SPORTSBOOKS NEED TO STOP USING THE "OBVIOUS ERROR" EXCUSE TO GET OUT OF BIG PAYOFFS

[JohnCommode]

Look, I understand that if Michigan is listed as +60 points rather than -60 in a football game vs The Maine School of Upholstery, then that's an obvious error. However, they just appear to be using more subtle mistakes to avoid payment. Subtle mistakes are the price they should have to eat for offering a vast array of profitable parlays without being careful. I understand that this was an Indian casino and as Druff has often said, they can do whatever they want.

https://archive.ph/B7V7b

[Dan Druff]

In most of these cases, there really was an obvious and egregious error, and the bettors crying foul about it are simply trying to take advantage of the sportsbook's mistakes.

I don't blame bettors for tryig this, as the casinos are the ones posting the lines, but bettors can't cry when they don't get paid.

I agree that there needs to be a clear differential from other books in order to be judged a "obvious error". I see from the article you posted that the threshold is 100% in New Jersey. I actually think it should be higher than 100% -- maybe 200% or 300% error. Occasionally I have seen legit lines which are actually 100% better than the competition, just due to the books sleeping on a line change or stupidly setting the line.

Given that the situation described in the article shows a parlay in line with other books, 100% it should be paid.

It reminds me a bit of the pre-Obamacare individual health insurance situation. On one end, you had shady consumers not carrying health insurance, and then suddenly signing up and lying about their health when they get diagnosed with something big. So a person would suspect cancer, go to a doctor and pay cash, get diagnosed with cancer, and then quickly sign up for insurance. Then they would suddenly put in claims for cancer treatments a month later, claiming they just happened to learn about it weeks after signing up. This could cost the insurance company millions per person doing this.

In response, insurance companies started behaving in a shady manner themselves. They would find ANY excuse to cancel policies upon something expensive being diagnosed, even if the person had the coverage for 20 years without issue. So, for example, if you had coverage since 1990 and were diagnosed with cancer in 2010, they would dig up your 1990 application, and it was found that you didn't list anxiety disorder on your 1990 application when actually knowing about having anxiety, they wouldn't cover your present-day cancer either. Shady shit like that. They would actually give cash bonuses to employees for denying coverage to people with big claims, thus incentivizing shit like this.

So who was in the wrong here? Both sides. There were shady consumers cheating the insurance companies, and then insurance companies were cheating innocent consumers in response. I have a lot of criticism of Obamacare, but I will admit that it did put an end to this distressing problem.

The solution in this sportsbook case is for each gaming commission to set clear guidelines as to what consititutes an error.

[Mission146]

In most of these cases, there really was an obvious and egregious error, and the bettors crying foul about it are simply trying to take advantage of the sportsbook's mistakes.

I don't blame bettors for tryig this, as the casinos are the ones posting the lines, but bettors can't cry when they don't get paid.

I agree that there needs to be a clear differential from other books in order to be judged a "obvious error". I see from the article you posted that the threshold is 100% in New Jersey. I actually think it should be higher than 100% -- maybe 200% or 300% error. Occasionally I have seen legit lines which are actually 100% better than the competition, just due to the books sleeping on a line change or stupidly setting the line.

Given that the situation described in the article shows a parlay in line with other books, 100% it should be paid.

It reminds me a bit of the pre-Obamacare individual health insurance situation. On one end, you had shady consumers not carrying health insurance, and then suddenly signing up and lying about their health when they get diagnosed with something big. So a person would suspect cancer, go to a doctor and pay cash, get diagnosed with cancer, and then quickly sign up for insurance. Then they would suddenly put in claims for cancer treatments a month later, claiming they just happened to learn about it weeks after signing up. This could cost the insurance company millions per person doing this.

In response, insurance companies started behaving in a shady manner themselves. They would find ANY excuse to cancel policies upon something expensive being diagnosed, even if the person had the coverage for 20 years without issue. So, for example, if you had coverage since 1990 and were diagnosed with cancer in 2010, they would dig up your 1990 application, and it was found that you didn't list anxiety disorder on your 1990 application when actually knowing about having anxiety, they wouldn't cover your present-day cancer either. Shady shit like that. They would actually give cash bonuses to employees for denying coverage to people with big claims, thus incentivizing shit like this.

So who was in the wrong here? Both sides. There were shady consumers cheating the insurance companies, and then insurance companies were cheating innocent consumers in response. I have a lot of criticism of Obamacare, but I will admit that it did put an end to this distressing problem.

The solution in this sportsbook case is for each gaming commission to set clear guidelines as to what consititutes an error.

I don't think they should ever be allowed to offer a bet type that has average juice in the high-teens and then cry and void it when they fuck something up; that's especially true after the outcome has been determined. Just hire some human beings with a pulse to look at all parlay bets with more than x +ODDS or more than y potential payout and have them look for correlations. If they want to void bets before the first game (of the parlay) starts, then that's certainly fine.

You might say, "Well, what if someone makes a bet right before the first game starts?" In that event, the sportsbook should just close all parlay bets if the first game (to start) of the parlay is under one, or two, hours away from starting. If they hire the human beings to actually look at the bets being made, then that should give ample time for them to glance them over and look for correlations.

I find it astonishing that anyone should think that they be allowed to, 'Protect themselves,' by voiding bets after the result is known. Do they void the losing parlays (that were placed at a substantial player advantage), as well?

The onus should be on the industry to proactively protect themselves from such bets being made in the first place; or, at least, voiding the bet before any of the games have started.

[FRANKRIZZO]

Onus is on the book to provide correct odds unless its s something really eggrigious like the time a better flew to another state to take advantage of a clearance bonus. Forget the details. Its simular to guarantees and casinos cancelling them if too short of bonus or add extra flights.

[MattSoleyn]

If the sportsbooks book the action, they should be responsible to pay out whether it was an error or not.