Tweet
I'm looking for feedback on a situation in which an on-line book did not pay-off over $20,000 in winnings. In short, a bet was booked but after the bet won it was cancelled. It is obvious that if I had lost the bet, the book would have kept my money. There are other details to my situation fully explained below, but in the end it comes down to a simple fact: The bet was booked, the bet was graded as a winner, and then the bet was cancelled and over $20,000 in winnings deducted from my account. I'm not talking about a bet being cancelled 5 minutes before the game begins. It was cancelled after the bet was graded a winner! Obviously this is not fair. Although there are other issues involved, I think you will see that none of them comes close to justifying the book's actions. Nonetheless, I want to make sure that the book's side of the story is explained. Below you will find a concise summary of the main issues. For those interested in more details, a thorough description follows the summary. I sincerely only want to know what everyone feels is fair.
Summary:
1) Although I won $4,200 by betting on weak lines that consisted of dependent parlays, I have offered to return these winnings.
2) Although a warning was issued regarding manipulating lines for a middle opportunity, this does not address the real issue: Betting and winning $20,000 on an overnight line that was "off" by 3 points.
3) Although a friend and I analyzed bets together, and even placed them on the same computer, there are no rules posted that prohibit this.
4) Although I cashed out for $8,200 after the book had a change of heart about unjustly zeroing out my account, this does not constitute a settlement. A settlement is not a settlement unless communication takes place between the two sides and an agreement is reached. No communication took place.
5) An overnight line "off" by about 3 points should never be cancelled and especially not after the game is played! Can you imagine how disappointed you would feel if you made such a bet and the next morning they cancelled it because it was an "obvious" mistake? Now try to imagine how I felt after sweating out the games involved. First I was excited as anyone would be when winning a big bet, but then I was crushed the next day when I'm told the book is not honoring the bets! No matter what happened in the past, a bet should not be booked if there is no intention of paying off if it wins. In violating this fundamental concept of bookmaking, the book has kept over $20,000 from me that is rightly mine.
I have proposed a settlement of $16,000 as I'm willing to subtract the $4200 mentioned in item 1 from the $20,000 owed to me. The book has claimed they have done nothing wrong and is confident public opinion will support their view. I disagree since I feel a settlement of $16,000 is more than reasonable. I'm interested to hear what people have to say with regard to what is a fair settlement.
For a more detailed description of these points, please read on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Description:
I bet an overnight line that turned out to be "off" by 60 cents (ie. -110 compared to -170). This is the equivalent of about 3 points for a basketball game. Recognizing that this line had value, I played two parlays keying in on this game to two other games. Each parlay was made for the maximum amount that the book's software would allow: $4,000. Both parlays won and my account was credited with the $20,000 in winnings. However, later the next day the winnings were subtracted from my account balance.
Was $4,000 an unusual bet for me? No, and I'll tell you why. Most of my bets in the past year or so were also made for the max the software would allow. The limit varied widely in the range of $1000 to $3600. To get an idea of the type of action I gave the book, the 16 bets leading up to the overnight bets over a period of 2 weeks were: $2200, $280, $1000, $1125, $1450, $1100, $2000, $960, $2000, $100, $1100, $1800, $275, $1000, $750, and $1050. While none of these bets were as big as the parlays made on the overnight line, most of them have one important thing in common with the overnight line bets: The amount bet was the most the software would allow. In the past I have made bets as high as $3600, but it was rare for the software to allow higher than $2,000. Given my pattern of often betting the maximum, clearly they should have lowered the limit for these lines if they didn't want me to bet the limit of $4,000.
After talking to the customer service department, I was told I was not going to be paid the full amount. What reason did they give? The overnight line was "off" by the equivalent of 3 points and this was an obvious error. Of course I was disappointed. After all, it would be one thing to cancel such a bet the next morning, but to not honor it after the game was completed is obviously wrong. I asked to speak to the person in charge. I was told the owner would be given a message that I would like to speak to him.
Prior to being able to speak to the owner, he investigated my previous plays and questioned a bet made 3 months earlier. I had bet a $2,000 parlay on events that were not independent of each other. This was by no means a "lock". It still had only about a 30% chance of winning. For the mathematically inclined, the expected value of the parlay was about $500. In other words, I was getting odds of 3.1-1 when I should have only been getting odds of about 2.3-1. The parlay won and I was paid $6,200. Having discovered this, the owner was now really upset about the situation and decided to take more money from me. My account was zeroed out as the remaining $8200 was deducted from my account. In a matter of hours, over $28,000 was subtracted from my account and I hadn't lost a single bet!
What did I do next? To see how much I had won from "questionable" bets, I went through my records for the 2 years that I had an account with the book and identified any bet that might be considered questionable. I emailed a list of these bets to the owner. While these bets can be considered questionable because I had a well-defined advantage, they still involved risk. It's just that I was getting odds that were better than they should have been due to my ability to find bets that were not independent of each other.
A summary of these questionable bets including the parlay from 3 months earlier:
Total Bets: 8
Won: 4
Loss: 4
Profits from winning bets: $850 + $100 + $1000 + $6200 = $8150
Losses from losing bets: $1600 + $1000 + $900 + $400 = $3900
Net profit from these "questionable" bets: $8150 - $3900 = $4250.
As a reasonable settlement, I proposed that the book pay me the money owed to me but subtract the $4,250. The owner rejected the offer, saying that I was getting nothing back since the $20,000 won on the parlays was equivalent to "hacking" into his computers and stealing $20,000 from him. I had a hard time seeing any similarity.
While this was going on, a gambling buddy of mine who has his own account with the book also took advantage of two of the same weak lines:
A) Like me he won $6,200 three months earlier by betting $2000 on a dependent parlay at odds of 3.1-1 when it should have been 2.3-1.
B) He won $10,000 betting the overnight line that was off by the equivalent of 3 points.
He had already been paid $6,200 from the dependent parlay, but now $10,000 in winnings from two bets made on the overnight line was being withheld from him. He negotiated a settlement for $7,000 of the $10,000. During those negotiations, the owner asked my friend if the bets were made using the same computer as my bets. My friend told him that they were. There was nothing to hide. It was typical for me to call him while I was sitting at my computer and discuss the bets. I would place my bets on my account and then log into his account and place his bets for him. We had been doing this for some time and nothing had been said to us previously. Furthermore, there were no rules on their web site prohibiting this.
When the $7,000 settlement was negotiated, the owner of the book told my friend to tell me to look in my account since he was going to give back my original balance of $8,200. I cashed out immediately. I waited for the check to clear before calling to discuss a settlement for the $20,000 in winnings still owed to me from the overnight line bets. Upon calling, I was told that that when I cashed out, a settlement was reached and this case was closed. I cannot understand this type of thinking. A settlement is by definition an agreement for which two people agree upon the terms. If he really viewed that as a settlement, one would think he would have made it clear that he would only release that money from my account if I agreed this case was settled.
The owner also told me that I had been warned in the past. He was referring to some bets that I had made 6 months earlier. I had bet both sides of the same football game when I noticed that my first bet would change the line and offer me a middle opportunity. At that time he warned that any manipulation of the lines can result in bets graded as losers. When confronted, I offered to keep one side or the other in the games. He decided to cancel all the bets and that was it. He did not tell me that any future bet on a line that is marginally "off" can at his discretion be cancelled after the game is completed. This is exactly what happened and for an overnight line that was "off" by 3 points! If a book is going to take action under those one-sided terms, a notice should appear at time of confirmation of the bet saying something to the effect:
"Any bets made on "bad" lines are subject to cancellation even after the game has been played. Whether the line is "bad" or not is up to the sole discretion of the book."
If such a notice was posted anywhere on their web site I would not have placed this bet or any other bets for that matter. After all, what's to stop such a book from canceling a winning bet on a football game that was bet at +3.5 when it really should have been +2.5!
After evaluating all these details, I believe it still comes down to a sentence from the first paragraph at the top:
"The bet was booked, the bet was graded as a winner, and then the bet was cancelled and over $20,000 in winnings deducted from my account".
I can't see how any of the details outlined above should change the concept that once a bet is booked it should be honored. That said, I have proposed a settlement of $16,000 instead of the $20,000 owed to me.
I'm posting this info here in the hopes of getting objective feedback. When I suggested this to the book, they welcomed it. They felt the response would show that the book has done nothing wrong. I have provided the details of this case by being honest and only want a fair settlement. I'm interested to know if people think the book has handled this fairly and if not, what they think would be a fair settlement. Thanks for taking the time to read all the details.
Thanks,
mlbfan
Summary:
1) Although I won $4,200 by betting on weak lines that consisted of dependent parlays, I have offered to return these winnings.
2) Although a warning was issued regarding manipulating lines for a middle opportunity, this does not address the real issue: Betting and winning $20,000 on an overnight line that was "off" by 3 points.
3) Although a friend and I analyzed bets together, and even placed them on the same computer, there are no rules posted that prohibit this.
4) Although I cashed out for $8,200 after the book had a change of heart about unjustly zeroing out my account, this does not constitute a settlement. A settlement is not a settlement unless communication takes place between the two sides and an agreement is reached. No communication took place.
5) An overnight line "off" by about 3 points should never be cancelled and especially not after the game is played! Can you imagine how disappointed you would feel if you made such a bet and the next morning they cancelled it because it was an "obvious" mistake? Now try to imagine how I felt after sweating out the games involved. First I was excited as anyone would be when winning a big bet, but then I was crushed the next day when I'm told the book is not honoring the bets! No matter what happened in the past, a bet should not be booked if there is no intention of paying off if it wins. In violating this fundamental concept of bookmaking, the book has kept over $20,000 from me that is rightly mine.
I have proposed a settlement of $16,000 as I'm willing to subtract the $4200 mentioned in item 1 from the $20,000 owed to me. The book has claimed they have done nothing wrong and is confident public opinion will support their view. I disagree since I feel a settlement of $16,000 is more than reasonable. I'm interested to hear what people have to say with regard to what is a fair settlement.
For a more detailed description of these points, please read on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Description:
I bet an overnight line that turned out to be "off" by 60 cents (ie. -110 compared to -170). This is the equivalent of about 3 points for a basketball game. Recognizing that this line had value, I played two parlays keying in on this game to two other games. Each parlay was made for the maximum amount that the book's software would allow: $4,000. Both parlays won and my account was credited with the $20,000 in winnings. However, later the next day the winnings were subtracted from my account balance.
Was $4,000 an unusual bet for me? No, and I'll tell you why. Most of my bets in the past year or so were also made for the max the software would allow. The limit varied widely in the range of $1000 to $3600. To get an idea of the type of action I gave the book, the 16 bets leading up to the overnight bets over a period of 2 weeks were: $2200, $280, $1000, $1125, $1450, $1100, $2000, $960, $2000, $100, $1100, $1800, $275, $1000, $750, and $1050. While none of these bets were as big as the parlays made on the overnight line, most of them have one important thing in common with the overnight line bets: The amount bet was the most the software would allow. In the past I have made bets as high as $3600, but it was rare for the software to allow higher than $2,000. Given my pattern of often betting the maximum, clearly they should have lowered the limit for these lines if they didn't want me to bet the limit of $4,000.
After talking to the customer service department, I was told I was not going to be paid the full amount. What reason did they give? The overnight line was "off" by the equivalent of 3 points and this was an obvious error. Of course I was disappointed. After all, it would be one thing to cancel such a bet the next morning, but to not honor it after the game was completed is obviously wrong. I asked to speak to the person in charge. I was told the owner would be given a message that I would like to speak to him.
Prior to being able to speak to the owner, he investigated my previous plays and questioned a bet made 3 months earlier. I had bet a $2,000 parlay on events that were not independent of each other. This was by no means a "lock". It still had only about a 30% chance of winning. For the mathematically inclined, the expected value of the parlay was about $500. In other words, I was getting odds of 3.1-1 when I should have only been getting odds of about 2.3-1. The parlay won and I was paid $6,200. Having discovered this, the owner was now really upset about the situation and decided to take more money from me. My account was zeroed out as the remaining $8200 was deducted from my account. In a matter of hours, over $28,000 was subtracted from my account and I hadn't lost a single bet!
What did I do next? To see how much I had won from "questionable" bets, I went through my records for the 2 years that I had an account with the book and identified any bet that might be considered questionable. I emailed a list of these bets to the owner. While these bets can be considered questionable because I had a well-defined advantage, they still involved risk. It's just that I was getting odds that were better than they should have been due to my ability to find bets that were not independent of each other.
A summary of these questionable bets including the parlay from 3 months earlier:
Total Bets: 8
Won: 4
Loss: 4
Profits from winning bets: $850 + $100 + $1000 + $6200 = $8150
Losses from losing bets: $1600 + $1000 + $900 + $400 = $3900
Net profit from these "questionable" bets: $8150 - $3900 = $4250.
As a reasonable settlement, I proposed that the book pay me the money owed to me but subtract the $4,250. The owner rejected the offer, saying that I was getting nothing back since the $20,000 won on the parlays was equivalent to "hacking" into his computers and stealing $20,000 from him. I had a hard time seeing any similarity.
While this was going on, a gambling buddy of mine who has his own account with the book also took advantage of two of the same weak lines:
A) Like me he won $6,200 three months earlier by betting $2000 on a dependent parlay at odds of 3.1-1 when it should have been 2.3-1.
B) He won $10,000 betting the overnight line that was off by the equivalent of 3 points.
He had already been paid $6,200 from the dependent parlay, but now $10,000 in winnings from two bets made on the overnight line was being withheld from him. He negotiated a settlement for $7,000 of the $10,000. During those negotiations, the owner asked my friend if the bets were made using the same computer as my bets. My friend told him that they were. There was nothing to hide. It was typical for me to call him while I was sitting at my computer and discuss the bets. I would place my bets on my account and then log into his account and place his bets for him. We had been doing this for some time and nothing had been said to us previously. Furthermore, there were no rules on their web site prohibiting this.
When the $7,000 settlement was negotiated, the owner of the book told my friend to tell me to look in my account since he was going to give back my original balance of $8,200. I cashed out immediately. I waited for the check to clear before calling to discuss a settlement for the $20,000 in winnings still owed to me from the overnight line bets. Upon calling, I was told that that when I cashed out, a settlement was reached and this case was closed. I cannot understand this type of thinking. A settlement is by definition an agreement for which two people agree upon the terms. If he really viewed that as a settlement, one would think he would have made it clear that he would only release that money from my account if I agreed this case was settled.
The owner also told me that I had been warned in the past. He was referring to some bets that I had made 6 months earlier. I had bet both sides of the same football game when I noticed that my first bet would change the line and offer me a middle opportunity. At that time he warned that any manipulation of the lines can result in bets graded as losers. When confronted, I offered to keep one side or the other in the games. He decided to cancel all the bets and that was it. He did not tell me that any future bet on a line that is marginally "off" can at his discretion be cancelled after the game is completed. This is exactly what happened and for an overnight line that was "off" by 3 points! If a book is going to take action under those one-sided terms, a notice should appear at time of confirmation of the bet saying something to the effect:
"Any bets made on "bad" lines are subject to cancellation even after the game has been played. Whether the line is "bad" or not is up to the sole discretion of the book."
If such a notice was posted anywhere on their web site I would not have placed this bet or any other bets for that matter. After all, what's to stop such a book from canceling a winning bet on a football game that was bet at +3.5 when it really should have been +2.5!
After evaluating all these details, I believe it still comes down to a sentence from the first paragraph at the top:
"The bet was booked, the bet was graded as a winner, and then the bet was cancelled and over $20,000 in winnings deducted from my account".
I can't see how any of the details outlined above should change the concept that once a bet is booked it should be honored. That said, I have proposed a settlement of $16,000 instead of the $20,000 owed to me.
I'm posting this info here in the hopes of getting objective feedback. When I suggested this to the book, they welcomed it. They felt the response would show that the book has done nothing wrong. I have provided the details of this case by being honest and only want a fair settlement. I'm interested to know if people think the book has handled this fairly and if not, what they think would be a fair settlement. Thanks for taking the time to read all the details.
Thanks,
mlbfan
Comment