Rob's "nowadays" counter this video - 2 1:18:44 Funny enough on that one, Rob says he doesn't think he said nowadays earlier to which Johnny disagrees. Johnny was right. Check 47:50 Rob! Sad day though. Sounds like Rob is actively trying to correct this. My man, please just let it rip. If nowadays is what pops into your mind naturally, be the free man that you are and vocalize it. For the people.
The fact that Igaming won't issue a written decision is not good at all. It prevents precedents from being established, and therefore allows the books to do whatever is convenient at any time.
IGaming and AGCO (as far as the G part goes) is a toothless organization, no one should be surprised. I had 888 void an mlb moneyline bet after settling and paying me out! Surely that should be where they draw the line. They have set a precedent that the book can decide they didn't like their line exposure once they've lost, whereas we are not afforded the same luxury. They should at least have to commit to a wager once the game starts, let alone has been finished for 12 hrs.
After watching this episode and the roundtable discussion regarding limiting bettors with the gaming commission that occurred about a week or 2 ago, it seems the sportsbooks have full control and basically can do whatever they want. On top of that, with some states like Illinois increasing taxes for sportsbooks, it will only make things worse for bettors. We'll start to see -115 on both sides instead of -110....
In fairness they paid out the winners that weren't affected so I'm sure if they voided those there'd be a different guy on this show arguing that he should have been paid out because his bet should have been paid out after the game where it was a guaranteed win
I’m an Australian lawyer and I don’t know how much overlap there is with the US, but here there almost zero doubt that he could get a proper hearing on the grounds of denial of natural justice based on the regulator failing to include him in the decision making process at the very least by way of written reasons for decision. Pursuant to the rules of administrative law, a government enacted regulator must not only act in a fair and impartial manner, but also be SEEN to be acting in a fair and impartial manner. No judge in their right mind is going to rule that this regulator was seen to be acting in a fair and impartial manner. Not surprised though, bookies and casinos are just as scummy here in Aus, and the regulators are just as biased and anti-customer.
With the right lawyer you could prob get a proper hearing but the cost of the lawyer would be more than the payout from the case (if you won). Therefore your comment makes little to no sense unless the case amount was worth a crapload.
Can we stop acting like it's so clear that this an unfair way to grade it? If I bet a player to hit a home run on fanduel and the game is shortened by rain - if he already hit a HR, it will grade as a win, if not it will void. This whole exclusion of "outcome already determined" can help the bettor too. Don't act like they deliberately twisted it to help them
Each outcome by itself -- voiding 12 or 13 and grading the others at a loss is not clearly wrong. Only when you look at both outcomes does it become clear -- there are no winners, only losers. That's likely why nobody else complained -- each person only sees his own outcome.
Bettors need to continue to push for minimum bets, the more discussion about it, the more likely it will happen. It just takes 1 rec book to do it for the others to be "force" to do it. Remember, at one point college students would not be able to make money off their image... look at them now...
@@ecolt0 a minimum bet for limited bettors would not be a bad thing. Why do you think it would? We’re not saying minimum bets for all bettors, just limited bettors
I'd be more upset if they graded an over 10.5 wins as a void than what caesars did. Why are you guys arguing that the FAIR way to grade o10.5 wins (or exact win totals less than 12) is a void?
Rob's "nowadays" counter this video - 2
1:18:44
Funny enough on that one, Rob says he doesn't think he said nowadays earlier to which Johnny disagrees. Johnny was right. Check 47:50 Rob!
Sad day though. Sounds like Rob is actively trying to correct this. My man, please just let it rip. If nowadays is what pops into your mind naturally, be the free man that you are and vocalize it. For the people.
Also interesting the length the book will go to, in order to prevent the case from going outside the loop of their management, and Igaming Ontario.
The fact that Igaming won't issue a written decision is not good at all. It prevents precedents from being established, and therefore allows the books to do whatever is convenient at any time.
Oh man… only 7 more attempts on my Martingdale bankroll… definitely not risking $2.5 million.
Kids, Martingdale is stressful, don’t try it at home 😂
Agree with John at 41 min mark - Regulated sportsbooks in Ontario are self regulated. They make a decision, and Igaming rubber stamps it.
same in the uk
1 day late confirmed....currently roof of mouth and tongue burned -EV fo sho🥵
Oh no!
IGaming and AGCO (as far as the G part goes) is a toothless organization, no one should be surprised. I had 888 void an mlb moneyline bet after settling and paying me out! Surely that should be where they draw the line. They have set a precedent that the book can decide they didn't like their line exposure once they've lost, whereas we are not afforded the same luxury. They should at least have to commit to a wager once the game starts, let alone has been finished for 12 hrs.
Seems like Igaming will side with the book, ,even when the book is clearly wrong.
After watching this episode and the roundtable discussion regarding limiting bettors with the gaming commission that occurred about a week or 2 ago, it seems the sportsbooks have full control and basically can do whatever they want. On top of that, with some states like Illinois increasing taxes for sportsbooks, it will only make things worse for bettors. We'll start to see -115 on both sides instead of -110....
Robs looking good...and he knows it.
In fairness they paid out the winners that weren't affected so I'm sure if they voided those there'd be a different guy on this show arguing that he should have been paid out because his bet should have been paid out after the game where it was a guaranteed win
still martingale'ing johnny NO app.
Oakland Raiders #56 Pat Swilling
I’m an Australian lawyer and I don’t know how much overlap there is with the US, but here there almost zero doubt that he could get a proper hearing on the grounds of denial of natural justice based on the regulator failing to include him in the decision making process at the very least by way of written reasons for decision. Pursuant to the rules of administrative law, a government enacted regulator must not only act in a fair and impartial manner, but also be SEEN to be acting in a fair and impartial manner. No judge in their right mind is going to rule that this regulator was seen to be acting in a fair and impartial manner. Not surprised though, bookies and casinos are just as scummy here in Aus, and the regulators are just as biased and anti-customer.
With the right lawyer you could prob get a proper hearing but the cost of the lawyer would be more than the payout from the case (if you won). Therefore your comment makes little to no sense unless the case amount was worth a crapload.
Can we stop acting like it's so clear that this an unfair way to grade it? If I bet a player to hit a home run on fanduel and the game is shortened by rain - if he already hit a HR, it will grade as a win, if not it will void.
This whole exclusion of "outcome already determined" can help the bettor too. Don't act like they deliberately twisted it to help them
Each outcome by itself -- voiding 12 or 13 and grading the others at a loss is not clearly wrong. Only when you look at both outcomes does it become clear -- there are no winners, only losers. That's likely why nobody else complained -- each person only sees his own outcome.
The problem is the rule specifically says how it should be graded, but they graded it a different way.
@@GoNyGoNyGo-kn2tx that's not the part I'm arguing with. I'm talking about how they're saying what would be more "fair"
@@ianwinograd4213 there are winners - if you bet o10.5 wins that graded as a win. But according to people here that should have voided
@@bgoldgrabok. I see what you mean.
Bettors need to continue to push for minimum bets, the more discussion about it, the more likely it will happen. It just takes 1 rec book to do it for the others to be "force" to do it. Remember, at one point college students would not be able to make money off their image... look at them now...
minimum bets will be bad for most bettors lol
@@ecolt0 a minimum bet for limited bettors would not be a bad thing. Why do you think it would?
We’re not saying minimum bets for all bettors, just limited bettors
Does this mean Ceasar's has now limited his account?
He was permanently banned from Caesars.
He is banned
If have a question I want you guys to possibly cover on the next FAQS episode, where is the best place to send it.
circlesoff@thehammer.bet
I'd be more upset if they graded an over 10.5 wins as a void than what caesars did. Why are you guys arguing that the FAIR way to grade o10.5 wins (or exact win totals less than 12) is a void?