[Justin7]

A player was recently robbed by BetUs for $6000.

Is this the tip of the iceberg, or is this a one-time occurrence?

If Anyone else has been mugged by BetUS, please contact SBR.

[jpb383]

Mugged? Are you joking? ...

You better have one hell of a book coming out ;(

[John Dough]

Are people still betting correlated parlays and getting upset when they don't get paid?

[davidchong]

where is betus located?

[michael_li]

betus is located in Costa Rica, but what is correlated parlay??

[C.S.]

On a scale from 1 to 10
1 being moneyline to total in baseball
10 being 1st half side to game side
how correlated?

[betbetter]

They obviously posted something that should have been linked to prevent parlays and was'nt. Even non-gaming companies do make errors. Human or technical. If you type in 20$ at your ATM and it spits out 200$ can you keep it? and if you do it again knowing you are going to get 200$ can you keep it. etc etc etc.

[Hareeba!]

Are people still betting correlated parlays and getting upset when they don't get paid?

if the book permits them to be taken I don't think it's unreasonable to get upset if they don't pay up
would they automatically refund the bet if it didn't win?

[HedgeHog]

Are people still betting correlated parlays and getting upset when they don't get paid?

Yes we are. Do you understand that same game parlays are all correlated to some degree--and all Books accept them? Further, it is the Book's responsibilty to decide at what level to disallow them. Get a clue, buddy.

[Winner_13]

if the books system takes the bet...pay the fukin bet

[bubba]

justin- whats the wager(s)?

[bubba]

in a perfect world, if the book accepts the wager they pay. but there is a big difference in how i feel about this depending on how correlated it is.

[Hareeba!]

what is correlated parlay??

an excellent example was posted to the same question recently by mathdotcom;

Example of a correlated parlay:

Will you have an STD tomorrow? Yes +200/ No -220
Will you bang a hooker without a condom today? Yes +120/No -140

Parlay the yes on both. You are essentially betting the same event, but getting very good odds (6.6 to 1) on an event that will happen almost half the time.

[bubba]

books SHOULD be able to stop parlays they dont want from being accepted with their software. but unless we are told the exact parlay in question, there is no way of knowing how bad this is.

[HedgeHog]

books SHOULD be able to stop parlays they dont want from being accepted with their software. but unless we are told the exact parlay in question, there is no way of knowing how bad this is.

Exactly. Typically the software decides what bets are acceptable and that's the end of it. But when crap Books like say Sportsbook.com have no software in place, the waters get muddied. So is 30% correlation acceptable? How about 40%? For example, is it okay to parlay a game that has a 15 point line and a 45 total? The answer could go either way and thus why it's imperitave that the software decide whether to accept the bet or not. What's not acceptable is for a place to take the bet and later decide to void it (after the result is known) because of the vague correlation rule. This is how Sportsbook.com stole from many 3 years ago--and apparently Betus is following the same business model.

[John Dough]

Yes, of course any accepted bet should be paid in theory, but given past history of the industry, anyone taking advantage of correlated parlays should know that there's some risk involved.

Caveat: I assumed these were the hugely correlated kind that no book in their right mind would take. If that's not the case, my opinion changes.

[bubba]

john- without knowing what the correleated parlays were, this thread is up to similar vague interpretation of what a correlated parlay is. justin- please let us know what we are dealing with here.

[HedgeHog]

Yes, of course any accepted bet should be paid in theory, but given past history of the industry, anyone taking advantage of correlated parlays should know that there's some risk involved.

Caveat: I assumed these were the hugely correlated kind that no book in their right mind would take. If that's not the case, my opinion changes.

Again, all same game pars are correlated--should they all be voided? (of course not) Where does one draw the line? There is no clear cut standard in the industry, leaving it up to each Book to decide what level of correlation is acceptable via their software. What stinks is Books like Sportsbook.com and BetUs voiding winning bets after the fact. They are taking a shot at their clients, plain and simple.

[bubba]

hedge- i agree with you. its a shot by the book. but was the player 100% innocent in this? did he parlay over for the 1st half and over for the game? was it a baseball team -4.5 and over 8? those are shots by the player too. big differnce between those and just betting the same random game and total. this thread does not give us all the neccessary info to form an opinion on what went down.

[HedgeHog]

hedge- i agree with you. its a shot by the book. but was the player 100% innocent in this? did he parlay over for the 1st half and over for the game? was it a baseball team -4.5 and over 8? those are shots by the player too. big differnce between those and just betting the same random game and total. this thread does not give us all the neccessary info to form an opinion on what went down.

Point taken. That type of bet is definitely voidable and is usually stated as such in the rules.

[Justin7]

If a player bet Colts -3 parlayed with Colts ML -150, that has a 100% correlation. I would *reduce* the second leg of this.

Nearly anything else needs to be honored or prevented with software.

[bubba]

so justin- please give us an example of what was accepted. and was it a lot of these parlays or just 1? i am very curious as i was thinking of finally signing up with betus for football.

[HedgeHog]

If a player bet Colts -3 parlayed with Colts ML -150, that has a 100% correlation. I would *reduce* the second leg of this.

Nearly anything else needs to be honored or prevented with software.

I would agree with this in principle. Afterall, the player has funds at risk regardless of the level of correlation.

[katstale]

I was hoping to learn something here, but not so much yet.

[Eagle1958]

If you continue to circumvent the rules, you will not be paid. Rather simple logic but many players continue to try to cheat the books. Abide by the rules and all will go well. Without naming names I can probably guess who the bettor was. This person goes book to book trying to get over on them using correlated parlays. Once a cheat always a cheat.

[bubba]

i agree with justin to a degree however if they cancelled my examples before, i would not consider them "thieves". and i have a feeling they were VERY correlated, otherwise jsutin would be listing exactly what it was. its just so vague at this point becasue like i said, parlays can be extremely correlated to not correlated at all. and there is an infinite amount in between.

[HedgeHog]

I was hoping to learn something here, but not so much yet.

I think Justin is restricted from disclosing all the details at this point. I too would like to see some examples of the bets placed.

[betbetter]

you've learned that in the SBR world software is supposed to be 100% infallible 100% of the time. -10000 there was a glitch for a short period and this guy jumped on it.

[betbetter]

and if its this much money he pounded every one he could every way.

[HedgeHog]

If you continue to circumvent the rules, you will not be paid. Rather simple logic but many players continue to try to cheat the books. Abide by the rules and all will go well. Without naming names I can probably guess who the bettor was. This person goes book to book trying to get over on them using correlated parlays. Once a cheat always a cheat.

Really, who? The complaint may have been filed by someone who is not a poster here. And you automatically assume the guy is a cheater because he made "correlated" bets? Seems like a huge leap to me.

[trixtrix]

you've learned that in the SBR world software is supposed to be 100% infallible 100% of the time. -10000 there was a glitch for a short period and this guy jumped on it.

i will wager 100k (book at matchbook) on the comeback at +100 or better, if you prefer i will bet a correlated parlay of no glitch and you're a shill

[trixtrix]

If you continue to circumvent the rules, you will not be paid. Rather simple logic but many players continue to try to cheat the books. Abide by the rules and all will go well. Without naming names I can probably guess who the bettor was. This person goes book to book trying to get over on them using correlated parlays. Once a cheat always a cheat.

without naming any names, eagle1948 is a shill for this book: Is Eagle1958 a Wagerweb shill?

[Justin7]

BetUS and I are having some interesting discussions. BetUS states that there were multiple players from the same IP placing bets in "the exact same pattern". BetUS might have a fraud defense, and mistakenly latched on to a lame CP defense.

[bubba]

BetUS and I are having some interesting discussions. BetUS states that there were multiple players from the same IP placing bets in "the exact same pattern". BetUS might have a fraud defense, and mistakenly latched on to a lame CP defense.

justin- would you ever accuse a sponsor here of having a fraud defense before a dispute is resolved? BETUS could be 100% wrong here. but it would be nice if the intermediary could be as fair to betus as they would be to betphoenix.

[Justin7]

justin- would you ever accuse a sponsor here of having a fraud defense before a dispute is resolved? BETUS could be 100% wrong here. but it would be nice if the intermediary could be as fair to betus as they would be to betphoenix.

Huh? Having a "fraud defense" is not an accusation. It is a mitigating circumstance. It means BetUS's position is better than I originally thought.

I try to treat all books equally... although I typically hold "A" books to a higher standard (I tell them this, and I tell lower books what they should strive for if they want a higher rating).