Sports Interaction has stiffed me for $2,500. What should I do?

[vindaloo]

Before the start of Wimbledon I bet £68 (about $100) at 33/1 that an unseeded player would reach the final of the men's singles. Philippoussis duly obliged and I was paid in full almost immediately. A few days later I received an e-mail saying that they were snatching back most of the money, and paying me at only 8/1.

I realise that sportsbooks sometimes make mistakes entering the odds into their systems and have to correct them later, but this was clearly not such an instance (how can 33/1 be a typo for 8/1?). They have acted in violation of their own rules and ripped me off for about $2,500.

After five e-mails to their customer service department I have still not received an answer to any of the questions I have asked. They refuse to put me in touch with anyone senior within the organisation, and since I started asking what their procedure was for resolving complaints they have simply ignored my e-mails. I'm happy to provide a transcript of all the e-mails to anyone who is interested.

Has anyone else had the same bet and been stiffed? Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to go about recovering the money?

Any help appreciated.

[This message was edited by Pob on July 25, 2003 at 09:52 AM.]

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Send it to me with your name and account number and I will see what I can find out.

patrickmcirish@therx.com

BTW welcome to the Rx, I wish it was under better circumstances but nice to have you.

 

[Seymour]

First and foremost: WHAT WAS THE LINE at most books? Was it 8/1, 9/1 or 10/1 or was it 35/1 or 30/1. If the line everywhere else was 10/1 please get lost.

 

[The Guesser]

Here we go again. Another book using the "bad line" excuse to cover for their own incompetence, and stealing money from a Player AFTER the bet is decided. Book it, Pay it. If SIA didn't notify the player BEFORE the event it was a bad line, SIA has no case. Doesn't matter what the lines might be at other books, if any other books even had such a line. Casa Blanca all over again. It goes on and on.

 

[vindaloo]

Thanks Patrick. I'll forward you the e-mail exchange. I'm glad to join this forum. It seems very active and I look forward to being involved in the future.

No other book that I saw had a price on this prop. However, if they had contacted me before the event and cancelled my bet I'd have had no problem with it. I understand that obvious errors can and should be corrected, but in this case they just waited for the result and then changed their minds or decided they'd misjudged it.

I also find it highly insulting that they refuse even to answer the questions I've asked them in my e-mails and won't put me in touch with anyone involved in the decision. What's more, they appear to have no independent procedure for settling disputes and have a policy of not replying to e-mails when they don't have a satisfactory answer.

All in all, it doesn't add up to the sort of book I'll be using in the future. A shame really, since I've always considered it an excellent book during the several years I've been using it.

 

[Igetp2s]

I was also stiffed on this bet, although for a smaller amount $20 to win $660, they paid me $160. I also sent them an email about 2 weeks ago, which has gone unanswered:

"I find this decision by your sportsbook to be unacceptable. You did not notice the problem late in the tournament as you claim in your email, you sent out this email after the bet had already won! The tone of your email, as if this were no big deal to change the odds after a bet has won, is shocking. This type of thing is not supposed to happen, and should be taken a lot more seriously than it appears you are.

How exactly am I or anyone else for that matter supposed to wager at your sportsbook, if there will constant doubt as to whether a wager will be honored or paid out in full. I would be much more understanding if this were a 1 time thing, but there seems to be a significant problem with a large number of your wagers.

I also find it hard to believe that you did not notice the incorrect price for 2 weeks as you claim. You even sent out an email last week about people who were placing correlated parlays between this prop and other unseeded players to place 1st or 2nd. While that decision is completely justified about cancelling the correlated parlays, it is hard to believe that when you noticed that problem, you did not also notice the problem with the odds on this prop.

From the way you have handled this decision, it appears that you simply took a free shot at players. You would not have to say anything if the prop lost, but now that it won you dont have to pay out in full. While I think that not to be the case, there certainly is that possibility. Worse, you have given no indication that this wont happen again. Also, how come none of these mistakes with wagers are in the players' favor. Every single one of them seems to be in your favor. Have there been any cases where you noticed an incorrect price and paid out more than the odds that were wagered?

I expect a much better explanation regarding this matter, and a much better solution to the problem, than was given in your email. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you."

I since have had my account closed for winning too much, so not sure if anything can be done about it. Still $500 is not a small amount for me. I did not see this prop anywhere else, so I could not compare it to another line. It just looked like really good odds for a long shot. I honestly had no idea who was and who was not seeded.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Thanks POB - active forum but they won't always say what you want to hear. LOL. Anyway yes I will look for the paperwork from you.

As far as an independant council to look into these sort of things, actually this book is on the reservation that looks into player/book disputes. The problem is the books pay these people whom "regulate" them and make decisions on disputes. To my knowledge the Khanawake Council has never ruled for a player in a dispute with the books. So be aware of it but I wouldn't hold my breath getting a favorable ruling from them. Still it is another alternative.

There are some legit reasons to play at SIA (nice lines) but customer service is not one of them IMO.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Not going to get much support from this guy concerning bad lines and prop bets. Pretty much open territory for all shot takers, as it is as tough for books to determine the correct line as it is the shot takers.

Even if they can furnish proof that it was misposted, it's too tough to distinguish between intent and what the action may have done to the number, most props move on very little action.

Just my opinion, that Denis should pay the guy, maybe he can used some of the confiscated money from Iwinordie.

 

[BigRagu]

Pat not sure if this helps, I know the bet was on the field but here are pre-tourney odds on Philippousis at 3 different books

Ladbrokes (UK) 9.00
Bet365(USA) 7.50
Bet365(UK) 7.50

There were two others I haven't heard of that also had odds which were higher, let me know if you need the link. bigragu344@aol.com

Ragu

 

[Igetp2s]

Just as a follow up, I might understand the bad line story, except that it took them more than 2 weeks to notice, until after the bet had won. That cannot possibly be believed.

 

[JoeyC]

Mc Irish will get to the bottom of this story.

Just give it some time... it's early boys.

 

[vindaloo]

Philippoussis is 16/1 to win next year's Wimbledon with The Tote (the UK's state owned bookmaker), and that's despite his vastly better than expected performance at this year's tournament. He would have been bigger odds this year I imagine, although I don't actually know what odds he was with anyone except Sports Interaction. Generally the UK bookmakers are much more generous than Sports Interaction on this kind of event (in contrast to odds on individual mathces, where the UK bookies are a rip off).

Interesting that I'm not the only one who's been ripped off here. I suspect that Sports Interaction didn't realise until too late that they'd built up a huge liability on this prop. Then when they lost they decided they didn't fancy stumping it all up, so they kept three quarters of it for themselves.

 

[Skyweasel]

It's been shown more than once that SIA are
crooks. They just hang on because of
their square line and all the dumkopfs on
these newsgroups who proclaim it as a reason
to play there. Periodic stories of being
ripped off by them are common on this and
other message boards. Changing a line or bet
or policy AFTER their big loss is a common
tactic of theirs, it happened to me a couple
of years ago. Once was enough.

 

[lander]

I'd have to agree with Seymour. If the field (which sucks, because 'field' is different across shops) was an a serverely different set of odds then SIA simply made a mistake & are probably correct in adjusting your payoff (albeit horrible business practice). It's tough to say .. if the best odds were 8/1, 10/1 then they clearly made an error ... but if others had 25/1, 20/1 then considering SIA's reputation for sweet dog prices I'd say they are stealing.

 

[lander]

Actually, the more I think about it the more I think SIA is correct.

You filthy Americans were trying to steal from another honorable Canadian shop. We'll we're not having it up here in the True North ... taking your filthy American stealing ways back to your ghettos.

Dirty Americans.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I bet £68 (about $100) at 33/1 that an unseeded player would reach the final of the men's singles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not a straight futures bet, see? It's a prop bet, doesn't matter what anyone else had, these bets move on hardly any money, and who's to say who's price is right and who's is wrong?

 

[Dante]

Welcome Pob I am sorry to hear that happened...I will never understand on a line like that a book can just cancel a bet or adjust the odds if it hits. I tis just not fair .

I can understand an obvious bad point spread like -25 instead of -10 but no that type.

I believe if the books has the line there and its not obviously wrong at the time it sticks

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Be patient POB, will see what we can dig up.

 

[Igetp2s]

Patrick there was no other side. It was only a "Yes" type bet

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Sorry P2, I was editing it before you posted. I just got his e-mails and wrote to SIA.

Thanks Ragu, thanks men. Will see what they say on this and will report back when I get something. Until then no sense in me commenting on it.