Can you give me an opinion on this decision by ABC Islands?

[royalfan]

I wonder what daringly's opinion would be if in your prop you had found out that neither listed player would play and then played the other side. Wouldn it still be "rules as written" or would then it be "unfair" to the books because they couldn't win?

A little consistency is all I ask.[/QUOTE]

This point hits the nail on the head and is the exact reason why they are full of it when claiming they are grading it correctly. There is no way they would have paid out in that situation even though it is the same exact situation as the one they are stiffing me on. Someone there is reading this and they truly ought to be ashamed of themselves as it is very unethical.

 

[wilheim]

Royalfan, did you ever think to do the same thing as els25 did and email a moderator here at The Rx. for help? Waiting for ABC to chime in here may not be of any help to you.


Feel free to email me at wilheim@therx.com



Thanks, wil..

 

[royalfan]

Royalfan, did you ever think to do the same thing as els25 did and email a moderator here at The Rx. for help? Waiting for ABC to chime in here may not be of any help to you.


Feel free to email me at wilheim@therx.com



Thanks, wil..

I sent an email to fishhead asking for "unnoficial" advice and got no response. I may try you after trying one last time to get them to change their mind myself.

 

[ChuckSims]

daringly took the opposite view in the Olympic F-1 debacle saying the ruling should be a fair one. This case he takes the opposite view, saying it the bet should be graded as written.

daringly, why the hypocritical views?

royalfan, was your bet more than esl25? Are you winning at ABC Islands? We may have a lets screw the educated bettor, and keep the loser(esl25) happy situation.

 

[daringly]

D2 -

This dispute is not analagous to the F1 dispute. The F1 grading dispute (IMO) did not have a rule clearly on point as this one does.

D2 wrote: "I wonder what daringly's opinion would be if in your prop you had found out that neither listed player would play and then played the other side. Wouldn it still be "rules as written" or would then it be "unfair" to the books because they couldn't win?"

I'm glad I don't have to rule on something like that. My first opinion would be to discipline whomever wrote that rule. Having one or more players miss an event is a normal, forseeable event. This rule is horrible, because it spells out clearly a way for player shot-taking on something that could easily happen.

ABC's rule screams "Hit me! Hit me!" They are aware this could happen also, given that they just rewrote the rule, and had a dispute directly addressing the rule. ABC is cognizant that this rule has this problem. You should also note that ABC gets a benefit from having this poor rule - more events are graded as action. For those reasons, I'd rule for the player.

 

[Scooter1]

I disagree with daringly, and feel that the INTENT of the rules is clearly that with MATCHUPS (both) players must play for action.
In a pool ALL bets are action.

I cannot disagree with you that there is a rule in place that strictly interpreted would say the player lost his bet in this case , although I cannot believe a reasonable person knowing the industry would conclude that the rule is intended for a 2 player vs 2 player MATCHUP.

There is a rule in most poker rooms and tournaments that is becoming standard.
It reads something like "The floorman has the right to make a ruling which, although it may violate a strict interpretation of the rules, is in the best interest of the game."

For example, on the flop in hold'em the board is J 8 T 7 9..
In a live game in the showdown, a shottaker (Player A) says "Straight".

Player B throws away his hand, then asks to see the opponent's hand.
The opponent has 2-2 (or any two X cards).
Anotherwords, Player A is playing the board, which Player B could have done.

A floorman is called, and rules that, even though Player B mucked his hand, he is likewise entitled to half the pot.
They may be more likely to make this judgement if Player B is an obvious novice and Player A is a known shottaker.

But the point is, for the integrity of the game, the house is not enforcing a strict interpretation of the rules.

In the ABC Island case, I feel it's even more obvious than in the example above that a specific rule to cover a 2 vs 2 matchup was never written, but it should be assumed that the intent of the rules is that the head to head matchup rule covers this.


Some intelligence and judgement needs to be applied for the integrity of the game (the sportsbetting/sportsbook community).

 

[Scooter1]

Of course, in my post above that should have been "On the RIVER in hold'em...", not "On the FLOP...".

 

[daringly]

Scooter1 -

Persuasive post.

It's too bad there isn't a uniform set of rules, so players can know what to expect without reading the fine-print, or being at the whim of management. Uniform rules would avoid 80% of the problems we read about on the forums.

 

[Scooter1]

daringly - "It's too bad there isn't a uniform set of rules, so players can know what to expect without reading the fine-print, or being at the whim of management. Uniform rules would avoid 80% of the problems we read about on the forums."

Even more so with poker. Ciaffone has been trying for more than a decade to get a uniform set of rules adopted.

There are poker tournaments with immense prize pools - a single player can win as much as 5 million - yet there are not consistent rules from tournament to tournament.

It's unthinkable that this situation would exist with any other competition on that level.

 

[ChuckSims]

"I've been playing there for almost two years now and I know that they graded a wager as a push in the same situation some time last football season. In that situation, my bet would have won. Unfortunately, I can only see the bets that I placed in the last 30 days."

Maybe this is why they were quick to refund this guys money. Great place. When he wins a bet like this its a "push". Lose a bet like this and it grades a "loss". Why give these shit books a second chance. Boycott these crumbs!

 

[royalfan]

daringly took the opposite view in the Olympic F-1 debacle saying the ruling should be a fair one. This case he takes the opposite view, saying it the bet should be graded as written.

daringly, why the hypocritical views?

royalfan, was your bet more than esl25? Are you winning at ABC Islands? We may have a lets screw the educated bettor, and keep the loser(esl25) happy situation.

I am not sure what his amount was but mine was very large for a prop bet. I am about even with them, maybe even down a little bit. I just want Fish or someone to come forth with why the other guy was refunded?

 

[ChuckSims]

royalfan, has fish responded to your e-mails yet? Have you contacted TOW for assistance? Maybe EOG could help. Keep their feet to the fire.

 

[Doug]

I am not sure what his amount was but mine was very large for a prop bet. I am about even with them, maybe even down a little bit. I just want Fish or someone to come forth with why the other guy was refunded?

You can't ( as a book) refund selectively, grading must be uniform ! If ABC wants to take a stand, they can't waffle ! How the HELL does one guy get a push, while the other loses ? Very poor from a decent book.

 

[esl25]

Royalfan, what's the status of that wager? Sorry for leavin' you hanging 'til now. I didn't get back from a long weekend until yesterday. It's wrong what ABC did and after seeing how they handled this situation, I'm glad that they gave me the boot. The reason they refunded my money is because I had a feeling that they graded a winning wager of mine last football season as "no action" under the same circumstances. The wager was the same kind of wager, two runnining backs of one team vs. two running backs of another team. It was on the Houston vs. Southern Mississippi game on 10/7 of 2004.

The matchup was:
Jackie Battle + Ryan Gilbert +30.5 yards vs. Sherron Moore + Anthony Harris -30.5

I took Battle + Gilbert, but Battle didn't even play in the game. The funny thing is that EVEN WITH just Gilbert's 95 yards, he covered with the spread against Moore and Harris's combined 121 yards. However, the wager was graded as a push because Battle didn't play in the game even though it didn't matter.

The only reason I was able to have my money refunded was because I found the ticket # to the wager and the evidence was too much. I hope you got or will get your money refunded because what they did was crooked. I am definitely up against them so they also used that as an excuse to kick me out. Without their great teaser odds that they used to have, they are hardly a book worth playing with anymore anyway.

Oh yeah, as a side note, they added the last part of the rules for their propositions AFTER this whole controversy started. I'm 100% sure of that.

 

[ChuckSims]

esl25, thanks for sharing the crooked bookmaking of ABC Islands. They are now in SHIT book status.

 

[Doug]

esl25, thanks for sharing the crooked bookmaking of ABC Islands. They are now in SHIT book status.

I agree, and will not play there unless this is reversed ! They used to have good futures prices, but I'd be afraid to bet them now.

 

[Fishhead]

RoyalFan was instructed to either call or email me this morning to further investigate his situation.

Provided him with some information this morning via email as well, and hoping that clears up this matter to his satisfaction.

 

[Doug]

Hey Fish: I saw a guy that looked just like you on People's court, except for his neck tattoes !