Story Here
French Open
Thanks
[This message was edited by The General on June 14, 2003 at 09:24 PM.]
French Open
Thanks
[This message was edited by The General on June 14, 2003 at 09:24 PM.]
I think i must've spoken about things in a slightly confusing matter.
When there were 8 women in the womens french open left i made 2 bets
1) BET ID=12918766
Future Wager 06/01/03 16:05 ET
1000.00/25000.00 Result: Wager Lost
2003 Womens French Open - Odds to win
Field (All Other Players) Lose 25-1
2) BET ID=12918763
Future Wager 06/01/03 16:05 ET
1000.00/3000.00 (paid 1000.00) Result: No Action
2003 Womens French Open - Odds to win
Kim Clijsters Lose 3-1
Here is what happened.
There were 1 field player in the top bracket vs. henin and the bottom bracket was entirely the field and clijsters.
I'm no professional handicapper or anything but i figured going into the finals the worst possible outcome was i would have clijsters at 2:1(subtracting my field bet) or field at 24:1(subtracting my clijsters bet).
I liked those odds. Why didn't i play this at pinnacle you ask? The lines were about 2.5:1 and 20:1
That's a big difference when you're laying a thousand per game.
So what happened here is this.
The manager let my bets stand. There was about a day and a half until the round of 8 was played. The field bet was removed from the top bracket via a loss and the bottom bracket was field vs. clijsters in the round of 4.
So as i thought i would have the field vs. clijsters in the bottom.
Then it advanced with Henin winning the top and clijsters winning the bottom. At this point the manager showed his true intention by giving the Clijsters a NO ACTION since it was favored to win and Field bet to lose since it had already been eliminated as Henin was NOT part of the field.
What i am saying very simply is this. The field bet and the clijsters bet should have both been no actioned. The manager let the bet stand a good week and cancelled it right before the finals. As i have said before this is the equivalent of me having a first half and 2nd half bet. And a manager letting the first half bet lose because it had lost and the 2nd half bet cancelled when the game is in the 4th quarter and the 2nd half is up.
The manager showed disgraceful intent to defraud and i should have 1,000 added to my account.
Amy
When there were 8 women in the womens french open left i made 2 bets
1) BET ID=12918766
Future Wager 06/01/03 16:05 ET
1000.00/25000.00 Result: Wager Lost
2003 Womens French Open - Odds to win
Field (All Other Players) Lose 25-1
2) BET ID=12918763
Future Wager 06/01/03 16:05 ET
1000.00/3000.00 (paid 1000.00) Result: No Action
2003 Womens French Open - Odds to win
Kim Clijsters Lose 3-1
Here is what happened.
There were 1 field player in the top bracket vs. henin and the bottom bracket was entirely the field and clijsters.
I'm no professional handicapper or anything but i figured going into the finals the worst possible outcome was i would have clijsters at 2:1(subtracting my field bet) or field at 24:1(subtracting my clijsters bet).
I liked those odds. Why didn't i play this at pinnacle you ask? The lines were about 2.5:1 and 20:1
That's a big difference when you're laying a thousand per game.
So what happened here is this.
The manager let my bets stand. There was about a day and a half until the round of 8 was played. The field bet was removed from the top bracket via a loss and the bottom bracket was field vs. clijsters in the round of 4.
So as i thought i would have the field vs. clijsters in the bottom.
Then it advanced with Henin winning the top and clijsters winning the bottom. At this point the manager showed his true intention by giving the Clijsters a NO ACTION since it was favored to win and Field bet to lose since it had already been eliminated as Henin was NOT part of the field.
What i am saying very simply is this. The field bet and the clijsters bet should have both been no actioned. The manager let the bet stand a good week and cancelled it right before the finals. As i have said before this is the equivalent of me having a first half and 2nd half bet. And a manager letting the first half bet lose because it had lost and the 2nd half bet cancelled when the game is in the 4th quarter and the 2nd half is up.
The manager showed disgraceful intent to defraud and i should have 1,000 added to my account.
Amy
Am I missing something here? Both bets should stand, as far as I can see, not both voided. I don't understand why the Book no actioned one, but they should rectify that and make it a loss, as that's what it wound up being, and the player questioned the no action before the event. It seems to me the player has $1000 extra that he shouldn't have. We often squawk when a Book voids a bet on a supposed "bad line" before the event and the bad line wins. We should also, if it's doing the right thing we're after, have the Book rescind the no action and score it a loss. If I am misinterpreting the situation, I apologize, as Tennis Betting is not my forte.
The Guesser:
If you look at the original story, the book is using some offshoot of the "syndicate" rule to justify voiding all bets from one particular State, and leaving identical bets stand from bettors in other locales.
Of course both bets should stand, but the book took it upon themselves to selectively void one of the bets, and let the other (losing) bet stand.
In light of this, the bettor was saying either void both or void neither.
If you look at the original story, the book is using some offshoot of the "syndicate" rule to justify voiding all bets from one particular State, and leaving identical bets stand from bettors in other locales.
Of course both bets should stand, but the book took it upon themselves to selectively void one of the bets, and let the other (losing) bet stand.
In light of this, the bettor was saying either void both or void neither.
I agree 100%. Void Neither is the only option. Will the player fight for the right thing when it means $1,000 less dollars in her account? The Book was entirely wrong to void the bet initially. The fact that it Lost should have nothing to do with it. If it had Won, I'd feel the same exact way. But I'm sure there would be a lot more outcry if it won, and that shouldn't be the case.
Also, was this the individual Book's decision, or did all the Starnets treat this the same way, if there were similar situations?
Also, was this the individual Book's decision, or did all the Starnets treat this the same way, if there were similar situations?
The Guesser:
This was the individual book's decision, not Starnet's (in another thread, I already asked Jay Leno if it would have been Starnet's doing or the book's).
-----------------
These two bets should never have been voided, but, since the Clijsters bet was voided (before the match began), they both should have been voided.
-----------------
The reason/rationale why the bettor believes that the two bets (at this point in time) should both be graded "Void" is as follows:
She publicly made the statement on this forum PRIOR to the match taking place to either VOID BOTH or VOID NEITHER.
Since the Clijsters bet at this point in time was currently VOID (from the book's perspective), and the book made no attempt to "reinstate" the void bet prior to the match, the assumption by most people would be that, at the time the match kicked off, the bet was effectively void. Thus, it makes sense that the bettor would be in the right at this point to request that the 2nd bet should also have been voided. (In addition, it's my gut feeling that these bets were part of a larger scalp, so maybe the Clijsters bet was replaced elsewhere before the match began)
That is why it's technically correct that the bettor should, at this point, ask to have the 2nd bet voided also.
On the other hand, if the sportsbook would have "reinstated" the Clijsters bet prior to the match starting, then the losing Field bet should have been graded a loss.
Basically, what should happen, is that the first losing Field bet should be handled the same way as the Clijsters bet was handled, and since the Clijsters bet was effectively "Void" going into the match, that's what should happen with the Field bet, also.
[This message was edited by Halifax on June 14, 2003 at 09:52 PM.]
This was the individual book's decision, not Starnet's (in another thread, I already asked Jay Leno if it would have been Starnet's doing or the book's).
-----------------
These two bets should never have been voided, but, since the Clijsters bet was voided (before the match began), they both should have been voided.
-----------------
The reason/rationale why the bettor believes that the two bets (at this point in time) should both be graded "Void" is as follows:
She publicly made the statement on this forum PRIOR to the match taking place to either VOID BOTH or VOID NEITHER.
Since the Clijsters bet at this point in time was currently VOID (from the book's perspective), and the book made no attempt to "reinstate" the void bet prior to the match, the assumption by most people would be that, at the time the match kicked off, the bet was effectively void. Thus, it makes sense that the bettor would be in the right at this point to request that the 2nd bet should also have been voided. (In addition, it's my gut feeling that these bets were part of a larger scalp, so maybe the Clijsters bet was replaced elsewhere before the match began)
That is why it's technically correct that the bettor should, at this point, ask to have the 2nd bet voided also.
On the other hand, if the sportsbook would have "reinstated" the Clijsters bet prior to the match starting, then the losing Field bet should have been graded a loss.
Basically, what should happen, is that the first losing Field bet should be handled the same way as the Clijsters bet was handled, and since the Clijsters bet was effectively "Void" going into the match, that's what should happen with the Field bet, also.
[This message was edited by Halifax on June 14, 2003 at 09:52 PM.]
