Just what the offshore industry needs...

billnevin · Oct 7, 2005

I see Spiros has finally decided to react to the arbitration panel and has decided not pay the US Grand Prix bettor his winnings.

This is bad news.

Bad news for the bettor and bad news for the offshore industry.

Leaving aside who was right in terms of the bet (I think the bettor was but there are plenty of people who don't), this case makes the industry look terrible. You have Olympic who the whole world rated as an A+ sportsbook and every forum thought was the ultimate offshore operation, alongside Pinnacle. Anyone who read anything about the offshore industry thought they were one of the good guys.

The bettor is refused his payout. So he asks on the forums what people think. He agrees to go to arbitration and says he will drop his complaint if he loses. Olympic implicitly agree to the arbitration (I haven't ever seen anyone from Oly explicitly saying they agreed to it) by putting their side of the story, the timings, lines moves etc to the panel. The panel decides in the bettors' favor and then Olympic simply says they will ignore the ruling.

So basically Olympic have taken a free shot. If they win the arbitration, fine. If they lose, the bettor doesn't get paid.

I see TOW have downgraded Oly to 9, which they describe as "the lowest rating that a sports book with an impeccable payout record may score". Err, it doesn't look that impeccable now, does it?

And anyone (eg reporters) looking to show how the offshore industry has dubious ethics, questionable business dealings etc now has a prime case to put in front of their readers with what is widely described as one of the best sportsbooks in the world.

If any other book apart from Olympic had done this they would be widely touted around all the forums as a stiff book and the owner would be ridiculed. I know this won't happen to Spiros but it sets a precedent for any other less than honest book to simple say "If it's good enough for Olympic, it's good enough for me."

In the end, I feel most sorry for the bettor, who really has been properly shafted.

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

Do you think there is any future in arbitration panels now Bill? The case is numbered 003 by TOW. Are the two zeros a bit optimistic?

PokerKingJim · Oct 7, 2005

Yea man that is pretty weak. Why would Oly agree to the panel idea if they had no intentions of paying anyways? They certainly did take a free shot. Extremely weak by Oly. I will look elsewhere next time I am looking for an out.

royalfan · Oct 7, 2005

The taking of a free shot by Olympic is a very good point. They did not act properly in this situation.

wilheim · Oct 7, 2005

. Why would Oly agree to the panel idea if they had no intentions of paying anyways?

I want to make this perfectly clear -- in no way shape of form did Olympic ever agree beforehand to to abide by the TOW Panel ruling. The panel took on the case in the hope to find some closure and perhaps define what they as a panel believe is the correct ruling in a very complicated case.

wil.

jwblue · Oct 7, 2005

Did the bettor make the wager after it became public knowlege of the disqualifications? If he did it is a bad line. If it was before the disqualifications were made public, then he should be paid.

If the line on the 49ers Colts game this weekend was Colts +14 instead of -14, would anyone expect a bettor who took the Colts at +14 to be paid? NO.

IS

royalfan · Oct 7, 2005

InSpades said:
Why am I the only one that has this view point. It was a BAD LINE. If the line on the 49ers Colts game this weekend was Colts +14 instead of -14, would anyone expect a bettor who took the Colts at +14 to be paid? NO.

IS

Yes, exactly the same thing. Not. Your comparison is a ridiculous one as when the wager was made it was not necessarily a bad line and certainly wasn't a typo like your dumb ass comparison would be.

jwblue · Oct 7, 2005

royalfan said:
Yes, exactly the same thing. Not. Your comparison is a ridiculous one as when the wager was made it was not necessarily a bad line and certainly wasn't a typo like your dumb ass comparison would be.

If the bet was made before the disqualificatons were made public, then I stand corrected.

IS

NEWPORT · Oct 7, 2005

I am not sure how much coin we are tlaking about, but I

I can tell you this much, The owner, the GM, the Book manager. If this is true....whoever is a complete ego maniac, and and a bad businessman.

Ok so you beat the gambler on this one. Great. good for you

And if they made a tacet agreement to abide by the panels ruling, which in the gaming world is the same as a written contract in the business world.

And you bail on that........which forget about what you want to title that, BOTTOM LINE.......The visibility of your CHARACTER is toilet water now!!!

And now everyone will discuss this action for time to come, and whereever you go people will say, Hey what happened with that??????

Ok, or you would understand the concept of Loss Leader marketing, and realize that show that you followed strong process and agreed to live with the rulings, and then they settled properly, would be the invesment of advertising dollars ever spent.

And then on Sports Forums all over the country singing your praises.

Moral of the Story:

Even the filthy rich, that have made their share, still do not find happiness in their business, personal, social, and spiritual lives........and therefore the money does not matter anymore, being dishonest does. They enjoy being dishonest, and showing that power play. So why don't we shorten this thread, and reduce all the diatirbe to follow like mine, and say

"They wanted to be dishonest, negative, and bully like.......because it was they DESIRE to INDENTIFY with........Cannot be any other explanation.

Because it surely is not the EDUCATED way to handle a problem, if this is all true

royalfan · Oct 7, 2005

Had Oly won the arbitration, I am sure they would have came out publicly and said "Had we lost we wouldn't have paid anyway". Or not. That is why it was somewhat of a shot, Wilhelm. Just like them not cancelling before the race and seeing what happened and grading it the most advantageous way possible was taking a shot and also like the player involved was taking a shot somewhat. Everyone involved continuously took shots. Not what the offshore world should be about.

PokerKingJim · Oct 7, 2005

If the sportsbook doesn't agree to the panel hearing, then I don't see the point in spedning hours and hours of time on deliberations/formal writeups. Why would the player agree to a no win situation? If he loses he has to drop it and if he wins, he doesn't get paid anyways. Good idea in theory but not in practice

royalfan · Oct 7, 2005

InSpades said:
If the bet was made before the disqualificatons were made public, then I stand corrected.

IS

Fair enough.

royalfan · Oct 7, 2005

How do you edit a post like INspades did without having it say that it was edited at the bottom?

Dante · Oct 7, 2005

royalfan said:
How do you edit a post like INspades did without having it say that it was edited at the bottom?

If you edit within 5 mins...there is no edit that comes up royalfan..

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

Newport I don't feel qualified to comment on the owner's character but I'd have thought the panel could have been fairly turned into a positive for him. If he won, cool. If not, he pays out, loses some coin, but what a plus for his reputation and that of the industry.

Having discussed the case with him I'm sure Spiro honestly believes he is in the right, according to his principles. I honestly believe I am in the right too, according to the plain text of Olympic's rulebook. In any other form of business you would attempt to negotiate a settlement, and as a last resort, go to some form of arbitration by a third-party. But Spiro doesn't believe in any of that. He's holding the stake money, he decides who to pay out. We can take it or leave it.

degenerategambler · Oct 7, 2005

wilheim said:
I want to make this perfectly clear -- in no way shape of form did Olympic ever agree beforehand to to abide by the TOW Panel ruling. The panel took on the case in the hope to find some closure and perhaps define what they as a panel believe is the correct ruling in a very complicated case.

wil.

What a joke this was right from the beginning, huge write up on the panels' decision and at the end, a statement saying they "hoped that Oly would abide by their ruling". I'm always in favor of the player, but to throw Oly under the bus on this one is absolutely ridiculous. How can you even call it arbitration if BOTH sides haven't agreed to it?? Whether you agree or not with the panels decision or the players side, you can't rip Oly for not adhering to an arbitration that they never agreed to. Call them stiffs for not paying the player on a very very questionable bet, but not because some so called panel decided against them.

NEWPORT · Oct 7, 2005

JamesHunt said:
Newport I don't feel qualified to comment on the owner's character but I'd have thought the panel could have been fairly turned into a positive for him. If he won, cool. If not, he pays out, loses some coin, but what a plus for his reputation and that of the industry.

Having discussed the case with him I'm sure Spiro honestly believes he is in the right, according to his principles. I honestly believe I am in the right too, according to the plain text of Olympic's rulebook. In any other form of business you would attempt to negotiate a settlement, and as a last resort, go to some form of arbitration by a third-party. But Spiro doesn't believe in any of that. He's holding the stake money, he decides who to pay out. We can take it or leave it.

Are we talking under 10 dimes of money???or more??

Power is sometimes more powerful to some then positve busines activity

Also it seems that the International community is FAR more interested in power than, being the best at communication and business procedure.

I have learned a great deal on how other parts of the world communicate!! A lot of fluff, and a lot of ERASERS and New Paper........for ever changing rules and policies

JamesHunt · Oct 7, 2005

[sorry, wrong thread]

drunk · Oct 7, 2005

I have one point too make. I have not read into this ruling, F1 situation, this is just a basic overview. The top echelon of books in this industry can give two shits about these forums, especially when most of them read it themselves for laughs or have an employee scroll through them and fill them in on the gossip. The fact that most of these forums are run by con artist type of individuals who feel they have the right too extort books who either don't advertise on there sites or just do it too get the traffic on there individual sites. I trust Spiro one million more times then I trust any of these watchdog crooks. The only way an arbitration type panel will ever work in the event a dispute arises is if the books are on the panel themselves. I am sure if the books had someone bring this too them too set up such a panel it could be done easily behind closed doors. As long as any of these con artist site owners are trying run it, it will never be a legitimate way too resolve a dispute. Basically the owners of the books feel the "watchdogs" owners are basically bottom feeders, NOT THE POSTERS, but the OWNERS.

peteep · Oct 7, 2005

First time I remember hearing something bad about Olympic. Very out of the ordinary seeing them make this poor of a business decision. Should have simply stated they wanted no part of the panel arbitration. Now they just come across as stubborn.