Printable View
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id...onfusion-vegas
Very strange story, and I can't figure it out.
This bet (related to the NFL draft) was a clear winner, yet William Hill graded it a loser, and other William Hill books (such as ones in Tahoe) also graded it a loser.
No explanation was given as to why the bet lost, even though it was 100% a clear winner (it wasn't close or subjective).
Gaming got involved, and now most people are getting paid.
I'm still trying to figure this out.
The author of the ESPN author tweeted to me and gave me a little clarity.
Still very bad on the part of William Hill. Regardless of what they "meant" to offer, the bet is on what they DID offer.
I honestly think some dumbass at Hill graded the bet wrong because they didn't understand what they were doing and they probably even paid out a bunch of the "losers" so they didn't want to acknowledge a fuck up was made.
There were screen shots captured whereit said right on the online betting form "this bet means B Mayfield will be selected 8 picks before Jackson". The marketing department used these exact words in the press release. Combine all of that with the fact that what they were trying to sell as the grade made absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever and W Hill had no leg to stand on.
Shame on them for taking 3-4 days for doing the right thing. The fact that they had to bring in the CEO to sign off on the change and the fact that it seemed that they were going to try and only pay out a hand full of people is the real story here. It was almost like they asked "can we try and just buy off the few people who complained....... nope.... guess we need to the the right thing".
I'd expect this from Bovada or some third rate offshore, not from W Hill.
The bad bet on angle on Mayfield is a joke too. I was openly criticizing the Jets for wanting to take this guy 3'd and many felt it was a come on and that the earliest he would go is 6. both Miami and Arizona were supposedly going to jump in on Jackson or a team would need to trade up in front of them to land him around pick 11-14.... I liked Mayfield on this bet because of the Jets news and Jackson scoring a 13 on the Wonderlic news - but tonsay "Bad line" is a total joke.
Now all that being said they will take $500 prop bets from anyone who walks off the street so God bless them.
I agree that their refusal to make this right until forced is the much bigger story than the screwup occurring in the first place.
I think your assessment is correct. They paid out some losers as winners and wanted to find a way to worm out of doing the reverse -- or at least as much as possible.
LOL at them offering some people to cancel the bet and just give a refund.
Bothers me how the Nevada Gaming Commission seemingly didn't punish them for this. There should be a hefty fine when this occurs.
In fact, I'd love to see it where they're forced to pay bettors double when they are screwed like this, rather than any fine going to the government.
Part of me wants the BGC to drop the hammer on WH. As a prop player I selfishly hope they skate by on this. The more exotic offerings WH has on the menu the wider the door opens for advantage play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It's likely they didn't bother upgrading their point spread system. So 1 + 7.5 still "loses" ... duh. I don't agree they "meant" to ask which player's draft number was numerically higher (as per Purdum) ... that implies some thought went into the process. That would have fixed the problem but they didn't mean to ask that, they were just too lazy to realise that lower numbers are better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff