Dave pay the man

Sodium Pentethol V · Jun 28, 2003

then after showing him the door,

send his name to every other book on the planet.

maybe might think twice before taking a shot at what was obviously a bad number,

it is a joke to toss out Pinnacles number as a basis for comparison,

only an asshole would think that was a real price and not an error. and to all the yeah but's try following CBS tennis for a week, then try to state it was a legit price,

it insults the intelligence of a flea.

Buzzsaw · Jun 28, 2003

TA,
I agree somewhat that the bad line rule is debateable here but what about:

A) Post event cancellation
B) Changing an obvious bet to a prop (thereby lowering the bet by $800 after it was not only accepted but the event was over)

Bad line rule aside, the book seem to take a page out of Watergate...

Sodium Pentethol V · Jun 28, 2003

He should be paid.
That was the first thing I posted.

Java · Jun 28, 2003

Sodium-
Sure you said they should pay him, but then screw him in the market.
What you are forgetting (or maybe you didn't read all the posts) is that word is more than just Areef bet on this game. Do you think any book would take this kind of heat over a single bet?
Areef is doing the Norma Rae thing and standing up. Maybe some of the other players are credit players and their Agents chose to honor the bets. Maybe some players are afraid Casablanca will blackball them, as you are advocating for Areef. Maybe some are afraid Casa will pay them nothing and are willing to take half-a-loaf, rather than take a chance fighting them.

If Casablanca choses to pay Areef and not to take more of his action in the future, that is their perogative, but they shouldn't send his info to other books.

One of the other posters said that Casablanca sent out a mass email recently, and forgot to hide the email addresses of their customer list.
If Casablanca tried to blackball this player to the other sportsbooks and share his info, the player would be justified in publishing the list of Casablanca emails and to contact those players telling them his story.

If the player should be paid, it should be for ONE REASON: the bet was legitimate enough to be honored. (So far, Casablanca hasn't offered enough of reason to avoid honoring the bet.)
If it is paid, there should be no penalty (beyond Casablanca's right to refuse further action with this player).

However, if Casablanca does pay, then it is in their interest to keep Areef (and the other winners) and hope to win it back during football. They can't win it back if they kick the winners out.

Sodium- one last question for you: If Areef had lost the underdog bet, would Casablanca have refunded his money? If your answer is NO, then they must honor the bet, since they can't honor only the best that go their way.

JoeyC · Jun 28, 2003

Java:

I haven't been reading the thread. How far off was CB's price?

areeff · Jun 28, 2003

This is the free market (ha ha well we won't go there)

If they want to pay me, boot me and blackball me that is there prerogative. A book has the right to book my bet.

What we forget here is that betting is CAPITALISM

CAPITALISM? IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THAT?

If i have a 50,000 car (kellyblue book opinion) but somoene will only pay 32,000 is the car only worth 32,000? That is debatable. Did he steal 18,000 from you? That's obsurd. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay. We paid the russians 7 mil for alaska. That was not theft. Paying native americans 7$ for an entire state is theft. This was not the case as it was more like the former.

In betting it is the same way. A line is only worth someone will bet on it.

The moral to the story here is if i buy an XBOX from amazon.com and the prices is 199.99 retail with a game ro whatever and for some reason the price rings up 149.99 so i buy 2 or 3 is that stealing? NO!

If the price rings up 1.99 and i buy 10 that is stealing! I agree

The thing is the price was within reason and not even the best price (+650 treble book was posted on MW). So if i buy a 199.99 xbox for 149 at amazon and and TRU has it for 129.99 but you have to buy 2 other items is the 149.99 price really a bad price even though the price would be FIXED at 199.99. NO!

Happens all the time. I'm sure everyone's wife has bragged about getting a 70$ dress for 17$

Sorry my typing sucks but this jamaican lag is not worth fixing my typos.

Sodium Pentethol V · Jun 28, 2003

you're a thief,

create inane analogies till your blue in the face,

capitalism LMAO, within reason???? is that what you call it when you hit the submit bet button and your rationalizing stealing?

you cannot change the fact you knowingly bet into a number that you knew was bad, that is akin to stealing

Sodium Pentethol V · Jun 28, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The moral to the story here is if i buy an XBOX from amazon.com and the prices is 199.99 retail with a game ro whatever and for some reason the price rings up 149.99 so i buy 2 or 3 is that stealing? NO!

If the price rings up 1.99 and i buy 10 that is stealing! I agree<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is beyond pathetic, go learn right from wrong, but thanks for admitting you knew the line was bad.

JoeyC · Jun 28, 2003

Sodium

How far off was the line, and compared to who?

TTinCO · Jun 28, 2003

Up until this post, areef was making sense.

In Jamaica, 3am, and suddenly babbling overly "creative" analogies.

STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lander · Jun 28, 2003

What on earth is aeReefer talking about? Russians, Indians & Xboxes????

I think CBS should pay, but posts like that ARE NOT helping your cause ...

GL - I hope that vanilla chump Dave pays you.

Java · Jun 28, 2003

Joey-
From the posts, my understanding is that Areef got the line at +605. Halifax posted a bunch of numbers on the game at other books. There was some uncertainty if these were closing numbers or the lines at the time Areef made the bet.
However, Pinnacle had +435. Casablanca is trying to claim the line was +300 and also that Areef's $1000 bet should have been $200 (a prop) and they are being generous paying him +300 on a $500 bet (instead of the +605 on a $1000 bet).
Areef also claimed that he saw +500 or +550, but later corrected that this may have been price for parlays or something, but it lead him to believe +605 was unreasonable on a sport such as Tennis.

If Casablanca agreed to match Pinnacle's +435 at the full $1000 price, I think many might feel that Casablanca made a reasonable offer. But half the bet at half the line is an insult, when NO ONE believes they would have refunded the bet if the dog lost.

lander · Jun 28, 2003

Java,
I bet Dave Johnson would have NO PROBLEM laying off the +300 on a +435 either

Sounds like he wants it both ways. Either stay at the wheel all night or don't put the lines up.

Java · Jun 28, 2003

Tinco-
I think you called it.
Areef: stoned in Jamaica
Sodium: shilling (in casablanca offices, perhaps?)
Java: too much caffeine, so posts too long
Buzzsaw: cutting through the BS

TTinCO · Jun 28, 2003

Nice synopsis Java.

I would say that it would be fair to take Pinnacles #, or maybe an average of a few-but to cut this from $1000 to a $200 play after the fact is a bit much.

He also apparently had four accounts there....that may bring up some potential issues depending on his history.

docdekay · Jun 28, 2003

TTinCO
Picture of TTinCO
Certifiably Crazy
Describes the mood or content of the topic posted June 29, 2003 02:02 AM June 29, 2003 02:02 AM
Up until this post, areef was making sense.

In Jamaica, 3am, and suddenly babbling overly "creative" analogies.

STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!! Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

OMG..LOLOLOL

Sodium Pentethol V · Jun 28, 2003

Is CBS like Pinnacle?

So how much the line really off 300 cents? Does Pinnacle pay a 5% rebate? so in reality they offered a settlement that was actually better than anything out there?

****ing greedy, piglike crooks, I hope they send your pertinent information to every book on earth.

BTW it's idiotic to continue posting that I work for or have any connection with any book other than as a bettor.

docdekay · Jun 28, 2003

SPV
I will say this, you are one persistant little bastard. You and I had it out once and there was no way I was winning that argument. When you get on a case, you are not backing down. I agree with a lot of what you say, whatever I disagree with, I'll keep to myself.

JoeyC · Jun 28, 2003

Java:

I or you don't know how the bet would have been graded if the dog lost. Likely as a loss.

It looks to me like the player took an obvious shot at a bad line here, but nonetheless, the book accepted the bet, and I don't know if by phone or by net - but I assume by net.

The player is owed money here, the question is how much.

Since Pinny had a line at +435, which is why the guy bet at CBS +605, I personally would be inclined to pay the player off at the 435 and then never allowing him to bet again on the net.

But that's the way I would have handled it.

I think it would be useful if CBS should also come on the forum and explain their side of the story. Maybe there is more to the story than we know about.

Bad lines are always a mess..

JC

Java · Jun 28, 2003

Tinco-
From some of the posts, it appears that Casablanca is telling third parties that player had 4 accounts. However, Casablanca has made no such claim on any forum or offered ANY evidence to support such an accusation. The email Dave Johnson sent directly to Areef (and cut/paste by Areef to forum) did not include an accusation to Areef that he had multiple account.
If Areef did have multiple accounts, DJ certainly could have made the accusation and wouldn't try all the 'average bet' and other nonsense. Also, if Areef did have multiple acounts, he is entitled to the max limit on one account and no-bet on the other accounts.
Finally, when hints about multiple accounts surface, Areef took the initiative and said he told some buddies about the number. Players share info all the time (sometimes wrong info, or player injury rumors). Areef's immediate admission of this, indicates he is not hiding anything and challenged Casablanca to check the IP's. No response from Casablanca on that either.
Let's see a dump of the web/database logs, the times the lines moved, the wager amounts, the IP addresses, etc. I wouldn't accept that Areef has multiple accounts without solid proof.
I think it's long past time that Casablanca showed their cards and stopped trying to bluff.