Widely respected poster BRETT summed up this ordeal perfectly and is exactly how TheRX came to the conclusion with their opinion after mediating the case.
Anybody suggesting this was a bad line and that BCN should not honor these wagers sets a TERRIBLE president throughout the entire industry with their decision.
BRETT's post....
I've tried to stay out of this, but I've had enough. This is an absolute travesty. Let's summarize the facts for the 160th time.
*a couple of guys spot "perceived" value in the hottest team in baseball the A's at a BCN. They make some bets. They are called "scum", shottakers, and several other dirty words for making bets at a sportsbook. How dare a punter make a bet where they might actually have an edge. The books are always supposed to have the edge. We the bettors are just suckers that are supposed to lose so that dumb bookmakers can make a good living. Yeah, I get it.
* the book offered 200 to 1 on the A's, who late in May were by far playing like one of the 4 worst teams in MLB. At that time I wouldn't have bought them at a 1000 to 1. They looked like a team that would not win 70 games. So the 200 to 1 they were offering is definitely a reasonable line.
* Then the A's go on one of the hottest tirades I have seen and win consistently at a .800 clip for a long stretch. Other books who were offering similar odds to 200 to 1, adjust their odds.
* A little while later, BCN adjusts their odds to 100 to 1, then they go to 90, then to 70.
* BCN bookmakers get out their calculators and realize they stand to lose 34,000 on Redeyes A's wager if they continue to play flawless baseball for the rest of the year. A fatal hit for most sportsbooks, lol.
* They decide to cancel the bets. They site that the 200 to 1 that was offered was really 20 to 1. So while the rest of the offshore world had the A's anywhere from 100 to 1 TO 200 to 1 in late May, the crystal ball bookmaking gurus from BCN had the forsight to sense an A's run and claim that their line was intended to be 20 to 1. Then after writing small bets on the A's, they went up to 100 to 1, then back down to 90 and 70, before claiming that the 200 that was listed really was 20. Sounds legit to me.
* After taking heat in 5 different forums and strong mediation efforts from Russ, they decide to honor the bets at a fraction of what they were bought for.
***In concluding, Picksix said," this is a horrible setback for the offshore world". I couldn't agree more. This sets a precedent for other bookmakers to renege on bets that they don't want to book. This isn't about a couple of guys taking shots at a book. I and most sensible others would have made the same bets at BCN if they had been aware of it. And I wouldn't have bet it for a buck 70, either. Taking +7, when it is supposed to be -7 is shottaking. Taking 200 to 1 when other books are less is good shopping. I hope the owners of BCN go out of business in the near future. They are thieves and deserve to be bankrupt
