[the_fredrik]

I am just sharing here, trying to be objective. I've read the forum and the site sportsbookreview.com for several years, and it has always seemed like the most trustworthy site for getting an opinion about a sportsbook. As a result, I only have larger amounts of money at the books rated A- or higher here.

Last year in November I got into trouble with one of these books. I had placed a number of bets, all of which were cancelled. (The case is still open with the book in question, but when the matter is decided I will tell you all the details if you are interested)

I was annoyed of course, but saw it also as an opportunity to really test this site - I guess you all have read the bit about usually solving problems within 24 hours.

I sent in my case on Nov 17 to sportsbookreview.. The following 2 days I got some more questions, etc. Fair enough. Then I heard nothing.
On Nov 26 I asked how it was going. On Nov 28 I got an email basically saying "We agree with you, and we have pointed out why the bookie should honor the bets to the bookie, but he does not care so far. I will continue to try".
Then nothing again. I asked again how it was going on Jan 7. I got another reply, basically saying the same thing, so now sportsbookreivew will give up and will post a summary of the case on our site.

So far, nothing, and the book still has the same rating, despite cancelling bets which sportsbookreview believe they should honor.
And most distrubing to me, the book did not care at all what sportsbookreview thought about the case.

[DukeJohn]

hmm...

[durito]

What book?

[homerbush]

does it rhyme with slow fog?

I was under the impression it was an A- or greater book so slow fog would not qualify.

[the_fredrik]

I was thinking I'd better not tell what book it is since I do not want to upset them unnecessarily since I am trying to get them to give me money, but on the other hand, now I am thinking that if I just tell you what has happened so far in as fair a way as I can, they should not be upset because of that unless they are ashamed of their actions, right? And if they are, it is not too late for them to change their minds - so maybe this could even help?

So here is the story, please adjust/object sportsbookreview if you don't agree 100%. This is also more or less the letter I have sent to IBAS, my next attempt at trying to get my money, see www.ibas-uk.co.uk. I have screen shots to back up all my facts.

I have bet with Canbet for several years and they have always been fair to me and have excellent service in my opinion. On Friday Nov 7, I bet a total of 36544 euro.
On Saturday Nov 8 I logged in to double-check my account. The bets were still shown as pending.
On Sunday Nov 9 I logged in to find my balance 51492 euro, meaning that all bets had been correctly settled. I then requested a withdrawal for 50000 euro.

I did not receive any money, but instead they locked my account and sent me an email the next day.
Now they had voided my bets, more than 24 hours after the bets were correctly settled!
I replied suggesting that they have treated me unfairly and we exchanged a few emails. They said that they did not see my bets until after the events! Had they seen them before the events, they would have voided the bets before the events.

They have now sent me most of my stakes (minus 270 euro for a parlay that they did not void, but graded as a loss). I believe that they should honor all the bets which means paying me another 14385 euro.

The bets in question are parlays of 2 bets, what is usually referred to here in the forum as "Correlated Parlays": i.e. a spread bet combined with a total bet.

This is not at all an “obvious error” as Canbet claims. I know for a fact that most of the bets I placed with Canbet was also available at other bookies at the time. Also, I have bet this type of parlays with Canbet before and they have honored the bets then. Only now when many of my bets happened to win, did they decide to void my bets.

Even the rule they refer to in their email as a defense for voiding my bets clearly says that they allow the type of parlays that I have bet, see below. Here is part of an email I received from Canbet:

Please note that your recent Multi wagers on the NCAAF have been voided in accordance with Canbet Rule 24:

Multiple Bets are not accepted where the outcome of one part of the bet contributes to the outcome of another. If a client inadvertently or deliberately backs a related contingency in a multiple bet, the bet will be voided and the stakes returned.

a) Any multiple made up of more than one selection from the same event will be deemed a related contingency. i.e. Alan Shearer to score 1st & Newcastle Utd to win; Denver -7.5 pts and Denver to win the game. The only exception to the above is in North American sports where sides and totals can make up a multiple bet.

[Ortho]

.

[durito]

That's sportsbook.com style incompetence.

If you don't want correlated parlays, fix your software. There were plenty of books that got killed on these, paid, then stopped taking them. You can't retroactively stop taking them.

Canbet may have a long solid history, but I don't believe SBR has any influence there.

[andyo4you]

I don't know about reviews.. You cannot trust anyone. If they pay you will give a better grade .. etc. I would do it too.

[Justin7]

I had a dispute with the Greek a few years ago, quite big money. The watchdog sites don't want to know if it's an A+ book. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

You're free to post your experiences here. Unlike other sites, it will not be deleted no matter which book it concerns.

[Jaug]

Sounds fishy, they should have a system so they don't accept those kind of bets. If you place a bet, correlated or not, they cannot cancel that bet after it has won. That's total bs.

They made a mistake here and they have to pay, if they don't then that's not even a C bookie.

[Justin7]

Sure, you would rather these books behaved A+, but you aren't going to rock any boats if they fall short, are you Justin?

You are kidding right?

I have no qualms criticizing any book I think is in the wrong, no matter what their rating.

Was this the dispute where 14 out of 20 cars using Michelin tires withdrew after the warm-up lap?

[BigDaddy]

why would you bet on the US Grand Prix?

[Peep]

I think you were right in the Grand Prix case too eachwayplease.

But, as Justin says, you were given a forum, no posts were deleted, TheGreek dug in and what could anyone do?

[betpartners]

Not sure its relevant if someone chooses to bet on a grand prix, a bet is a bet and if the guy wins fairly then he should be due his money.

That Grand prix was in June 2005 so quite old and impossible now to know what the rules were at the time, but my understanding is that any car that completes the parade lap as they all did is in effect in the race and therefore Olympic should have paid out.

As an example a car can stall before the parade lap and is then sent to the back once the car gets going regardless of his original pole position.

Hard to belive that sportsbook would refund you your bet in that event.

[rufcut]

frederik, if you are the UK, you can file a claim in the UK small claims court against Canbet which is licenced both in the UK and in Australia.
You can even file your claim online here:
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

For that amount of money, I'd bypass IBAS. I've not used IBAS but they are paid for by betting companies and are not unbiased themsleves. Yet if the book can point to a ruling by IBAS against you, it could count in the book's favour in court. So I'd go straight to court here.

[betpartners]

frederik, if you are the UK, you can file a claim in the UK small claims court against Canbet which is licenced both in the UK and in Australia.
You can even file your claim online here:
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

For that amount of money, I'd bypass IBAS. I've not used IBAS but they are paid for by betting companies and are not unbiased themsleves. Yet if the book can point to a ruling by IBAS against you, it could count in the book's favour in court. So I'd go straight to court here.

Sorry to disagree IBAS are in fact independant of bookmakers, they are also endorsed by the gambling comission and it would actually make your case harder to pursue through the courts if you dont use third party abritation that is free and available.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Sorry to disagree IBAS are in fact independant of bookmakers, they are also endorsed by the gambling comission and it would actually make your case harder to pursue through the courts if you dont use third party abritation that is free and available.

IBAS are notorious for always taking the book's side.

[Santo]

As I've said previously, I know of several cases when IBAS has ruled in favour of the punter. In a 50-50 case they give the benefit of the doubt to the bookie, but generally I find their decisions within the bounds of reason.

The difference between player advocacy and industry advocacy is those borderline cases, and of course industry advocacy (at least in the case of IBAS) takes significantly longer.

[Bill Dozer]

It was. I took the dispute to Bill Dozer immediately but he gave me the brush-off. Same story with the Major. I did not tout my case on your forum or Majorwager's whilst it was being mediated by theRX and TOW guys.

Eachway,

I can't work each case personally but we are reviewing Canbet and multiple open issues, a few involving the same bonus promo. The result will be reflected in their rating.

the_fredrik,
I'm sure your case is still a factor with SBR and is on the list of issues. Feel free to give the details here.
edit: Just saw 2nd post, I know Josh tried hard to get you paid through wagering mgt on that one. A clear cut case from what I recall. We still expect that to be credited through mgt. of the general business this week. It's a poor decision for even a B book.

You both are welcome to call our office number listed on the complaint form at anytime. Each person who works a case also has a phone number available to discuss details.

[bigboydan]

It's a very well known case. Olympic declined to pay me out on around $50,000 of winning bets on the US Grand Prix. Sure it was debatable. Olympic say I took a shot betting in the vague circumstances. I think Olympic were the ones taking a shot, voiding the bets after the event. TOW panel agreed with me, but I still didn't get paid. You can read about the whole affair on the Rx.

I don't have read it because I lived through it. I was working for TOW at the time that dispute surfaced. Spiro should have paid the players on it IMO, sir.

[Santo]

IBAS is funded by bookies and is in general a waste of time in my experience.

I know they're industry funded (hence industry advocacy). My experience on whether they're a waste of time obviously differs from yours.

[Bill Dozer]

Sorry Bill Dozer I may be doing you an injustice. Looking back at my email archive you did chew it over for a bit before deciding you agreed with Olympic's handling of the case. But my point stands that you probably had no choice but to agree with Olympic as a matter of commerical reality. That is the problem with offshore and player disputes.

If you are talking about the F1 racing dispute, you received multiple emails and our conclusion which you are welcome to share. What I recall is you had wagered on a competition for top X placers and there wasn't a field large enough for a loser to be present. Had there been an actual race to win what you wagered on it would have been a different situation and more we could discuss. It was a bad beat and not a clear case but seems like you were going to be unhappy regardless of the response. That is something we are used to getting with players at books rated D to A.

[InTheHole]

^ he must of had the Michelin angle. I will tell you this if all of his driver's dropped out that would have been an active bet

[THEGREAT30]

Money makes the world go around.

[betpartners]

IBAS is funded by bookies and is in general a waste of time in my experience.

No they are not, they are independant, i would suggest you visit their site and look at the FAQ.

Yes IBAS does tend to come down on the bookies side more often than not simply because most of the time bookies are covered by their terms and conditions and IBAS is not in a position to give a decison based on morality and what is justified, they work in a pure black and white way in the same way courts of law do.

The advantage that using sites like SBR have over IBAS is that they can pull a bookie up when they have acted without fairness despite them having a clause in their terms that may well be buried etc.

The power of popular protest that goes on here is a potent weapon, IBAS cannot use that, they must work within a strict criteria.

But regardless they are not funded by the bookies and are accepted by the UK gambling comission as a binding authority.

[the_fredrik]

Thanks for the various replies. I decided to go with SBR first since I was curious as to what they could do, but I am sorry to say that I am not very impressed with their results (which is basically nothing in 3 months)

My next attempt was of course IBAS (I have used them once before and 'won' the case = Ladbrokes paid me in the end) but after I sent in the case to them they replied saying that Canbet is no longer a member of IBAS! Even though it says so on both IBAS' and Canbet's home pages. When I ask Canbet they still claim they are a member of IBAS, so I am trying to sort that out now, but it is starting to feel more and more like I will not get my money..

rufcut, your option is only for UK citizens right? I live in Sweden unfortunately...

[Santo]

No they are not, they are independant, i would suggest you visit their site and look at the FAQ.

Yes IBAS does tend to come down on the bookies side more often than not simply because most of the time bookies are covered by their terms and conditions and IBAS is not in a position to give a decison based on morality and what is justified, they work in a pure black and white way in the same way courts of law do.

The advantage that using sites like SBR have over IBAS is that they can pull a bookie up when they have acted without fairness despite them having a clause in their terms that may well be buried etc.

The power of popular protest that goes on here is a potent weapon, IBAS cannot use that, they must work within a strict criteria.

But regardless they are not funded by the bookies and are accepted by the UK gambling comission as a binding authority.

Technically, they are funded by groups such as SIS and the Horse Racing Levy Board, whose income comes from bookmakers. Hence why I used industry funded instead of bookmaker funded, but there is still a tie there.