Consider this "hypothetical" situation..and tell me, on whose side do you rule? Player or book? Here's the situation:
A book posts a prop bet with a line that's obviously mistaken (payoff is ten times higher than it should be). Player bets the prop for a smaller-than-usual amount of money and wins. Book pays the full win (ten times higher than it obviously should have been) with no questions or comments. Player continues to wager many times more than initial winnings on other games over the next several days.
Four days after the mistaken prop bet is made player requests a payout. Book looks over his action, "notices" that an obviously mistaken line was taken advantage of, and cancels those winnings, leaving player only with winnings corresponding to what the line "should" have been, rather than what it actually was. Player argues that he should be able to keep the full amount that was credited to his account 4 days before.
On whose side do you rule? Player or book?
Here are the arguments, as I see them, for both sides. Feel free to pipe in with your own:
Book:
-----
* - Line was clearly an error; too egregious a disparity to attribute it to a generous line. Book has the right to cancel bets with clear and obvious line errors.
Player:
-------
* - Did not knowingly take advantage of bad line; actually bet significantly less on that prop than he did on others. Logic would dictate that opportunities for 'cheating' should yield bets with HIGHER than normal wager amounts, not lower.
* - Statute of limitations should be in effect. While player acknowledges that book has the right to cancel bets with bad lines, that should be done immediately, on the day bet is made. Grading wager, paying it off in full, and then claiming four days later upon player's request of a payout that the bet is invalid is disingenuous. Player has already made future betting decisions on the basis of a balance already present in his account. Player would also not have the right -- if he had LOST the bet -- to claim four days afterwards that it was a bad line and thus the bet should be refunded.
What do you all think?
A book posts a prop bet with a line that's obviously mistaken (payoff is ten times higher than it should be). Player bets the prop for a smaller-than-usual amount of money and wins. Book pays the full win (ten times higher than it obviously should have been) with no questions or comments. Player continues to wager many times more than initial winnings on other games over the next several days.
Four days after the mistaken prop bet is made player requests a payout. Book looks over his action, "notices" that an obviously mistaken line was taken advantage of, and cancels those winnings, leaving player only with winnings corresponding to what the line "should" have been, rather than what it actually was. Player argues that he should be able to keep the full amount that was credited to his account 4 days before.
On whose side do you rule? Player or book?
Here are the arguments, as I see them, for both sides. Feel free to pipe in with your own:
Book:
-----
* - Line was clearly an error; too egregious a disparity to attribute it to a generous line. Book has the right to cancel bets with clear and obvious line errors.
Player:
-------
* - Did not knowingly take advantage of bad line; actually bet significantly less on that prop than he did on others. Logic would dictate that opportunities for 'cheating' should yield bets with HIGHER than normal wager amounts, not lower.
* - Statute of limitations should be in effect. While player acknowledges that book has the right to cancel bets with bad lines, that should be done immediately, on the day bet is made. Grading wager, paying it off in full, and then claiming four days later upon player's request of a payout that the bet is invalid is disingenuous. Player has already made future betting decisions on the basis of a balance already present in his account. Player would also not have the right -- if he had LOST the bet -- to claim four days afterwards that it was a bad line and thus the bet should be refunded.
What do you all think?
