[Brooklyn Dick]

This tennis prop is up and running at Betcris/Bookmaker.
Note that it is an ALL IN PROP. In another words if your player does NOT play YOU LOSE
Note that Djokovic is listed even though it is almost a sure thing that he will NOT PLAY
.
This is copied straight from their site. Let's see an explanation for this. But they do give out generous odds for the suckers to bite.

ODD TO WIN MENS US OPEN 2022 (ALL IN)

MENS US OPEN 2022
Novak Djokovic+250
Daniil Medvedev+240
Carlos Alcaraz+625
Rafael Nadal+675
Stefanos Tsitsipas+1800
Alexander Zverev+2200

[pavyracer]

This is a scary tactic. They are hoping to collect as much Djokovic props as possible as it is free money for them.

[jjgold]

Like I said there a bottom of the barrel book now I got them at a C come football season I might move them to a D+

[JAKEPEAVY21]

Scumbag tactics there

[pologq]

Like I said there a bottom of the barrel book now I got them at a C come football season I might move them to a D+

if they do shit like this that should be an F automatically

[juicername]

If bettor no research own fault bookie ok cris still top notch

[juicername]

Like I said there a bottom of the barrel book now I got them at a C come football season I might move them to a D+

Agree. Scumbag move by Cris.

[jjgold]

People laughed at me when I called them scumbags

Your not laughing now

[BuckyOne]

It is what it is. Bet it someplace else. Bet there when their offer is better than the others.

This whole thing is about them getting your money. Don’t let it happen / be sharp and get theirs!

[goduke]

In all honesty if you bet on something without looking into it you deserve to lose.

[Brooklyn Dick]

In all honesty if you bet on something without looking into it you deserve to lose.

You think many people even know about "All In"? If you have no idea you would never think to look. And when Joker did not play he will be shocked to learn that he was robbed.

[jjgold]

That’s got to be the dumbest rule in sports book history they’re just taking free shots

[Brooklyn Dick]

This rule originated with the Kentucky Derby future book probably 60 or so years ago. It had to be the rule because they had hundreds of horses listed and only 20 go. But all the players were certainly aware of this. The greedy books kept the rule for other sports knowing most players have no clue about it.

But to list the best tennis player in the World who will NOT PLAY is out and out ROBBERY. But expected from where it came from.

[DrunkHorseplayer]

Nothing new. I remember back in 1994 (I think) the LV books had Flagship Commander listed in the Derby futures even though he had died in his stall several months ago; people were literally betting on a dead horse.

[Brooklyn Dick]

The difference between a real spostsbook and a bunch of thieves. Here is Pinnacle's US Open Prop. Note Djokovic MUST PLAY. Note the price on Djokovic
+157 against +250 on Betcris/Bookmaker.
Sun, Sep/11
ATP US OPEN

Player to win US Open? (Djokovic must play) Match

09:00 AM	4201	Novak Djokovic	+157	Risk To Win
	4202	Daniil Medvedev	+227	Risk To Win
	4203	Carlos Alcaraz	+365	Risk To Win
	4204	Rafael Nadal	+613

[Optional]

Does that mean all bets will be voided at Pinnacle?

Makes the +240 Medvedev at Bookmaker not look so bad. Assuming you know the big headline about the sport you are betting.


If both books are listing him doesn't that suggest he SHOULD be still listed?

And maybe the difference in odds reflects the market rules at each book?


Just sayin... don't want to be the wet blanket on this outrage fest.

[KVB]

Yeah, we've seen this with golf a number of times. Heritage used to always be an offender.

I do not like this practice, it appears on the shady side, I've even seen golfers on the futures list that had already withdrawn from the tourney.

But if he hasn't withdrawn yet, he should still be listed, no matter what.

It's the policy of loss when the player doesn't play that's shit, perhaps they like to lump that in to the risk of "futures" with nearly all the risk to the player, not the book.

[Optional]

Yeah, we've seen this with golf a number of times. Heritage used to always be an offender.

I do not like this practice, it appears on the shady side, I've even seen golfers on the futures list that had already withdrawn from the tourney.

But if he hasn't withdrawn yet, he should still be listed, no matter what.

It's the policy of loss when the player doesn't play that's shit, perhaps they like to lump that in to the risk of "futures" with nearly all the risk to the player, not the book.

Look at the odds on the next 3 favorites at Bookmaker compared to Pinny and tell me again that you think BM has "bad rules".



Djokovic still listed at all the books I am currently using. And I see a third rule style at Bet365. If Djokovic does not play all other odds are reduced from what people bet at. Imagine the outrage if CRIS did that to people, let alone without any mention of it on the market page like 365 has it listed.

[KVB]

The only rule I think that is bad is that, in futures bets, if the player never starts the tourney, the bet should be called off.

I think the player not starting should be a refund.

When it comes to reducing everyone else's odds, I don't like that either. At some point, just like the player, the book needs to assume some of the risk of futures bets. It should sometimes be a two way street. They are already defending themselves with a higher vig on futures. They can also place limits.

We've had this discussion before when concerning golf it lies in the rules for futures bets.

For this specific case, if Novak has not withdrawn, then he should be listed. At this point, it's up to the bettor to make an informed decision.

But you bring up a good point, knowing the rules and knowing they can be different between book is part of that informed decision.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Look at the odds on the next 3 favorites at Bookmaker compared to Pinny and tell me again that you think BM has "bad rules".



Djokovic still listed at all the books I am currently using. And I see a third rule style at Bet365. If Djokovic does not play all other odds are reduced from what people bet at. Imagine the outrage if CRIS did that to people, let alone without any mention of it on the market page like 365 has it listed.

I guess you just don't get it. Sure the odds are similar in both places because Betcris/Bookmaker knows what we all know. HE WILL NOT PLAY. So they take down all the Djokovic money and they are dealing the same odds. Just a nice bonus for them.

By the way they read this here and STOPPED DEALING THE PROP. What happens to the people that played it is yet another story.

And which is more forthcoming and honest to the players? Posting the little known all in or saying all bets are cancelled if Novak does not play? You tell me.

[Optional]

I guess you just don't get it. Sure the odds are similar in both places because Betcris/Bookmaker knows what we all know. HE WILL NOT PLAY. So they take down all the Djokovic money and they are dealing the same odds. Just a nice bonus for them.

By the way they read this here and STOPPED DEALING THE PROP. What happens to the people that played it is yet another story.

And which is more forthcoming and honest to the players? Posting the little known all in or saying all bets are cancelled if Novak does not play? You tell me.

The odds are not really that similar Dick.


Pinnacle

Novak Djokovic +157
Daniil Medvedev +227
Carlos Alcaraz +365
Rafael Nadal +613


CRIS

Novak Djokovic+250
Daniil Medvedev+240
Carlos Alcaraz+625
Rafael Nadal+675


You appear to be suggesting they are intentionally trying to scam ignorant people to bet Djockovic just so they can hand that stolen money directly to informed bettors.

[Optional]

And which is more forthcoming and honest to the players? Posting the little known all in or saying all bets are cancelled if Novak does not play? You tell me.

Just because it is "little known" to you does not mean it has not been offered this way on most long futures markets forever.

And if you see the tag (ALL IN) in a market name and do not know what it means and do not think to find out before you bet, again, that's your problem.


But mostly, who are you trying to save here with the Karen act?

Other people like you who do not know Djokovic will probably withdraw, and also do not know or care to find out what their bet is?


You're attack is just wrong here. They still have to list Djokovic like all books, they have not changed their rules just for this case, plus CRIS has a more accurate price for Djokovic than than those books offering +150. Especially those to plan to calculate a market reduction based on those +150 odds when he does. That's a true ripoff tactic, not this.

[Brooklyn Dick]

The odds are not really that similar Dick.


Pinnacle

Novak Djokovic +157
Daniil Medvedev +227
Carlos Alcaraz +365
Rafael Nadal +613


CRIS

Novak Djokovic+250
Daniil Medvedev+240
Carlos Alcaraz+625
Rafael Nadal+675


You appear to be suggesting they are intentionally trying to scam ignorant people to bet Djockovic just so they can hand that stolen money directly to informed bettors.

Yes, I am suggesting that. You think all people playing this are even aware of the fact that they lose their money betting on Djovikoc if he does not play? Which we all know he WILL NOT PLAY.

Now they took the robbery down and put this up. NO explanation listed on whether Novak plays or not. You want to bet a few thousand on Novak and see what happens if he does not play? Don't think so.

NOVAK DJOKOVIC TO WIN THE US OPEN 202208/1008:00

Yes
No


+135
-170

I would think though that this is legit and the money will be refunded if he does not play. But notice the large difference in the first price of the robbery +250. Now when it counts the price is +135. What more proof than this do you need?













NICK KYRGIOS TO WIN THE US OPEN 202208/1008:00

Yes
No


+1391
-2278

[Optional]

Yes, I am suggesting that. You think all people playing this are even aware of the fact that they lose their money betting on Djovikoc if he does not play?

They should be aware. It does clearly say ALL IN in all caps in the market title.
'
I also think that anyone who does bet Djokovic there is very likely to know about the vax issue and are betting the great odds because they think it will be resolved still.

[chargers4222]

Totally disagree. There's a reason his odds are so high. If there's someone out there who thinks they have info on him having a chance to play, they have to honor that crazy price. If you don't like it, don't bet it.

[BriGuy]

While bettors should know what they're betting, this is the sort of situation where every other book I've ever seen says if they don't participate, there is no action (and bets get refunded). Forget about Djokovic, what happens if you put money on one of the other players and he sustains an injury before then?

[infotimbo]

While bettors should know what they're betting, this is the sort of situation where every other book I've ever seen says if they don't participate, there is no action (and bets get refunded)

yeah, but as Opti mentioned, you don't get this service for free. It either comes with lower odds in general, or with a deduction afterwards. Bet365 does the latter for example: so if Djokovic @2.5 doesn't start, all bets on him get refunded and all other odds reduced by 40%.

As a customer you can't expect both, refunds on non-starters + good odds on all others. Personally I prefer an all in market every time, without refunds.

[WireWire]

Scumbag move, yea we know you should know the rules but unless you're throwing down a substantial bet you're not looking and most dont even if it is a bigger bet.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Scumbag move, yea we know you should know the rules but unless you're throwing down a substantial bet you're not looking and most dont even if it is a bigger bet.

No one that does know the rule would ever bet two cents on Joker. So it is only up there for the Marks to give away their money. Betcris/Bookmaker knew exactly what they were doing. And to prove it once it was exposed the Prop disappeared.

[KiDBaZkiT]

No one that does know the rule would ever bet two cents on Joker. So it is only up there for the Marks to give away their money. Betcris/Bookmaker knew exactly what they were doing. And to prove it once it was exposed the Prop disappeared.

I’ve never bet a future on Tennis and I would have no idea that “All in” means if they don’t enter the tournament you lose your bet. I wouldn’t know to “research” it cuz it should be called something completely different. It’s absolutely a tactic by the books.

[Frank]

I agree on both sides here.

They obviously have priced the other contender's prices differently.

They used the term "All in" in which I would guess half their customers have no idea what that is or where to find it in their rules.

The whole thing could have been avoided had they just typed a disclaimer like "all bets have action regardless if they participate" or something like that to be more clear.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Betcris/Bookmaker back in the robbery business today. All in prop back up. Generous odds for a guy that Wont Play.

ODD TO WIN MENS US OPEN 2022 (ALL IN)MENS US OPEN 2022
Novak Djokovic+230
Daniil Medvedev+250
Carlos Alcaraz+650

[Optional]

Now you're just being a troll Dick.

Your ignorance about bookmaking practices is no excuse for continuing to unfairly make these claims.

You are just wrong.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Now you're just being a troll Dick.

Your ignorance about bookmaking practices is no excuse for continuing to unfairly make these claims.

You are just wrong.

Wrong about what? And a troll? This board is supposed to be about looking out for sports bettors, not defending lowlife moves by sportsbooks. The troll is not me.

[Optional]

Wrong about what? And a troll? This board is supposed to be about looking out for sports bettors, not defending lowlife moves by sportsbooks. The troll is not me.

Looking out for sports bettors sometimes requires explaining that stubborn idiots like you are wrong.