- Status
I have no stake in this whatsoever but I must say it is nice to see the RX and the sportsbook standing up and trying to correct a wrong. For those people who were warned multiple times, I would say, TOO BAD. For those that werent warned at all and had their money taken away, it is nice to see the sportsbook looking into their sweeping actions.
Looks like things are moving in the right direction.
ope:
arty:
Looks like things are moving in the right direction.
ope:arty:This book knew they were taking these bets. They did so for at least 5 years.
Either they are the dumbest people on the planet or it was a business decision for them.
Smart bettors got their parlay limits cut to $1.
Yet many dumb bettors I am sure played anti correlated parlays giving the house a huge edge.
Sportsbook ran into problems when it ramped up its totals on CFB this year. They got hit hard by some smart bettors faster than in the past when only 3-4 games were worth doing each week... Thus it was no longer a good business decision.
This is the only reason you can still bet correlated parlays now - lots of idiots keep playing the anti correlated ones.
They have no problem blocking Indians to win the ALCS and Indians to win the World Series.
I am sure they could block these if they WANTED to.
-Sean
Either they are the dumbest people on the planet or it was a business decision for them.
Smart bettors got their parlay limits cut to $1.
Yet many dumb bettors I am sure played anti correlated parlays giving the house a huge edge.
Sportsbook ran into problems when it ramped up its totals on CFB this year. They got hit hard by some smart bettors faster than in the past when only 3-4 games were worth doing each week... Thus it was no longer a good business decision.
This is the only reason you can still bet correlated parlays now - lots of idiots keep playing the anti correlated ones.
They have no problem blocking Indians to win the ALCS and Indians to win the World Series.
I am sure they could block these if they WANTED to.
-Sean
Sean - I have not responded to your unfounded statements ('there has to be more than 31 affected players'), but give it a rest. I does nobody any good for you come in and make statements that you have NO way of backing up. Just because you have not got an email or other warning does not mean other have not.
Sean - The parlays were playable because the only way for their software to stop them would end up blocking other customer from playing some non-correlated parlays.
It is like casinos in Vegas, they all have blackjack tables, but that does not give you the 'right' to play. If you are asked to not play in a casino, the you are expected not to play there.
Exactly teazeman...but the problem I have with them is that they stole money after taking the bet...Put the blame on their employees, pay the players their money, fix the software, and move on and learn from your mistakes...all books make mistakes, but not all books steal money from customers...
Sounds good to me. If a player agrees to abide by certain rules and doesn't, I don't care if the software allows the bet or not. It doesn't mean they aren't violating the rules. Don't get me wrong, I don't read the fine print when I sign up anywhere either, but I wouldn't be butt hurt if the book said you went against the rules, the bet is a loser.
I think what they did is the correct thing to do. I feel bad for the players that lost cash but in the end, they violated the rules. If you are in Vegas and you agree to not pull the lever 3 times when you only paid for 2 spins, and that 3rd one hits the jackpot, there is no damn way in hell you are getting paid out.
Anyway, figured I'd pipe in now that Sportsbook.com did what I was hoping they'd do. Not everyone deserves a refund if they violated the rules they agreed too...
I think what they did is the correct thing to do. I feel bad for the players that lost cash but in the end, they violated the rules. If you are in Vegas and you agree to not pull the lever 3 times when you only paid for 2 spins, and that 3rd one hits the jackpot, there is no damn way in hell you are getting paid out.
Anyway, figured I'd pipe in now that Sportsbook.com did what I was hoping they'd do. Not everyone deserves a refund if they violated the rules they agreed too...
If there wasn't an open robbery involved, this thread would be hilarious. I can't believe you are trying to spin this as if Sportsbook.com is now doing the "right" thing because on some of the accounts they are now refunding the losers.
Talk about lowering expectations. You guys should work in politics, either party.
They admit they knew it was going on since they claim they warned some people. So instead of fixing their software at the time, instead of clarifying their definition of correlated parlays on their rules page, they sent some accounts warning emails.
Why didn't they immediately fix their software and/or clarify the definition of a correlated parlay on their rules page? How hard would it have been to update the text on their rules page?
Many parlays are correlated. Every book needs to delineate their own standard of what is too correlated. The following parlays are correlated -2/o50, -10/o50, -15/o50, -20/o50, -25/o50, -30/o50. They are all correlated, what is their cut off for too correlated? By their rules they are all illegal.
I’m sure they also have a rule that once placed all bets are final and may not be cancelled by the player or the house.
Bottom line is they are still not doing the right thing and they couldn't care less about the power of the Rx or any other forum. Sportsbook.com’s attitude is we have the greatest URL in the world, we don't care, and everyone knows it. They almost dare you to drop them with their actions. But they never worried a minute. They know that the Rx values their check, whether it is fixed or affilliate based, more than its own integrity.
The Rx's attitude seems to be to polish this turd as best as possible and hope over time everyone moves on. This is no different than the Spring 2006 BOS bonus thievery. Every forum and every moderator agreed that BOS was in the wrong, but every forum refused to drop them.
I keep saying it, but we have come way down a slippery slope. I wonder if we are at the bottom yet. What does it take for a forum to drop an advertiser?
Five years ago, a book would have been drummed off the site for lesser shenanigans. The Rx would have put them on their black list and warned all players to stay away. Today, it's only about keeping the ad revenue flowing. What does that make the Rx?
Talk about lowering expectations. You guys should work in politics, either party.
They admit they knew it was going on since they claim they warned some people. So instead of fixing their software at the time, instead of clarifying their definition of correlated parlays on their rules page, they sent some accounts warning emails.
Why didn't they immediately fix their software and/or clarify the definition of a correlated parlay on their rules page? How hard would it have been to update the text on their rules page?
Many parlays are correlated. Every book needs to delineate their own standard of what is too correlated. The following parlays are correlated -2/o50, -10/o50, -15/o50, -20/o50, -25/o50, -30/o50. They are all correlated, what is their cut off for too correlated? By their rules they are all illegal.
I’m sure they also have a rule that once placed all bets are final and may not be cancelled by the player or the house.
Bottom line is they are still not doing the right thing and they couldn't care less about the power of the Rx or any other forum. Sportsbook.com’s attitude is we have the greatest URL in the world, we don't care, and everyone knows it. They almost dare you to drop them with their actions. But they never worried a minute. They know that the Rx values their check, whether it is fixed or affilliate based, more than its own integrity.
The Rx's attitude seems to be to polish this turd as best as possible and hope over time everyone moves on. This is no different than the Spring 2006 BOS bonus thievery. Every forum and every moderator agreed that BOS was in the wrong, but every forum refused to drop them.
I keep saying it, but we have come way down a slippery slope. I wonder if we are at the bottom yet. What does it take for a forum to drop an advertiser?
Five years ago, a book would have been drummed off the site for lesser shenanigans. The Rx would have put them on their black list and warned all players to stay away. Today, it's only about keeping the ad revenue flowing. What does that make the Rx?
Their people are too stupid to know what the rules were or even what a correalted parlay is...void the bet before the game starts, don't wait till 6 weeks later...I'm almost sure that their site couldn't even begin to explain a correalted parlay...Take a play, let them play the game, and then collect or pay...that is my rules!! I'm beginning to get mad as hell and I am not going to take it much longer...If you are going to book in this business, you better know what you are doing, if not ask Pinny, CRIS, Olympic, or Grande....
The problem with "agreeing to abide by rules" is that their rules were vague and ambiguous. Further, their software allows certain correlated parlays and not others, so how is the player even to know if they are breaking any rules. Presumably one should be able to assume the play is good if it is taken while others aren't permitted. for instance, 5dimes won't allow OU to be parlayed to the over but will allow NE to go to the over.
What is correlated and what isn't? They don't even know.
What is correlated and what isn't? They don't even know.
- Status
