EOG never had a decision to make.
Sportsbook.com wasn't a sponser there.
The book they removed was sportsbetting.com which was one of 2 books in the Jazette family that said THEY WOULD PAY any customers involved. The only 2 books that weren't downgraded @ SBR. That makes it a pretty retarded decision actually. And one that was obviously for show as they had their moderator come over here and advertise it.
This is the criteria Sportsbetting.com and BetUSA use for correlealted parlays.
Correlated parlay betting: The results of certain events can be considered to be correlated. For example, in college football betting on a heavy underdog (eg 35 point underdog) and the under in the game is statistically correlated. If players consistently bet correlated parlays then management reserves the right to regrade wagers. Wagers will be split so that half the stake will go on the pointspread and half on the under in the game. This rule applies from 19 October 2007. This will only apply to those regularly staking $50 or more on parlays and is intended only to limit professional bettors who consistently bet correlated parlays.
---------------
Hopefully all of the Janzette books will use this criteria soon.
wil.
Correlated parlay betting: The results of certain events can be considered to be correlated. For example, in college football betting on a heavy underdog (eg 35 point underdog) and the under in the game is statistically correlated. If players consistently bet correlated parlays then management reserves the right to regrade wagers. Wagers will be split so that half the stake will go on the pointspread and half on the under in the game. This rule applies from 19 October 2007. This will only apply to those regularly staking $50 or more on parlays and is intended only to limit professional bettors who consistently bet correlated parlays.
---------------
Hopefully all of the Janzette books will use this criteria soon.
wil.
For the record
My post earlier in this thread explaining how all correleted parlays have been graded as no bets is simply an informative one so that posters could judge for themselves what is really happening in this situation. That information was true from the original October 10th. date when the group of 31 players were effected by the ruling but there never was a clear explanation as to what happened to correleated parlays that lost. Many player/posters believed that players were debited for the risk amount of losing correleted parlays when the truth is they were not debited at all but instead graded as no bet.
Rick simply wanted to clarify the matter.
Thank you, wilheim..
My post earlier in this thread explaining how all correleted parlays have been graded as no bets is simply an informative one so that posters could judge for themselves what is really happening in this situation. That information was true from the original October 10th. date when the group of 31 players were effected by the ruling but there never was a clear explanation as to what happened to correleated parlays that lost. Many player/posters believed that players were debited for the risk amount of losing correleted parlays when the truth is they were not debited at all but instead graded as no bet.
Rick simply wanted to clarify the matter.
Thank you, wilheim..
Ok ... let's get technical here ...
The correlation coefficient is a NUMBER ranging from 0 to 1 (it is known as "r")
r = 0 = no correlation (eg: ATS winners and what mom cooks for dinner)
r = 1 = perfect correlation (eg: bellyache and what mom cooks for dinner would be close to 1)
Now correlations will have coeffiecients like r= 0.95 or r= 0.75 or r= 0.13 ... and for sportsbook.com to void wagers based on r, there has to be a cut-off point.
So what is the cut-off?????? What criteria was used to determine whether something is correlated or not.
For example: parlaying the under in the NYY and NYM home baseball games might have an r = 0.3 (simply because it might be a cold, damp day with a northerly wind in NYC). Would that be considered a correlated parlay?
Don't give us this "correlation" talk unless you can answer this:
The correlation coefficient is a NUMBER ranging from 0 to 1 (it is known as "r")
r = 0 = no correlation (eg: ATS winners and what mom cooks for dinner)
r = 1 = perfect correlation (eg: bellyache and what mom cooks for dinner would be close to 1)
Now correlations will have coeffiecients like r= 0.95 or r= 0.75 or r= 0.13 ... and for sportsbook.com to void wagers based on r, there has to be a cut-off point.
So what is the cut-off?????? What criteria was used to determine whether something is correlated or not.
For example: parlaying the under in the NYY and NYM home baseball games might have an r = 0.3 (simply because it might be a cold, damp day with a northerly wind in NYC). Would that be considered a correlated parlay?
Don't give us this "correlation" talk unless you can answer this:
- What is the criteria for determining correlation? THEY DON'T HAVE ONE
- What is the r value that is the cut-off point for determining correlation? THEY CAN'T ANSWER THAT
I am siding with Cincy here. They cannot leave a rule as vague as that. That leaves too much interpretation on the player's part and allows the book the power to regrade when they see fit. Especially when they seem to reserve the right to decide on how to grade a wager long after the event is over.
The simple solution is to do what every other book does. Why are they trying to be so complicated?
The simple solution is to do what every other book does. Why are they trying to be so complicated?
FYI - all the correlated parlays graded no action from the limited number of screenshots I have seen (two players) were football and of those a fairly high prcentage were college football.
Examples (all college teams):
all 2 team 2nd half parlays:
$1000 to win $2600
Team A +13.5
Team B Under 23
$1000 to win $2600
Team A -14.5
Team B Over 28.5
$1000 to win $2600
Team A +19.5
Team B Under 27
All were graded win or lose as no bets.
wil.
Examples (all college teams):
all 2 team 2nd half parlays:
$1000 to win $2600
Team A +13.5
Team B Under 23
$1000 to win $2600
Team A -14.5
Team B Over 28.5
$1000 to win $2600
Team A +19.5
Team B Under 27
All were graded win or lose as no bets.
wil.
Ok, it still doesn't explain the criteria for a no-bet and a criteria for correlation:
So would this be a no bet?
Team A +10.5
Team B Under 23
what about this?Team B Under 23
Team A +7.5
Team B Under 23
what about this?Team B Under 23
Team A +2.5
Team B Under 23
In other words, where does it start? There has to be a number, no?Team B Under 23
The truth is that there is no number ... people were milking them dry and they suddenly saw the leak ... and someone yelled "CORRELATED PARLAYS" and everyone else started repeating it ...
... but nobody from sportsbook.com can tell us what would be a correlated parlay .. what is the value of r, and how do they calculate it?
they might be correalted they might not be..one way a team covers a 13 1/2 point spread is by not allowing any points! and that would lead to an under and the favorite covering... ..some times it might be correlated others not...show the forumla and the cut off points??? and even slightly correlated is not always a positive expecation wager, just no losing as much as a crummy paying 2 team parly would cost you...
Exactly ... they refuse to explain some simple things ... and the reason is that they can't:
- what is the logic?
- what is the methodology?
- what is the cut-off point?
Cincy -
You are 100% right about their rule being BEYOND vague. But the thing to keep in mind is that the players involved knew they were playing parlays that they were not able to play at most sportsbooks. In other words, there is no doubt in the players minds that they were playing correlated parlays.
We have 3 players that have contacted us that were not warned about the parlays and we are working with sportsbook.com to rectify their accounts. The majority of the players involved are still playing at the books.
Also - the books involved did not make a 'sweeping' decision to just cancel every correlated parlay made. They just identified a very small group of players that were targeting them because they could get the parlays through. They have 10s of thousands of customers and surely there are a good number of them that unknowingly play correlated parlays but were not affected.
BTW - your detailed posts will no doubt help the books (all of them) realize how detailed they need to be in their rules, which will help minimize these kinds of situations.
Thanks
Rick
You are 100% right about their rule being BEYOND vague. But the thing to keep in mind is that the players involved knew they were playing parlays that they were not able to play at most sportsbooks. In other words, there is no doubt in the players minds that they were playing correlated parlays.
We have 3 players that have contacted us that were not warned about the parlays and we are working with sportsbook.com to rectify their accounts. The majority of the players involved are still playing at the books.
Also - the books involved did not make a 'sweeping' decision to just cancel every correlated parlay made. They just identified a very small group of players that were targeting them because they could get the parlays through. They have 10s of thousands of customers and surely there are a good number of them that unknowingly play correlated parlays but were not affected.
BTW - your detailed posts will no doubt help the books (all of them) realize how detailed they need to be in their rules, which will help minimize these kinds of situations.
Thanks
Rick
This is just speculation, but it seems like they don't mind taking the players regular action, even if they are winners. And, at least they know who the customers are and can watch them for any suspicious activity, rather then booting them and having to worry about them coming back in under other names.
