RESPONSE FROM BETCBS ON TENNIS SITUATION.......

[vinividivinci]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beentheredonethat:
Guys, If books pay this type of play, you will find they soon will not have enough money to pay you when you win. But, then of course, with attitudes like you are showing here, it is doubtful that you have the basic skills to be a consistant winner. They moved the line the wrong way by mistake and still paid most of the wagers. Even paid part of the 2 wagers that were tied together and are paying in full the other 2 that were originally not paid in full. JJ, you need to take off your hairpiece and let your brain get a little air, it is starved for oxygen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should we want to bet with incompetent bookmakers. If they hang enough "bad lines" they ought to be out of action.

Do we ever see mention of "bad lines" at CRIS, OLYMPIC or PINNACLE? Anybody know why? They do not make stupid, lazy-assed mistakes on any kind of a regular basis and upon the rare occasion they do they fix it and go on with the rest of the millenium.


VVV

 

[Java]

Beenthere-
So, they appear to be paying 7 of the 9 wagers they accepted. That's most of the wagers, but was it most of the wager amount?
If the 5 they paid without problem were all $10 wagers, who give's a f*** that they paid these 5?

I think the exact amounts and timestamps of all 9 wagers should be posted.
Patrick, can you (or other moderator investigating) get this info? I think that might clarify the value of the 5 they paid. Also, did any of the players paid belong to Agents, and not to Casablanca directly?

Looking for chart of the form:
Time Amount Casa/Agent
12:03am $50 Casa
01:45am $100 Agent

 

[beentheredonethat]

They paid all but 6 dimes of their liability. The two players that were not paid half of their play each KNEW they were playing into a bad line and were tied together. ANYONE that plays into a bad line knowingly to scalp is a FOOL. The 400 was a bit high but within acceptable variance -- 600 should have been a call to the book --- if when called the book confirmed the line then they should be held accountable. Yes, it is troubling that they could leave the line up and take 9 bets at the bad number --- I am sure they will deal with that situation --- but remember 7 of those 9 were paid in full. The two that they could prove knew better got more than they deserved.

PS. If the 7 bets were small, that would be the reason the line manager did not see the exposure -- I doubt they were small, I expect they represented a decent dollar amount of payout --but, that is not the real issue --- bad line, call and confirm before you play or expect anything that you get. It is not like the "if you write it you pay it in Nevada"

 

[max1234]

VVV,

CRIS is a bad example to use, they still haven't settled those bonus situations and apparently aren't going to. They're no better than CBS in this case, IMO.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I actually misread the payout -- it is nine dimes short plus any difference between the "normal" play of the other two players and what they actually played x 6.05 --- still-- if you bet into a bad line without confirming it you are taking your scalp in your own hands and potentially making it a nude play. Don't come crying when you get caught -- you are at fault.

 

[TTinCO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Java:
Tinco-
Of course the books, players and forums prefer to have this settled quietly.
Areeff is claiming he got 'final decision' of NO for this, so felt this was his best recourse. He posted Dave Johnson's email with the BS about limits were $200 instead of the posted Tennis limits of $1000 and also claimed account was set incorrectly.
Those arguments were all shot down by posters, and Dave did not bother to bring them up in his 'official' response.
Even after Dave's response, a lot of posters still feel Areeff should get paid, since Dave paid the other players at the same line. Also, they seem to find the claim that he sat on the game and graded a bad line (only to cancel it hours later) at odds with his claim they knew about the bad line the whole time.

In light of Dave's brazen (and yet weak) defense and the general opinion that the bet should be paid, under the circumstances, the forum and a public outcry was probably Areeff's last/best shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Java, the way I understand it, "Dave" was out of the country at the time & had said that he would review the situation when he got back. I'm not 100% certain if this was his story all along, or only after being contacted regarding the rage in the forums. For that matter, I'm not sure that "Dave" is a real person-or multiple people.

The tennis limits of $1000 vs. the prop or matchup limits of $200 is an interesting twist that does appear to have gone unanswered in all of this. I believe that I read that this was changed on their website after the fact (But I can not confirm).

I too would be interested in the breakdown of all the plays on this particular side.

I know you've put a lot of effort into getting to the bottom of this, and it's obviously far from a "cut & dried" answer. This book had a pretty good reputation before this....despite the fact that they apparently stiffed everyone when they bought betsba.

There seem to be fishy ongoings on both sides here.

 

[vinividivinci]

max 1234

I know where you are coming from and agree with you regarding the bonus points. Cris is just being hard-headed about that and has no legitimate leg upon which to stand.

The "bad line" issue, however, is quite another matter. I would be very wary of any bookmaker (note "bookmaker" and not book) not willing to be a "stand up guy" and pay off on the lines he hangs.

I ask again, "bad line" issues at Cris, Olympic, Pinnacle.?


VVV

p.s. Never send your hard earned money to a book that sends you an e-mail saying "Thanks for the $660, sucker."

p.p.s Also, never send your hard earned money to a sportsbook that decides after you have won that the line was not correct (because they are incompetent) and you will not be paid in full for your wager.

 

[DannyMay]

The book probably intentionally posted a phat price on the dog knowing they would get heavy one sided action on the dog from scalpers who could get the favorite cheaper elsewhere and players who thought it was worth a shot at +605. BetCBS figured " who cares if its +400 or +605 it will likely lose anyway". A book can do this anytime it wants and they will take heavy one sided action on the dog. If the favorite wins they clean house, if the dog pulls the shocker all the book has to do is scream bad line.

There are WAY WAY WAY too many bad lines being posted for it not to be on purpose.

 

[vinividivinci]

On purpose is not the issue. A bet is a bet where I come from. If these guys are intentionally posting bad lines (I had not considered that possibility) then we have a serious Johnny Knockdown issue working.

Where have all the honorable bookmakers gone?

Actually there are still quite a few around but they don't make the boards by doing business like it's supposed to be done. Don't see a lot of threads like "Wow, XYZ sportsbook never hangs bad lines."


VVV

 

[soccerbob]

DannyMay- That has been my main point of contention in this instance. This place shaded a line knowing they would get all the play on the dog and figured they would lock up all that cash but then there was an upset so all of a sudden, it's the wrong price, Bullshit.

CBS posted it, booked it and they should pay it. This book is done. I'm sure Dave could come to Las Vegas and run a sports book though. Incompetent idiots are always welcome to run a joint here. He would fit right in.

 

[seawave]

Dave, if I bet at a bad line and lost, can I get a refund?

 

[jjgold]

Dave is a shot taker

 

[beentheredonethat]

JJ,

You are the shot taker. Sure Timmy might have a lawsuit --- when hell freezes over. But, on the other hand, you consistantly slander and make irresponsible statements and hid behind a false identity. Why don't you post your real name and address and make those same accusations?

 

[TTinCO]

JJ, that might be the smartest thing you've said regarding this entire issue.

I think that it's quite possible that both the player and the book were taking a shot here.

No one on either side is completely innocent here.

 

[The Guesser]

Since Dave said they took many bets on this event throughout the evening, after the "incorrect" line, that leads one to believe there was more than the 9 bets he acknowedged on the winning side. So it begs the question, how were the losing bets handled? Or do Many = 9?

 

[marc]

2 things don't make sense to me.
1) They knew long before the match that thye posted a bad line. But rather than attempt to contct the players, and offer to either cancel the wagers or post them at the correct line, they chose to wait and see who would win. It sound to me that the true sho taker here is Dave. Dave created a terrible situation by posting a wrong number an d not noticing for so many hurs. But he still could have rectified the problem. In stead he decided to try to turn a bad situation into a win win situation. if the underdog loses, he keeps all the money, if the dog ins, he decides how much to pay.

2) What makes ablsolutely no sense, is that Dave admits his original line was +400, and he admits contrary to what others posted that his line was in fact higher than most other books. He further admits that he intended to adjust the line to +350. So by his own admission the "correct line" was between 350- 400. So why did he only offer Arreef and the other 3 players +300. He not only arbitrarily lowered their wager amount, but he adjusted the odds to less than what he intended to offer.

And the reality is that he didn't give them +300 he gave them +150. If Arreef lost, Dave would definitely have taken the full $1000 form him. But now that he won, he's only paying out 1500, that means the odds he's paying is +150, whihc is a far cry from the +350 he claims he intended to post.

When the line was originailly changed to +605, that was human error and forgivable. Not catching it tunil hours later after 9 people bet on it, is the sign of a poor wagering departmnet. And every step Dave has taken since then just demonstates more and that he is in the wrong line of business.

 

[raiders72001]

IMO what CBS did is they said we'll fvck the people that we don't want playing here any longer and pay those that are sure losers to keep them happy. All should have been paid. After that they can then boot the 2 if they would like. They should have canceled the bets before the match started if they weren't going to honor them.

 

[krackman]

VVV- No

 

[THE SHRINK]

Dave Johnson,

You and I have not always seen eye to eye, yet I believe we have grown to respect one another over the years...

I have read your "DEFENSE" of not paying out the gamblers several times, and I really tried looking at it from your side exclusively..

But, although your argument is artulate and impressive, the truth still remains that you honored some bets at the "Bad" number, but you chose to dishonor other bets, based on profile type, behavior patterns, and other criteria more releveant to forensic pathology, rather than bookmaking...

The cardinal rule for a bookmaker is if you accept a bet, then you honor the bet.

I'd have given your case much more attention, had you been consistent, but you weren't...

YOU PAYED OUT some of the gamblers, but you actually DISCRIMINATED against others...

I have NEVER heard of any REPUTABLE sports book behave in this fashion, and it is insulting to our posters (as you can see), because no matter how you sugarcoat it, you are STEALING money from players because they used robots and they looked for opportunities?

SHEESH...

If you don't HONOR the WINNING bets in full, I will place you on our QUESTIONABLE list beginning tomorrow, and that's a PROMISE...

You own a business, it's your business and I can't force you to pay out even though I believe you should.

However, I also run a business and it is my obligation to warn other gamblers that if they play into BETCBS, they may not get payed if you consider your line to be weak...

I hope you take what I am saying to heart because you have earned a good reputation in this industry but your judgement in this case is clouded at best...

Rarely, do I ever see such one sided opinions by many of our sharpest gamblers/posters, all in favor of the gambler...

Surely, you are a sharp businessman, but we all do make mistakes...

What separates the winners from the losers in life are those people who can learn from them...

THE SHRINK

 

[dogball]

SHRINK
THAT IS ONE OF THE BEST POSTS I HAVE EVER SEEN YOU MAKE>
GREAT WORK AND I THINK WE ARRIVED AT SIMILIAR CONCLUSIONS THROUGH LIKE LOGIC

DAVE REALLY ARTICULATED HIS ARGUMENTS EFFECTIVELY< TO THE POINT IT HAD ME RETHINKING A FEW TIMES, FINALLY I COULD NOT GET PAST THE DISCRIMINATION

THANKS