you quoted) also makes it clear that you do not get the "risk amount" added to your account.

This has been explained to you already but you still don't get it.

Here's another way to look at it...

Let's say you had a 2 team parlay, risk 1000 to win 2600. You win the first game. You are now risking $1000 to win $2600 on the last game. If it's a coinflip, you have $800 of equity. 50% of the time you lose $1000, 50% you win $2600.

By your logic, you could use this mythical super hedging strategy to risk $1100 to win $1000, ensuring that you win $1500 or $2100. Can't you see how stupid this is?

The smartest thing you can do is apologize to Heritage and beg SBR to delete this thread.}

**wrongturn** · 08-24-12, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by walkingman

I understand your example and I feel like something that 'basic' should be included in the rules. I am assuming that everyone so far feels like the rules were basic enough but I guess they are not basic enough for me.

Of course you can argue about it, but you won't win this case in any court. The purpose of rules is to state the non-obvious things so that people won't be surprised. If rules have to state all the obvious things, then you will have to read a thick book every time opening an account.

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by KGambler

_{walkingman, you are completely in the wrong here. The problem is that you thought you had massive equity in your parlay because there was only one leg to go. But the last leg was a HUGE underdog. The listed "win amount" made you feel like you had a big win locked up with one game to go. In reality, you only had about $200 of equity. About 3% of the time you would win $10,600, and 97% of the time you would simply lose your $90. You do not have much equity. The payout amount is only so large because you have a tiny chance of winning.

You are completely in the wrong. What you are asking for is insane. It is totally unreasonable.

The example they give (which you quoted) also makes it clear that you do not get the "risk amount" added to your account.

This has been explained to you already but you still don't get it.

Here's another way to look at it...

Let's say you had a 2 team parlay, risk 1000 to win 2600. You win the first game. You are now risking $1000 to win $2600 on the last game. If it's a coinflip, you have $800 of equity. 50% of the time you lose $1000, 50% you win $2600.

By your logic, you could use this mythical super hedging strategy to risk $1100 to win $1000, ensuring that you win $1500 or $2100. Can't you see how stupid this is?

The smartest thing you can do is apologize to Heritage and beg SBR to delete this thread.}

Thank you for the opinion. I am not going to have this thread deleted even if everyone has laughed at the my train of thought. I understand almost everyone's examples in this thread and they would have been helpful before the parlay.

**brendon** · 08-24-12, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by walkingman

Thanks Cloverfield for the opinion. Shouldn't they word every possible outcome? Wouldn't that be ideal for something like this even if it is 'common sense' for any decent bettor?

Although, I am still upset over the whole situation, I do appreciate the opinions on where I may have misread information.

as you said, you're still upset over the whole situation and i think it's affecting your reasoning. you have absolutely no ground in this situation.

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by wrongturn

Of course you can argue about it, but you won't win this case in any court. The purpose of rules is to state the non-obvious things so that people won't be surprised. If rules have to state all the obvious things, then you will have to read a thick book every time opening an account.

Good thoughts

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by brendon

as you said, you're still upset over the whole situation and i think it's affecting your reasoning. you have absolutely no ground in this situation.

Thanks Brendon. I am upset over the situation and to add more frustration was that Heritage Sports did not even try to resolve the issue. Even if I am 100% wrong as many people have stated in this thread, why not try to please the customer? It is obvious that I will not receive the full amount from the risk(~$7,000) but why not try to offer something?

**walkingman** · 08-24-12, 11:56 PM

I am surprised that not a single person has stated that they could see my point of view even the slightest bit but I posted this thread to hear everyone's opinion regardless if I am thrown under the bus.

**KGambler** · 08-24-12, 11:56 PM

Here's a better example.

Let's say you bet $350 at +3000 on Federer's opponent... $350 to win $10,500. Just a single bet.

And you decide you don't like your bet. By your logic, you can hedge bet $8,000 at -4000 on Federer to win $200, thus ensuring you win either $7850 or $2500. All without having won a single bet...

Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever.

The key is that you had about $200 positive equity in your parlay, not $7,000.

You BORROWED $7K to bet on Federer. You don't get to keep what you borrowed. When you bet your own money, it goes back into your account when you win. When you bet Heritage's money, they take it back when you win.