isnt it amazing how sportsbooks dont want to pay people for winning correlated parlays, but if these parlays were all losing, you sure as hell wouldnt see the sportsbooks telling people they couldnt play them anymore because they were losing to much. Its like when blackjack players win to much money and the casinos think they are counting cards, but if the player is losing money nobody from the casino comes over to the player and says you cant play anymore because your losing to much.
They all love you if you lose your money, but if you win their money you cant play or they dont want to pay you.
These bets should be paid or lese they are doing nothing more then stealing money. If they dont want to take these types of parlays anymore thats their business, but what is done is done.
They make like people playing these parlays know the final scores and they are for sure gonna win, which isnt the case.
The names of these books need to be exposed so that players quit giving these books anymore business.
They all love you if you lose your money, but if you win their money you cant play or they dont want to pay you.
These bets should be paid or lese they are doing nothing more then stealing money. If they dont want to take these types of parlays anymore thats their business, but what is done is done.
They make like people playing these parlays know the final scores and they are for sure gonna win, which isnt the case.
The names of these books need to be exposed so that players quit giving these books anymore business.
You know what this is like? It's like owning the NY Yankees and having your CF get caught robbing a bank but while he's awaiting trial you keep him in CF because he's helping you win games.
Do you think any owner in their right mind would let a guy continue to play CF if he's caught doing something imoral and unethical considering the backlash from the customer and media?
Do you think any owner in their right mind would let a guy continue to play CF if he's caught doing something imoral and unethical considering the backlash from the customer and media?
I sent Sportsbook.com an e-mail and was asking them their take on this whole situation..their response was that there are various ways to be parlays and nothing about correalation...they just ducked everyone of my questions, but I was askes if I needed an account...what's the use!! They will never admit to theft....
after reading all 12 pages of this thread...I have to say that I am miffed as to why therx.com would allow Sportsbook.com to steal from their customers. Most books that I play with have software that will not allow correlated bets or they are voided and refunded before the game goes off. To wait until 2-3 months later and say they had no idea is a complete lie. I will never play at Sportsbook.com or their family of books and hope that any rx'er would do the same. Glad that I took the time to read this thread...as I feel that my comments are in line with a majority of this site....excluding the mods and owner of this site.
yeah,
cause as we have discussed they have little or no edge for the player.
people have been parlaying football sides with totals since before we were born.
correlation does not equal ADVANTAGE. correlation coefficients are generally fairly small. if you parlayed all of these dogs/und, favs/ovr you would have bad bets on 98% of them.
i am still trying to educate people on the difference between correlation and advantage.
why not offer them?, people will play them and people will generally lose playing them unless they are good line shoppers or good handicappers.
as we have also discussed, betting a correlated parlay of this type of small or negative edge, is no reason to steal your money. most books either give you lower limits if they feel you are any good, or they kindly tell you to go elsewhere and give you your balance in full. some books, the smarter ones, simply move the lines and balance the action knowing that since you are a long term winner, if they move the line that will mean that the action they enduce on the other side will be long term loser.
Last edited:
These types of close ratio parlay wagers that Sportsbook.com has disputed have been wagered on for decades and as recently 2003 maybe 50% of online books would openly and knowingly accept them. However, these days most books will not and it is mostly locals who do not know better that will allow correlated parlays. It is the job of the line managers at these books to look at every game and divide the total by the point spread and if the result is less than two (some use three), to not allow same game parlays. All of the wagering software in use has the ability to check each games and to not accept same game parlays if the ratios are too close so the books have no excuse if these plays were accepted.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
<o></o>
To go back and disallow these plays after the fact or even after the game has started like the books under Sportsbook.com management have admittedly done is wrong and should not be allowed to happen. I can’t even imagine a valid argument that would begin to justify this action. The only way they are getting away with is because “they can” which is unfortunate and in my opinion, theft.<o></o>
<o></o>
It seems to me that the RX is not seeing the big picture in this issue. While RickA has correctly stated that the forum does not purport to be a “watchdog” site like SBR, one would think that they at least would have the best interest of the membership in mind when choosing who will be allowed to advertise. While the RX does not derive any direct income from posters, they certainly earn a significant amount from the advertisers who are only willing to pay because of the exposure to the target market that is made up of the thousands of posters. This type of relationship essentially qualifies the forum membership as the customer base and from reading the responses in this thread, the customers are overwhelmingly opposed to this advertiser.<o></o>
<o></o>
Some have called allowing the advertisement to remain in place a “tacit” approval of their recent theft of bettors’ funds. I see it as something that is potentially much more devious. Seldom if ever, is the topic of The RX’s “affiliate” relationship with its advertisers discussed but as most know, there are three primary categories of affiliates.<o></o>
<o></o>
1. Pay Per Acquisition – A one time fee is paid to the referring party<o></o>
2. Percent of First Deposit – A one time fee is paid to the referring party<o></o>
3. Percent of House Win – Weekly payments are made to the referring party based on player losses<o></o>
<o></o>
Certainly there are also arrangements in place where the advertiser simply pays a monthly or yearly fee to a website for displaying an advertising banner but gambling portals are typically quite persistent in insisting that the referring website sign on to one of the affiliate programs which are usually considerably more profitable to the referrer. I’ll let each of you guess which of those three arrangements is most popular among affiliates. ;-)<o></o>
<o></o>
Now the question that arises is whether or not The RX is simply excepting advertising dollars or if they are functioning in the role of an affiliate for the books that advertise on the website. If The RX is indeed an affiliate for Sportsbook.com it would make sense that they would not be apt to remove their banner and end that relationship, particularly if it would mean that the steady flow of income from losing wagers would then cease. If this is not the case, I can think of no reason why The RX would not listen to their customer base who has very clearly indicated that they are not interested in seeing this organization advertised on the forum.<o></o>
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>To go back and disallow these plays after the fact or even after the game has started like the books under Sportsbook.com management have admittedly done is wrong and should not be allowed to happen. I can’t even imagine a valid argument that would begin to justify this action. The only way they are getting away with is because “they can” which is unfortunate and in my opinion, theft.<o
></o><o
></o>It seems to me that the RX is not seeing the big picture in this issue. While RickA has correctly stated that the forum does not purport to be a “watchdog” site like SBR, one would think that they at least would have the best interest of the membership in mind when choosing who will be allowed to advertise. While the RX does not derive any direct income from posters, they certainly earn a significant amount from the advertisers who are only willing to pay because of the exposure to the target market that is made up of the thousands of posters. This type of relationship essentially qualifies the forum membership as the customer base and from reading the responses in this thread, the customers are overwhelmingly opposed to this advertiser.<o
></o><o
></o>Some have called allowing the advertisement to remain in place a “tacit” approval of their recent theft of bettors’ funds. I see it as something that is potentially much more devious. Seldom if ever, is the topic of The RX’s “affiliate” relationship with its advertisers discussed but as most know, there are three primary categories of affiliates.<o
></o><o
></o>1. Pay Per Acquisition – A one time fee is paid to the referring party<o
></o>2. Percent of First Deposit – A one time fee is paid to the referring party<o
></o>3. Percent of House Win – Weekly payments are made to the referring party based on player losses<o
></o><o
></o>Certainly there are also arrangements in place where the advertiser simply pays a monthly or yearly fee to a website for displaying an advertising banner but gambling portals are typically quite persistent in insisting that the referring website sign on to one of the affiliate programs which are usually considerably more profitable to the referrer. I’ll let each of you guess which of those three arrangements is most popular among affiliates. ;-)<o
></o><o
></o>Now the question that arises is whether or not The RX is simply excepting advertising dollars or if they are functioning in the role of an affiliate for the books that advertise on the website. If The RX is indeed an affiliate for Sportsbook.com it would make sense that they would not be apt to remove their banner and end that relationship, particularly if it would mean that the steady flow of income from losing wagers would then cease. If this is not the case, I can think of no reason why The RX would not listen to their customer base who has very clearly indicated that they are not interested in seeing this organization advertised on the forum.<o
></o>
lotta good stuff in there. I have been under the impression since all this stuff went down, that these bets gave the bettors a HUGE advantage, and that is what miffed the book.
So you mean to tell me, these bets DID NOT give the bettors an advantage, and the book is simply keeping the money, cuz the guys got on a hot streak, and the book didn't want to pay?
OH MY.
Cutter, there is a HUGE player edge if you are allowed to parlay -10 o21 1H plays and +10 u21 1H plays, or -41.5 o56 (and the reverse). However, obviously agree with you that the correlation between -7 o 42 isn't enough to make it worthwhile, but the former has a HUGE advantage.
your payout is 13:5 each leg has to be 52.5% or if each leg is 50% then you need one strong positive correlation.
ovr 21 is a little different than ovr 22.
maybe someone will run it through the database. i am sure it has a small edge but that is an extreme example. and also the exact score at half would be make a difference.
much easier to just assume a first half that way we know the score was 0-0 and we know that both teams will be trying to score or playing more conventionally. i see that you mentioned first halves instead of second. good reason for doing so.
as of a couple years ago there was a major book taking 1Q NFL side to total bets. they got beat, they paid. He probably had a gyro and some baklava to settle down after the hundreds of thousands he lost on those. but he did pay. and they were much more correlated than these situations.
again most of these games have little or no correlation.
ovr 21 is a little different than ovr 22.
maybe someone will run it through the database. i am sure it has a small edge but that is an extreme example. and also the exact score at half would be make a difference.
much easier to just assume a first half that way we know the score was 0-0 and we know that both teams will be trying to score or playing more conventionally. i see that you mentioned first halves instead of second. good reason for doing so.
as of a couple years ago there was a major book taking 1Q NFL side to total bets. they got beat, they paid. He probably had a gyro and some baklava to settle down after the hundreds of thousands he lost on those. but he did pay. and they were much more correlated than these situations.
again most of these games have little or no correlation.
Right, I hear you. Assuming there is no correlation the chances of winning your parlay are .5*.5 = .25. However, if you have a scenario like with USC and Stanford (-41.5 and o/u 55), while the individual chances of each of those coming through are .5 (theoretically), if one comes through, the chance of the other coming through is not .5.
So, if I were to tell you that the game stayed under (.5), the chances that USC covered 41.5 is not .5. Without running it through some sort of calculations I don't know what those chances are, but the chances that under (.5) and USC covering (maybe .1, so .9 for Stanford) may make that correlated enough to swing an advantage. Soccer is the sport where it is a gold mine, but I don't know anywhere you can play sides to totals.
Maxdemo
For the record none of our registerd posters have complained yet about Sportsbook.com. confiscating their funds for playing correleted parlays.
The one case I am working is not a poster but natrually I am doing all I can to help him. Another player just registered on October 18th in order to talk about his case but so far I have no email from him.
I have an email from a poster who played at Sportsfanatik.com that I am trying to look into but we do not now or ever have had them here as a sponsor. I know they are all sister books but no matter what we do with the Sportsbook.com banner it will have little effect on Sportsfanatik.com player recruitment results down the road.
I get a lot of requests for mediation from non Rx posters and never refuse them unless I know for certain I can refer them to someone who may have a much better chance of getting them help than I can (I always add they can come back if they have no luck).
I have done this with poker site disputes several times and a few times with Bill Dozer at SBR over the years. Just because I am a moderator at The Rx.com doesn't mean a complete stranger sportsbook has to talk about how it does business with me if they do not want to. Some can be very unfriendly when they find out you want to discuss a slow pay or even worse no pay with one of their players and they have no affiliation with The Rx at all.
wil.
For the record none of our registerd posters have complained yet about Sportsbook.com. confiscating their funds for playing correleted parlays.
The one case I am working is not a poster but natrually I am doing all I can to help him. Another player just registered on October 18th in order to talk about his case but so far I have no email from him.
I have an email from a poster who played at Sportsfanatik.com that I am trying to look into but we do not now or ever have had them here as a sponsor. I know they are all sister books but no matter what we do with the Sportsbook.com banner it will have little effect on Sportsfanatik.com player recruitment results down the road.
I get a lot of requests for mediation from non Rx posters and never refuse them unless I know for certain I can refer them to someone who may have a much better chance of getting them help than I can (I always add they can come back if they have no luck).
I have done this with poker site disputes several times and a few times with Bill Dozer at SBR over the years. Just because I am a moderator at The Rx.com doesn't mean a complete stranger sportsbook has to talk about how it does business with me if they do not want to. Some can be very unfriendly when they find out you want to discuss a slow pay or even worse no pay with one of their players and they have no affiliation with The Rx at all.
wil.
So take down the banner in protest. IT is the right thing to do. Everyone else is doing it. If you win they take your money. If you lose they take your money. They are criminals and scammers pure and simple and letting them get away with it makes RX owners crooks too. What a complete disgrace.
sorry Wil didnt mean to imply that an rx'er was being stiffed...but still this doesn't sit well with me and should not sit well w/ the RX. Do we have to wait until an rx'er is stiffed before we yell wolf or does this situation call for alarm bells to be ringing....i choose the latter. This situation sets a very bad precedent for a book that is known as a scam book.
Just like BOS this can snowball into another one of those situations...one day they stiff a group of players and then they just say screw everyone....remember these are just My Opnions...
Just like BOS this can snowball into another one of those situations...one day they stiff a group of players and then they just say screw everyone....remember these are just My Opnions...
