I am started a new thread since the other one seemed to get off track.
I have talked to parties from both sides of this situation, and unfortunately we are not going to be able to come to a conclusion that is going to make both sides happy.
The facts are that players were playing correlated parlays at the group of sportsbooks. It had been going for an extended period of time. There is really no dispute here as I have received multiple emails from the players in which they say they have been betting correlated parlays.
The sportsbooks have a no correlated parlay rule on their sites, and they did enforce the rule by cutting parlay limits to $1 on customers that were caught playing these parlays.
When the sportsbooks realized that there were multiple players playing these parlays on a regular basis, they decided to take action and confiscate the winnings from these parlays, retroactive September 1. The argument can be made that they need to refund back losing parlays, but the sportsbooks feel that if they were to go back further on these customers accounts that the amount of money won on the correlated parlays would greatly exceed the amount withheld.
While my feeling is that the sportsbooks should have just closed the accounts and sent back the balances, I can understand why they made their decision. You could have made the argument that the correlated rule was too vague, but the customers all know that they were betting correlated parlays, and I know of at least 4 that continued to play at the books after the money was confiscated. I also had 2 of the customers tell me that they would have rather given up the money and keep this quiet rather than get it out in the public and wise up other books.
My opinion is that both parties share some fault here. Books have a habit of getting lazy and basically just expecting all customers to follow their rules. Players that choose to take advantage of loopholes at books are playing the risk-reward game.
Thanks
Rick
I have talked to parties from both sides of this situation, and unfortunately we are not going to be able to come to a conclusion that is going to make both sides happy.
The facts are that players were playing correlated parlays at the group of sportsbooks. It had been going for an extended period of time. There is really no dispute here as I have received multiple emails from the players in which they say they have been betting correlated parlays.
The sportsbooks have a no correlated parlay rule on their sites, and they did enforce the rule by cutting parlay limits to $1 on customers that were caught playing these parlays.
When the sportsbooks realized that there were multiple players playing these parlays on a regular basis, they decided to take action and confiscate the winnings from these parlays, retroactive September 1. The argument can be made that they need to refund back losing parlays, but the sportsbooks feel that if they were to go back further on these customers accounts that the amount of money won on the correlated parlays would greatly exceed the amount withheld.
While my feeling is that the sportsbooks should have just closed the accounts and sent back the balances, I can understand why they made their decision. You could have made the argument that the correlated rule was too vague, but the customers all know that they were betting correlated parlays, and I know of at least 4 that continued to play at the books after the money was confiscated. I also had 2 of the customers tell me that they would have rather given up the money and keep this quiet rather than get it out in the public and wise up other books.
My opinion is that both parties share some fault here. Books have a habit of getting lazy and basically just expecting all customers to follow their rules. Players that choose to take advantage of loopholes at books are playing the risk-reward game.
Thanks
Rick
Last edited by a moderator:
