Sportsbooks canceling bets.......

[alec]

Alexander,

I totally agree with you. I believe that the scenarios you came up with are very common. In fact, the situation when a bettor place a bet after the beginning of a match happened more than once to the firm where I was working. And you are right, it was up to the book to make a decision.

But the problem is that no detailed rules can describe all possible conflicts. Thats why I think both bettors and sports books need some independent judge for such cases.

I am not 100% sure, but I guess I read on William Hill site that if a bettor and the firm can not come to an agreement the final decision is up to the chief editor of Sporting Life newspaper or something like that.

I think it sounds very reasonably.

[AYCE]

Alexander,

just keep telling me that I don't understand your point is actually a very poor arguement.

Your point is so simple and bored.

THE BOOKS SHOULD NEVER CANCELL ANY BETs AFTER CONFIRMATION.

PERIOD.

They took our money in every ways they like, and we are going to do the same to them.

You believe they have a written rule given to you BEFORE you play the game is STILL UNFAIR because its ONLY for their protections, you believe you don't have any protections.

You believe they can cancell any of your bets any time they want at any way they like, even they VERY SELDOM do that UNREASONABLY as you can't even give out a real example, you believe it DOESN'T mean they won't in the future.

You believe under the present situation, the books will have absolute power to cheat you anytime and anyway they like SO you are going to do the same to them.

Well, my question is, why are you still want to gamble?

Gees, why are you still want to play this UNFAIR game?

If most people out there are thinking the same as you, why are the books still have so many customers playing everyday, because they are all stupid suckers?

Granted, no rules and no laws are PREFECT. The same situation happened in this issue.

But when you can't even give out a clear suggestion/definition, can't even give out a real example, and just yelling out loud,

"They have absolute power to cheat us so we should do the same to them!"

Its pretty naive.

When you are using this as an excuse to defend Krackman and believe his bets should be honored,

its just stupid.

The situation is, when you need to honor Krackman's bets, it will become a world that the books will try everything to cheat us in every ways they like.

BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE ANY RULES THEN.

If you think the present rules on this issue are NOT clear enough, as most of us will agree, the right thing should be express your opinions in a more rational and civil way BUT NOT TO DEFEND WHAT KRACKMAN DID and just yell out loud,

"They will take our money anytime in anyway they like!"

Don't think the rules are FAIR? Then don't play the game.

Or better yet, try to change their rules IF YOU CAN.

Try to set up your own rules "to protect yourself" and ask any books to accept them before you play the game.

Will you?

Try to learn something, Alexander.

For most Australian and Euro books like DAS and WH, etc.

They have also rules stated clearly that,

if there will be any disputes than can't be solved between the books and the customers, they are willing to go to an independent arbitrator as try to settle it.

Now, try to convince me that they will work with the government IN ANYWAY AND ANYTIME to cheat your money also.

Now, also please tell me which point I still don't get it from you.

[Alexander]

Alec,

I know that there are probably too many possible scenarios to cover, but the rules governing the cancellation of wagers enforced by most sportsbooks is almost non-existent. They pretty much do as they please, and I doubt that they will go out of their way to come up with at least a better explanation of their rules regarding their cancellation policies. Why should they give up, or diminish this "overwhelming" power they wield? Their primary concern is too protect their interests, not the bettors. I am not familiar with William Hill, but I will check out their site, and I have no objections to any disputes being handled by an independent judge.

I truly believe that a bet is a bet. And if the sportsbooks want to reserve the right to cancel bets, at least do it before the game starts, and try to notify the people involved, whether by e-mail, phone (for privacy issues, I personally don't want them phoning), or even have a big notice on your website that so and so game will be cancelled etc... Don't wait until the game is over, or a couple of days later because this just gives the sportsbooks way too much leverage in cheating you if they so desire.

To sum it up, the ambiguous rules used by sportsbooks to reserve the right to cancel your bet whenever and however they please is an overwhelming power they use in order to ensure that they never ever get cheated. But for the bettor, he is prone to any cheating that may cross the mind of an unscrupulous sportsbook because he must "live by their rules", and the sportsbook doesn't really have to abide by any rules, because they really haven't defined these rules themselves.

There have been 60 posts regarding this topic, yet no sportsbook wants to come in here and clarify their cancellation policies. Maybe, they aren't aware of the interest in this topic, but I'd bet they'd rather just keep their ambiguous policies as they are. I just don't think it is asking for too much to try to understand the why, when, how, and whats regarding the rights of a sportsbook to cancel bets.

[Bob]

I'm with you all the way AYCE, but there's no convincing some people. All these "scenerios" amount to a bunch of lawyer talk trying to justify stealing as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I prefer my book catch bad lines and cancel all the weasel wagers made on them. I want my book to have cash for me when I win it fair and square....not to have doled it out to thieves who jumped on a bad number.

That said, books that try and hide behind the excuse of a bad line when they try and cancel legimate plays that are just a couple of point off the norm are also crooks. But personally, I have never had it happen.

[WhiteShoes]

these situation have a way of working themselves out. Is anyone going to play with
a book that cancels their wagers? Is a book
going to stay in business long if it offers
up a steady diet of mistake lines?

Sure, a book could make money by occasionally
putting up a bad line, and canceling only
when it is in their favor...after the fact.
(though a bad line would ususally win)

And sure, a bettor could make money by only
feasting on mistake lines.

But no bettor, or book wants to put up with
the respective other side. Books that do
this will end up having no customers and
bettors who do this will end up being
86'ed, or continually having their bets
continually canceled.

[WhiteShoes]

these situation have a way of working themselves out. Is anyone going to play with
a book that cancels their wagers? Is a book
going to stay in business long if it offers
up a steady diet of mistake lines?

Sure, a book could make money by occasionally
putting up a bad line, and canceling only
when it is in their favor...after the fact.
(though a bad line would ususally win)

And sure, a bettor could make money by only
feasting on mistake lines.

But no bettor, or book wants to put up with
the respective other side. Books that do
this will end up having no customers and
bettors who do this will end up being
86'ed, or continually having their bets
continually canceled.

[BigMoney]

krackman, maybe after 60+ posts I've lost the bubble. Weren't some of these bet cancellations based on gray area differences in the line? Or were all these occurences for obvious mistakes?

Ayce, you're making your arguments from the standpoint of an honest bookmaker. Sure, most are. But there's just no reason to leave this ambiguous and up to the BM's disgression as to whether he pays. There really is a gray area which could be exploited. And there really is a gray area in which it might appear that the player intentionally played into a bad line, but really had no idea.

It just baffles me that there can't be more definitive rules set on such cases.

[BigMoney]

OK, Ayce, I think I answered my own question. I agree that krackman's examples are pretty much obvious errors, assuming they are American Sports on the Don Best Feed.

But I do still believe that there is a gray area that can and will be exploited by some dishonest bookmakers. And this gray area can and will cause a lot of heartache and disagreement amongst even honest parties. There's just no reason to allow it to remain gray.

[MonsterNco]

nm



[This message has been edited by MonsterNco (edited 11-28-2000).]

[Alexander]

Ayce,

I think the word common sense is foreign to you.

Books can do a much better job of explaining to us, the betting public, under what circumstances they can cancel a bet, if they really cared or wanted to. Why don't we have some type of survey here?

Question 1
Do you the bettor fully understand all the situations in which your book will cancel a wager already confirmed?

a) yes
b) no

Question 2
Would you like your sportsbook to be more specific as to what situations would have to occur before they could cancel a wager?

a) yes
b) no, I have faith they will always have a good reason, so I don't question it

Question 3
Do you believe that sportsbooks should be allowed to cancel a wager:

a) only before the game in question starts
b) at any time they so choose
c) never

If you answered b) go to Question 4

Question 4
Do you realize that giving the sportsbook the power to cancel a wager after knowing the outcome of the game involved can lead to some questionable practices by an unscrupulous sportsbook?

a) yes
b) no

Even though your sportsbook's reputation may be rock solid, is it not still better to completely eliminate the possibility, even how remote it may be, that your sportsbook may use their ambiguous cancellation policies for their benefit?

a) yes
b) no

If you answered no, please state your reasons

END OF SURVEY

Ayce, do me a favour and answer these questions.

I am not defending anybody who takes advantage of bad lines. I have no problem if the book wants to cancel these wagers, but I really believe that their right to cancel a wager should cease once that game in question starts. They should also post that cancellation on their website, so that people know about it. Is it too difficult for a sportsbook to have a posting or message board regarding cancelled games?

I don't know how many times I have to say this to you Ayce, but vague cancellation policies, and cancelling wagers after those games in question have been completed can lead to some shady practices by the sportsbooks. You keep going on and on about how unlikely this is, but the possibility does exist, no matter how remote it is in your head. So if we can eliminate this possibilty, would you not agree that this would be in the best interests of the bettor?

If a sportsbook cannot spot a bad line before that game starts, then they shouldn't be in business. How hard is it for them to notice that one particular side is being drilled, while the other side is taking little or no action. If it is just their incompetence, or lack of desire to spend money on resources (employees, computer programs, etc...) then it should be a lesson learned.

What if a line is only off by a point? Let's say that I decide to play the game. I have no idea that the line is off because a) I only have one book or b) I am just a recreational gambler. I make my wager on-line and it is accepted. As the game is in progress, I review my pending wagers and the bet is still there. The game is over and I have won. I check my account an hour later and that winning bet I thought I had made has disappeared. I am livid, so I phone in to customer service. They tell me my bet had been cancelled because the line was bad. Well, somehow I feel really cheated because my bet was accepted, so it should be honoured. Simply put, if the book decided to cancel my wager, then in everybody's best interests, it should have been done before the game started. This way there are no hard feelings, and I don't start questioning the integrity of my sportsbook. Can you give me one good reason, Ayce, as to why sportsbooks should be allowed to cancel wagers after a game has already started?

[Alexander]

Monster,

What you asked the book to do was not unreasonable. A really good book, with the happiness of the customer in mind would have let you reverse that play. If a customer makes a mistake, as long as the line hasn't changed, and he isn't reducing his wager, I can't see what the big deal is. Let him correct his wager. But making a mistake is a one way street with most books. You can't make any, and they can. Even if the line moved, as long as you didn't reduce your wager, and were willing to swallow the extra point or whatever, then you should have been allowed to correct your mistake.

[AYCE]

Well, it took about 60 posts for some of you guys to understand "it maybe a wrong decision to stand behind Krackman", but it probably will NEVER make you guys to understand something rational and basic.

Bigmoney, I repeat (again), my argument is NOT based on a standpoint of a honest bookmaker. My argument is based on the RULES (although you may argue its not perfect).

It doesn't matter what that BM is a SOB or the honest person in the world, ONLY thing matters to me is the RULE. Thats why and what I have told Intheknow.

When you join a book and play the game, you have to read and agree the RULE as follows before you play,

"When a line is put up in obvious error due to a typographical mistake by the book, any customer wagers entered to take advantage of the error will be cancelled.
ie) when the wrong team is put up as the favorite or
when a Point Spread, Total, or Money Line is off by a significant amount."

If you are an experienced gambler and still have difficulties to understand this RULE, you should QUIT gamble.

Then if you still want to take advantage of those bad lines and obvious errors (although they don't have a clear cut numbers on it but for most of the cases, don't try to fool me and yourself that you don't know whether its a bad line like Krackman's examples), its your choice.

But if you will get caught and your bet will be cancelled and you still want to cry for it and want to make an argument.

How stupid was that!

It has nothing to do with what kind of person that the BM will be, if you try to steal their money, you will be punished if you got caught.

How simple was that!

Secondly, if you want to argue whether the books should cancell your bets BEFORE the game started, you also don't have much grounds.

Like I said, if you are a thief and they warn you already before you try to steal and you still go for it, you should not use the word FAIR. When you understand thats the bad lines and you go for it, you are INTENTIONALLLY wrong at first, you are playing against the rules, why would you expected you should still protected by the rules?

Now, about the gray area. Yes, the rule did NOT clearly define what the numbers should be and its basically a common sense pratice, for example, the standard that I have mentioned above. Its in the best interest of both parties that we should have a more clearly defined rule, but its more easier to say it than to get it done.

But don't forget, like Whiteshoe had mentioned, the market itself has also regulating the gray area. If there will be any books out there that will attemp to cheat you by using that gray area, the words will spread out soon and they won't stay in the business for long.

Again, I would to repeat this, how often you will see in here or over the net that a bettor will complain that his bet was cancelled because the books told him that the line was off by a pt of 2? Any examples?

How long will that book stay in business if this happened regularly?

Look, this is NOT the prefect situation but it is the way that presently working. You wnt to change it? Fine, give your clearly opinions and tell the world what should do and how to follow your step, don't just use some empty and bored arguments without and facts and examples to back you up.

Finally, Alexander.

Please do not repeat your empty and boring argument again and again, please find some facts something make sense to support your points.

Its like,

one day you murdered your neighbor and you told the police,

"That son of a b!tch had a shotgun, I know if I didn't kill him today, he may kill me tomorrow. I did nothing wrong officer."

Yeah right, the books have a powerful weapon on their hands, we will get killed anytime and in anyway they wanted, so bros, if you don't steal, you are stupid.

Yeah right!

Common sense? Common sense is using facts to make your judgements but NOT YOUR IMAGINATION AND YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

I don't have my total trust on any sportsbooks, I ONLY trust the rules of the game. And I believe under the current system with the present rules, it works ALTHOUGH ITS NOT THE PERFECT WAY AND THE IDEAL WAY IT SHOULD BE.

But until you and someone can provide some ways to change it, you should not say,

"Its not the best rule, so we should play with no rules."

Stop using that 1 pt example, that was a very poor example and assumption. You find an example for me that which book will be dump enough to do it and they will stay in the business. Will you?

Don't use something irrational and nonsense to make you believe your argument, look at the facts.

Assumption should be based on rationals, if not, just tell me that,

"I need to kill tht SOB today or he will ue his shotgun to kill me and my family tomorrow."

"I saved America!"

[krackman]

Ayce- Your examples are so DRAMATIC they are the basis for a movie. Call me what you want a shot taker,theif, and murderer you are looking at this being a Bookmaker.Do you have any idea how many people have done what I did already? And will in the future? I just had the ball$ to post it and get feedback.

Nico said it best I myself have called and tried to change bets with some of the names on the left and was not allowed even though the line had not changed.So if they take a bet it confirm the bet it should not be canceled.

And if intheknow works for the book I think he does I give him credit and can verify his post .And here is a message to sportsbooks I understand that it is hard to get good help and sportsbetting is still relatively new to the offshore island people but please ...You have line managers that you have trained to put up the lines IT IS LIKE ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS THEY DO and they should be held responsible.

And AGAIN the only reason I started this topic was because I wanted to get opinions NOT CRY AND WHINE. The only line I can whine about (which I am ) Is the -200 and when I called to bet a dime they said now it's 280.

[WhiteShoes]

here's one example for you.

If a mistake is made on your bank statement
and you suddenly have more money in your
account than should be there, the bank
has the right to take your balance back
to where it should be....even weeks after
the fact. If you withdrawl the money
they have the right to legally come after
you for it.

Isn't this the same thing as a mistake line,
just a number or set of numbers in error resulting in a misappropriated funds.

The banks don't play the game of "typo
errors" count and finders keepers, so
why should sportsbooks be any different.

Then again, if a bank offers you a certain
percentage on a loan, and tommorrow the
interst rates skyrocket, they must honor
their agreement. This is much the same
as when a line moves and you have gotten
a better line than what is now available.
The books have no logical recourse to
cancel your bet because you had the
foresight to bet it.

[Alexander]

Whiteshoes,

Of course a bank should be able to take back their money as a result of an overpayment, even if it is their mistake. And they should be allowed to do this whenever they discover the error, whether it is an hour later, or a week later. But the bank cannot stiff you because they are only getting back what is theirs, no more, no less.

If a sportsbook puts up a bad line, and everybody takes advantage of it, I feel that they should be able to cancel only before the game starts. Unlike your scenario, with the bank, the sportsbook can stiff you, if you allow them to cancel wagers whenever they feel like it. What happens if the other side wins, and that means huge profits for the sportsbooks. Well, if the sportsbooks have the authority to cancel games after games are already completed, they can also decide NOT TO CANCEL games. So, the sportsbook could decide not to cancel that particular game, and keep the profits. Of course, if the logical side won, and they face heavy losses, you're darned right they would cancel those bets.

The bank can't stiff you, they will just take back their overpayment, whereas the sportsbook can stiff you if they wanted to.

Let's say a bad line is posted such as Stanford +4 (vs. UCLA), when Stanford should be -4. If I bet Stanford, and take advantage of the line mistake, I am sure the sportsbook would cancel my bet if Stanford covers (one sportsbook I know honours their mistakes, either because they feel it is the right thing to do, or maybe they just can't trace those accounts that take advantage of their mistakes). If Stanford doesn't cover, who knows, they might decide not to cancel the game, and take their massive profits. Will all those people who either by mistake or just lack of knowledge bet on UCLA get their money back if Stanford covers? The sportsbooks could justify not refunding those wagers because these people did not take advantage of a bad line (they actually got taken advantage of). Could you guarantee me that the sportsbooks would refund those wagers on UCLA? I would love to bet the wrong side of a bad line one day for big money just to see if the sportsbook refunds my bet if it loses. They might do the right thing and refund it, but chances are I bet you, I'd have to phone in and complain to them first, or they could just decide to keep my money. A lot of these questions could be answered if the sportsbooks wanted to be more specific in regards to their cancellation policies.

But the sportsbooks ability to cancel bets whenever they want to, does not just come into play with bad lines, but what about situations where they accept bets that they claim they should not have? (bets that exceed limits, non-parlayable bets, etc...) How would you like it if they accepted your bet, and without even notifying you, cancelled your entire wager, or just the part that supposedly exceeded their limits? If your bet loses, they could decide not to cancel it anymore. Because the book can cancel wagers whenever they feel like, then it is obvious that they can use this to their advantage. Is it so wrong to want a more clearly defined set of rules regarding the cancellation of wagers? But I really do believe that sportsbooks should not be able to cancel wagers after that game in question has started.

Ayce believes that sportsbooks should be able to cancel games whenever and however they want to, especially so they can catch all those CROOKS. We, the bettors, shouldn't ask for more specific rules and regulations regarding this matter because as he put it, "If you don't like the rules, don't join".

AYCE'S SPORTSBOOK

Rules and Regulations

Actually, we don't have any clearly defined set of rules and regulations. I don't feel that we really need any, because if we ever decided to stiff you, the betting public, then we could go out of business.

Ayce, you have very simplistic viewpoints. All your arguments hinge on requiring me to give you specific examples of sportsbooks taking advantage of their vague cancellation policies. I bet you there are many instances, where they may have tried to, and either were succesful, or only after the bettor called in to complain was the matter resolved. Do you really think that Bettorsworld represents the whole gambling population? You're one of those people that will conduct a survey, and after surveying only 20 people, decide that you're findings are 99% accurate. Maybe there are 1,000 people posting on Bettorsworld. There are millions of people gambling with offshore
sportsbooks. You do the math.

You feel that sportsbooks don't have to be more specific with their rules and regulations governing cancellation policies. If there ever is a Protection for the offshore-bettors union in the future, I would nominate you. Your motto would be, "We don't need more specific rules to protect us, let's wait until we get screwed, then we'll show them a thing or two".

You should open up your own sportsbook since you obviously have no concern for the betterment of the bettors' rights.