[vegaslegend]

Sportsbook.com yesterday stole $5000.00 out of my account saying that I placed illegal parlays. Anyone have any suggestions on any recourse that I may have???

[bigboydan]

First off, welcome to the SBR forum Vegasledend

I put nothing past sportsbook.com nowadays. Hopefully more and more people will finally realize why they have a D+ rating here at SBR.

If you need assistance with your dispute please fill out this complaint form with your details, and one of us will inquire on your behalf.

[vegaslegend]

Thank for your help!! I filled out the complaint form.

[DrunkenLullaby]

I know of at least two other people that had the same thing happen to them yesterday. From what I understand, they (Sportsbook.com) has confiscated net winnings on college football parlays that they, in their sole discretion have deemed "correlated" - even though their system accepted them. I'm told the parlays were all dog to under or favorite to over on games with large favorites. The kicker is that they decide yesterday to confiscate net winnings dating all the way back to SEPTEMBER 1st.

I'm so glad that I no longer play there anymore, because if I did I'm sure I would have played these parlays and been stolen from as well.

[Bill Dozer]

Yes, there has been some large and unjust confiscations. We received a few complaints today and some yesterday and hope to have mgt. state what this was based on tomorrow morning, if not tonight.

[joey825]

I get chills everytime I see a sportsbook.com post. I can't believe these guys are still around. I too, have decided never to place a wager with that book again.

[HedgeHog]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

Yes, there has been some large and unjust confiscations. We received a few complaints today and some yesterday and hope to have mgt. state what this was based on tomorrow morning, if not tonight.

Add me to the list of those ripped off. They confiscated $9014.56 from my account. And they lowered my parlay limits to $1. I'll send you a copy of my email, Bill. Time to lower their rating to at least D- (I'd say F, but they are paying what they "think" they owe to others even if it takes almost 3 weeks).

[trixtrix]

3k taken from my acct as well. Not a letter, notification, history, email, or at least thank you for your donation card..

sb/hollywood has stepped way over the line for this one.. does anyone remember when hollywood was actually a standup book?

yea me either..

here's what i wrote on another forum regarding this: "i believe sportingbet ****ed up this time, the goal here i believe is to rob a small population of the the clientile for a large sum of money. while allowing them to detach themselves from the small percentage of sharps they likely find undesirable from their book at the same time."

[frostno98]

Until this year, sportsbook.com didn't have many lines on the total in college games. So in the past year, i'm guessing they didn't take too many beatings on correlated parlays. With more total lines available now and no ristrictions on correlated parlays, the sharp bettor's must had feasted on correlated bets last month.

It shouldn't be the players fault that their software allowed correlated bets to begin with. By confiscating players winnings because of a mistake on their end, is just flat out wrong. That baseball thing was bad and now this. Damn, Sportsbook! I thought you guys were supposed to get your act together already.

[Checkerboard]

vegaslegend, good luck. With Bill and the people here on it, you're situation is in the right hands. They've helped me and many others before and hopefullly they're going to be able to help you here . . . best of luck!

[paul Mordeeb]

I guess I'm closer to a square than a sharp. I do a lot of middling, I might bet a money line on one site than the dog wrapped with the under on another site. You start cancelling parleys and it would be like double losing!!!!!

[gmoney641]

So is sportsbook.com going to refund any of the so called "corrolated parlays" that lost during this time? lol

[HedgeHog]

Small error in last night's Sportsbook wire. I think you meant to say wagering UNDER (not over) the total score with the Underdog.... (in regard to correlated parlays)

Once again I appreciate SBR's help in this matter. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a rogue D Book that simply doesn't care. That Baseball pitcher misspelling, and ultimate canceling of winning bets, is a prime example of a Book that is making up its own rules as it goes along.

[JoshW]

I can't believe that this decision will stand. These bets might have an edge, but it is still gambling. If they want to stop taking them in the future that is one thing, but taking funds like this on winning bets is unreal.

[DrunkenLullaby]

....and perhaps the least surprising thing of all is that there is zero mention of this topic on TheRx. The goodly Kaiser Wilhelm must be really burning the midnight oil to suppress this one and protect his bedmate/sponsor.

[vegaslegend]

Does anyone have any updates??

[patswin]

WOW I can't believe these guys can get away with this stuff. Glad I never used them or any of their sites.

[Justin7]

From their rules:

Parlay or Multiple Betting
No parlay wagers can be accepted where individual wagers are 'connected' , 'dependant' or 'correlated'. For example, one wager in your parlay is for Sampras to beat Agassi in the 4th round of Wimbledon and the second or additional part of the parlay is for Sampras to win the overall Wimbledon title. The match forms part of the overall tournament and is therefore 'correlated'. In the same way, you cannot parlay the total of the first half of a football game with the total of the game line itself, as the two are 'dependent'.

Despite the rules, this is an improper confiscation. If Sportsbook doesn't want same game parlays, they should AT A MINIMUM include this example in the rules, and put a warning on the NCAAF betting screen. A better alternative is to simply disallow same game parlays (either all, or ones they think are correlated).

It's further outrageous that they allowed this for over a month, and THEN went back to confiscate balances. Even going back a full week is sketchy.

Did anyone make a correlated parlay that LOST? And was the account credited for this?

[DrunkenLullaby]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Did anyone make a correlated parlay that LOST? And was the account credited for this?

From what I'm told, they are confiscating NET winnings on these bets from the people they decided to steal from. So, in that sense , I guess they are crediting losers back along with subtracting winners. Of course, that has zero relevance toward making their decision a just one.

Those rules, while they do mention correlation, do not at all mention the less innocuous correlation of fave to over & dog to under. With THEIR current interpretation, it looks like there is nothing to stop them from cancelling a Cincy-3 to Over 42 parlay this Sunday after the fact if it is a winner. There's correlation there too! Very low, but it does exist!

[HedgeHog]

Did anyone make a correlated parlay that LOST? And was the account credited for this?[/quote]

Don't know if I got credit for my losers. The email they sent me said that they confiscated over $9000 from my account for playing correlated parlays. No accounting was given for how this number was reached.

[ProlinePlayer]

Originally Posted by bigboydan

First off, welcome to the SBR forum Vegasledend

I put nothing past sportsbook.com nowadays. Hopefully more and more people will finally realize why they have a D+ rating here at SBR.

If you need assistance with your dispute please fill out this complaint form with your details, and one of us will inquire on your behalf.

Seems to me that a D+ rating is way too generous for this outfit.

[LargeMouthBass]

This poster sounds like a poster in LVA sports that brought up this scenario. But he seems like he disregarded all the warning signs and used to defend sportsbook.com

Quote from vegaslegend, "2 years ago I would have agreed (with the D+ rating) because they did some stupid things re fees and bet grading,

but under current conditions they: A - pay, B - allow betting from US, C - allow **** deposits, D - give good bonuses, E- often have soft lines

If they wanted to steal $ they would have just not allowed any withdrawals after January."

Tsk, tsk, tsk... Now why would you ever defend a shit book?

[BigDaddy]

I had same thing happen to me at another book actually put me in the red and they said i owed them LOL! it happened 2 years ago so they dont allow them anymore and i have not paid or played with them since. my balance was low at the time when they figured it out so i never cared about recovering my small balance

[LargeMouthBass]

Originally Posted by DrunkenLullaby

From what I'm told, they are confiscating NET winnings on these bets from the people they decided to steal from. So, in that sense , I guess they are crediting losers back along with subtracting winners. Of course, that has zero relevance toward making their decision a just one.

Those rules, while they do mention correlation, do not at all mention the less innocuous correlation of fave to over & dog to under. With THEIR current interpretation, it looks like there is nothing to stop them from cancelling a Cincy-3 to Over 42 parlay this Sunday after the fact if it is a winner. There's correlation there too! Very low, but it does exist!

The way it sounds, this guy won't get his money back. Expensive lesson but it's a lesson indeed...

[BigDaddy]

LMB how can you justify taking peoples money? upgrade your softeware so the bets dont go through or put in your rules no side to total on large spreads its as easy as that

[LargeMouthBass]

Who said I was? I'm just not surprised that sportsbook.com did some shady stuff like this just by looking at their past. I don't understand people that defend sportsbook.com, BetUS, or other shady books...

[exstatman]

This must be a fairly recent change as they offered them on basketball games this season.

[HedgeHog]

Originally Posted by LargeMouthBass

Who said I was? I'm just not surprised that sportsbook.com did some shady stuff like this just by looking at their past. I don't understand people that defend sportsbook.com, BetUS, or other shady books...

LMB: Sportsbook.com turned really bad only within the few months. Their rules on correlated pars are vague at best. I have been with them for many years and this is the 1st time I got burned. Once I heard about the Baseball pitcher ripoff, I began multiple withdrawals at the max ($2500), but I couldn't get out in time. Now, they still stole $9000 back. It's up to them to setup their system for the parlays they will and will not allow. They are crooks, much like Cascade--and both will be gone by this time next year (along with the $$$).

[DrunkenLullaby]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

Yes, there has been some large and unjust confiscations. We received a few complaints today and some yesterday and hope to have mgt. state what this was based on tomorrow morning, if not tonight.

Bill, I presume Sportsbook's elite management crew has (as per their history) failed to state anything as of yet?

[Bill Dozer]

Sportsbook.com is indeed facing another downgrade.

To update on the latest issues, we have given a report to upper management who is going to get their facts straight with wagering directors and let us know what is going to stick and what, if anything, will be reversed.

For those who asked about the rule Justin7 pasted, I checked our betting rules archives and it shows that the rule has been there since we started monitoring in June. The rule is subjective describing obviously connected bets but fails to mention parlaying legs in the same game which sometimes is allowed at sportsbooks. Obviously this is something the software should prohibit.

We also need to find out how long these wagers accepted. Will they claim it was due to a software glitch over the past 1.5 months or have they accepted these for years? Has everyone who parlayed same game bets had their losses refunded? There are alot of places to look to make a more persuasive case.

[Bill Dozer]

Originally Posted by DrunkenLullaby

Bill, I presume Sportsbook's elite management crew has (as per their history) failed to state anything as of yet?

They certainly don't move quick. Our last visit to their office resulted in reversed decisions that were over a year old. We should see faster results with a bigger spotlight on them.

[DrunkenLullaby]

Thanks for the update Bill.

To answer one of your questions: Although I am (mercifully) not involved in the current fiasco, I can personally attest to having played similar dog/under or fave/over parlays there for years prior.

Not that it really matters, but since they do not have a published threshold for what is or isn't correlated, I would love to hear what stops them from retroactively cancelling a parlay win on someone who played a dog+1 pt and under 60 in some random game. As I said earlier, we all know there is some minimal level of correlation even in that instance.

As always, Olympic is a good industry benchmark. They allow some & lock out the ones they don't want so that this situation can never arise.

[HedgeHog]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

Sportsbook.com is indeed facing another downgrade.


We also need to find out how long these wagers accepted. Will they claim it was due to a software glitch over the past 1.5 months or have they accepted these for years? Has everyone who parlayed same game bets had their losses refunded? There are alot of places to look to make a more persuasive case.

They have been accepting these bets for the past 5 years and more at SB and their many affiliates. This is the first time they cracked down on it, without ever changing their rules. They wouldn't put totals out as much as this year, but their system never disallowed same game pars. The worst part of this recent confiscation is that they don't tell you how their figure is reached. I have no idea if my lost "correlated" pars were credited against the supposed winnings.

[Bill Dozer]

Originally Posted by DrunkenLullaby

Thanks for the update Bill.

To answer one of your questions: Although I am (mercifully) not involved in the current fiasco, I can personally attest to having played similar dog/under or fave/over parlays there for years prior.

Not that it really matters, but since they do not have a published threshold for what is or isn't correlated, I would love to hear what stops them from retroactively cancelling a parlay win on someone who played a dog+1 pt and under 60 in some random game. As I said earlier, we all know there is some minimal level of correlation even in that instance.

As always, Olympic is a good industry benchmark. They allow some & lock out the ones they don't want so that this situation can never arise.

Good post. But, I do think it is very important. Picking a random time frame of a month and a half to void wagers that they have always taken is an even greater degree of theft.

[Jamie_UK]

Why are people placing related contingency acca's in a D listed book surprised when they get stiffed?

"A fool and his money"