[MichaelC]

Please explain why this was a loss as opposed to a partial win like an asian handicap should be:

11/14/09 7:10am $25.00 $45.21 $0.00 Loss 2 Team Parlay
Loss 11/14/09 11:00am Internationl Soccer 148 Slovenia (WorldCup-Q)/Russia (WorldCup-Q) Under 2½,3 -150
Win 11/14/09 3:00pm Internationl Soccer 154 France (WorldCup-Q) pk -146 vs Ireland (WorldCup-Q)


I don't want to say the name of the book, since such a small bet is not worth risking the wrath of G-D.

Thanks!

Michael

[MichaelC]

Ok, I found out guys..thanks...

Basically , unlike a single asian handicap bet, if either part of it one of the halves loses in a parlay I lose the whole bet, even though I got 3/4's right.

[Santo]

That seems an odd rule, is it standard in Asia/Europe?

[pjesnik24]

Ok, I found out guys..thanks...

Basically , unlike a single asian handicap bet, if either part of it one of the halves loses in a parlay I lose the whole bet, even though I got 3/4's right.

that is crazy and not right. that would mean that you actually got 1/2 handicap and that means that the odds for that were completely wrong. if the bookie is doing that then they are CHEATING

[acw]

they are CHEATING

CHEATING?!?! Are you mad?
It is called modern style bookmaking!
Since William Hill puts bets on hold for 1.5 hours, I have literally seen it all.

[Dunder]

As others have said you should have a return.
Half of your stake at -146.

[betpartners]

Its a winner simple as that

2 1/2 - 3.00 is equal to 2.75

There were 3 goals and therefore you won half on the first part of your bet

Otherwise whats the point of 2.75

and any bet whether it is a single, double trebele or whatever is still dependent on its individual outcome and that outcome was a half winner.

If that is in tehir rules then it is wrong plain and simple

[Dunder]

Its a winner simple as that

2 1/2 - 3.00 is equal to 2.75

There were 3 goals and therefore you won half on the first part of your bet

Otherwise whats the point of 2.75

and any bet whether it is a single, double trebele or whatever is still dependent on its individual outcome and that outcome was a half winner.

If that is in tehir rules then it is wrong plain and simple

Think you have misunderstood. As stated his bet was UNDER 2.5 -3.0

This means:

half stake at under 2.5 (lost) and
half stake at under 3.0 (pushed)

[Hybris]

Half stake loss. The other half payed out as -146...

[smitch124]

Yep, I wouldn't parlay any more Asian Handicaps at that book if you insist on continuing to use them.

You would've been able to put under 2.5 in the parlay at much better odds with the same result, since the result of 3 is a complete loss

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Ok, I found out guys..thanks...

Basically , unlike a single asian handicap bet, if either part of it one of the halves loses in a parlay I lose the whole bet, even though I got 3/4's right.

Unless that's specifically in their rules, it's a load of **** (or more probably their systems aren't setup properly, and the customer service don't understand handicaps).

[acw]

Ok MichaelC,

So which book is it?

[MichaelC]

Yeah...I thought I put in a sly enough reference to God...

It's 5dimes...

[potless]

Think you have misunderstood. As stated his bet was UNDER 2.5 -3.0

This means:

half stake at under 2.5 (lost) and
half stake at under 3.0 (pushed)

[durito]

Call tony and ask him to explain an AH to you. Then tell him to stop taking bets they don't understand just because pinnacle offers them.

[MichaelC]

Durrito I didn't want to touch on that topic but here's a bit of recent history.

I asked him about a different problem with asian handicaps one time during the mlb playoffs this year. I had a chat transcript saved where the customer service told me one thing and it was graded as another. He told me not only did he not care what his CS wrote me, he said more importantly he knew Asian Handicap rules better than anyone cause he wrote them himself and wasn't changing a thing. Better yet, I was free to leave.

So yeah I doubt it will get me anywhere that new call will get me anywhere.

[RickySteve]

That is stealing. 5Dimes has their problems, but they would make this right. Does 5Dimes always offer Asian handicap parlays or did this line just sneak through?

[MichaelC]

That is stealing. 5Dimes has their problems, but they would make this right. Does 5Dimes always offer Asian handicap parlays or did this line just sneak through?

First time I ever bet one. I was bored so I took a shot and got quite the education on it.

[Santo]

It sounds like it's a software problem; that the software wasn't set up to recognise a half-payout in a parlay?

I've seen a couple of software solutions fail to do this in the past (it gets very complicated with If-Bets), but have found manual credits to my balance to account for the difference. I assume that 5D didn't do that in this case?

[MichaelC]

Correct. They looked into it and stated that if any part of the A.H. parlay loses, the whole ticket is a loss, unlike a straight bet A.H.

[durito]

Right now their software doesn't show a single AH available to parlay, where there are plenty available on straights.

[pjesnik24]

Correct. They looked into it and stated that if any part of the A.H. parlay loses, the whole ticket is a loss, unlike a straight bet A.H.

is it a same thing if any part of the handicap wins? that would be easy money then

[noyb]

indeed. obviously 5dimes ****ed up here, and probably the AH shouldn't have been allowed in a parlay. Otherwise, they're apparently to dumb to understand this "rule" means they're screwing players on a half loss and handing out free money on a half win; it makes no sense. The CS guy who said they "had looked into it" was probably talking out of his ass as this rule is completely ridiculous either way.

[Dunder]

That seems an odd rule, is it standard in Asia/Europe?

Er, that would be a no!

If this was the case you would be crazy to every bet under 2.5-3-0 (similarly over 1.5-2-0).

This Tony guy who "wrote the rules on AH" hasn´t got a clue.

[Santo]

Yes my initial response was after very little sleep and a misunderstanding of the question posed -- I hadn't worked it through.

I think in this case it's not a deliberate rule but a case of software not designed to offer this and manual error in opening it up one day.