Mark Vos is an Australian poker pro who has been around awhile, and won a WSOP bracelet in '06. He was once a Full Tilt red pro, as well.

Look at this weird exchange where he battled with a sportsbook he uses in his country:!/x/status/1385793814996996104!/x/status/1385797778488528896!/x/status/1385809813892857858!/x/status/1385811109664333825!/x/status/1385813055792062470


For those of you who don't understand this, Mark had one of his $565 bets at Southern Cross Bet "partialled", meaning they accepted it for a lower amount. He bet $565, and only $56 (10%) was accepted!

Then they promoted that same game on their Twitter, and Mark posted what had just happened when he tried to bet it.

Someone at Southern Cross at first decided to be diplomatic about it, but once Mark mocked them for being afraid of his action because he was supposedly up $20k on them, the gloves were off. Mark also said that he assumed the rejection of 90% of his bet was because he previously hammered some tournament bets after day 1 when they hadn't been updated to reflect the new odds, and Southern Cross caught onto it and cancelled the bets.

They accused him of being unethical for not notifying them of their mistake, and instead trying to bet obviously stale lines. When Vos questioned them for calling him out in such a fashion, they said they were "teaching him a lesson". Wow!

I'm actually on Vos' side on this one, for the most part. While past-posting (betting on matches already completed or started) is pretty much cheating the sportsbook, simply betting on poorly set lines isn't. It's up to the book to update all of their lines, just like it's up to you to not bet on terrible lines.

While I understand why Southern Cross is irritated with him, they should have just ignored his remark on Twitter, and the whole thing would have gone unnoticed.