Thanks General for mentioning me but in all honesty I would very much prefer to remain a mouse and do what I can when I can behind the scenes. I honestly think other than General the rest of the Rx. Mods should act as contacts between posters and the negotiation team and leave the actual negotiations to Major, Ken, Tow, SBR, General and any posters who are nominated and elected. I know some of the mods have excellent rapport with different books and natrually those relationships should be used to help along any situation. There are a number of posters who understand the workings of both bookmaing and betting many have been already mentioned. Noteworthy are posters D2bets, Chips, Krackman, Jay C. Bill Dozer, Walk of Life, Davied Matthews, Wild Bill, Lakerfan, Halifax, MD Kid, Sport Savant, Judge, Dimeplayersonly, and several others. FWIW I think OldManTed is way to valuable as a handicapper and I would hate to have his work ethic be diluted with disputes that others could handle (I know he could do it but we need him in the forums with his most excellent capping
).
Moderators don't take this the wrong way - I just feel that we should continue to moderate and let others handle this importatnt issue. Natrually General is already negotiating disputes daily and should be included in any group set up for that very prupose.
Best of luck, wil.
).Moderators don't take this the wrong way - I just feel that we should continue to moderate and let others handle this importatnt issue. Natrually General is already negotiating disputes daily and should be included in any group set up for that very prupose.
Best of luck, wil.
Last edited:
With all do respect, I think the creation of an arbitration panel will have a lot of unforseen consequences.
Take this BCN case for example. The player got paid. My guess is he got paid because Ken and the others were able to persuade BCN, that for PR sake, they should pay him. But I know if I was on an arbitration panel, I doubt I would have voted that he be paid anywhere close to the amount he got. BCN cancelled the wager. I don't think they should ahve cancelled the wager. But they did cancel it before game time. They emailed him, and tried to call him. So he had no money at risk. SOme could reasonably argue, that since the book really had no justification in cancelling the wager, the wager should stand. But others like me, would argue that the two are somewhat seperate issues.
So players should realize that by going to arbitration, you may well get less tahn what you would by working behind the scenes, or even by posting your issues
Take this BCN case for example. The player got paid. My guess is he got paid because Ken and the others were able to persuade BCN, that for PR sake, they should pay him. But I know if I was on an arbitration panel, I doubt I would have voted that he be paid anywhere close to the amount he got. BCN cancelled the wager. I don't think they should ahve cancelled the wager. But they did cancel it before game time. They emailed him, and tried to call him. So he had no money at risk. SOme could reasonably argue, that since the book really had no justification in cancelling the wager, the wager should stand. But others like me, would argue that the two are somewhat seperate issues.
So players should realize that by going to arbitration, you may well get less tahn what you would by working behind the scenes, or even by posting your issues
I think we can all agree that the most valuable lesson here is that Lander is usually right and Major is usually wrong.
In seriousness, had the book just kept the wager instead of enforcing the bad line on what appeared to be a normal line then the chain of events (within the rules, but still unfortunate) would NEVER have occurred.
I can appreciate the bad line rule, but only when there is an obvious bad line.
In seriousness, had the book just kept the wager instead of enforcing the bad line on what appeared to be a normal line then the chain of events (within the rules, but still unfortunate) would NEVER have occurred.
I can appreciate the bad line rule, but only when there is an obvious bad line.
For a book to enforce the bad line rule, "obvious" needs a clear definition.
I think a good start for "obvious", is that the posted moneyline clearly puts the book at a negative expectancy. In this case the book is relatively new, there is no way for anyone to know for sure what they meant to have up. This could have been a special, of which you see quite often. The line wasn't off market. The -260/+240 clearly has a hold for the BM. Mistakes happen (the BM's claim), and we would all like to correct our errors. However, this one was too minute to qualify for the bad line rule. It was refreshing to see clear thinking and integrity prevail here.
Nice job Rx and BCN
"The Existence of Client Trust is a Must"
I think a good start for "obvious", is that the posted moneyline clearly puts the book at a negative expectancy. In this case the book is relatively new, there is no way for anyone to know for sure what they meant to have up. This could have been a special, of which you see quite often. The line wasn't off market. The -260/+240 clearly has a hold for the BM. Mistakes happen (the BM's claim), and we would all like to correct our errors. However, this one was too minute to qualify for the bad line rule. It was refreshing to see clear thinking and integrity prevail here.
Nice job Rx and BCN
"The Existence of Client Trust is a Must"
