The bovada case - that can change the whole betting industry

**deltgen** · 01-17-20, 09:04 PM

I don't know how to do it, but surely someone can see what the odds were for that soccer bet on other sites. If others had it in the +500 range, Bovada screwed up and you'll have a case. If everyone else had it at around +200, you will be told that it was a 'bad line'.

**showonly** · 01-17-20, 09:24 PM

Your actions give the appearance that you saw the bad number and ran to the most likely winner you could parlay it with.

**theflyingbuffalo** · 01-17-20, 09:27 PM

I've never heard of a site that has historical odds for a futures bet on a specific day.

Looking at that group at that time, it looks like Lask and PSV were tied for 2nd with 7 pts and Sporting in 1st with and 2 games to play. Looking at a simple rating system those 3 teams rank pretty close to each other. With the 4th team eliminated, it seems like roughly 1/3 of a chance (+200) for each is much closer to the real odds than +525.

That being said, who knows where they are pulling +200 from, why not +250 or some other number? Personally I think you still have a case to be paid at +525. It's not as egregious as some people who post getting 200:1 on a number when the true odds should be 25:1 and then whining when their bets are cancelled.

However, Bovada and other sites like 5dimes are known to do stuff like this, so doubt you get paid.

**NBAtanker** · 01-17-20, 10:29 PM

I found the match it was against PSV and they were favourites at home at 6/5 2.20 +120. You obviously knew this and took a shot fair play to Bovada for actually honouring you the winnings because other sites would void it and boot you

**NBAtanker** · 01-17-20, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by theflyingbuffalo

I've never heard of a site that has historical odds for a futures bet on a specific day.

Looking at that group at that time, it looks like Lask and PSV were tied for 2nd with 7 pts and Sporting in 1st with and 2 games to play. Looking at a simple rating system those 3 teams rank pretty close to each other. With the 4th team eliminated, it seems like roughly 1/3 of a chance (+200) for each is much closer to the real odds than +525.

That being said, who knows where they are pulling +200 from, why not +250 or some other number? Personally I think you still have a case to be paid at +525. It's not as egregious as some people who post getting 200:1 on a number when the true odds should be 25:1 and then whining when their bets are cancelled.

However, Bovada and other sites like 5dimes are known to do stuff like this, so doubt you get paid.

Every site had it at +120 at kick off so he should be happy with +200 go onto FlashScore and go Europa league it gives odds from loads of bookmakers all range around +120 to +130

**PD77** · 01-17-20, 10:36 PM

I’m of the mindset if they booked the bet they should pay the bet. Adjusting post match for a lesser amount is inexcusable. That being said, this type of behavior is very common in the unregulated online sportsbook world. This case is interesting, yet common, and I don’t see it changing anything, let alone the “whole betting industry”.

**Crusherrr** · 01-17-20, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by NBAtanker

I found the match it was against PSV and they were favourites at home at 6/5 2.20 +120. You obviously knew this and took a shot fair play to Bovada for actually honouring you the winnings because other sites would void it and boot you

I almost hope they take his adjusted winnings for trying to scam them. Then he has the audacity to make a post like this here about it like they tried to screw him over.

This isn't a $20 bet you placed. You wagered presumably your entire balance on these bets. I'm guessing at least based on the strange bet size including cents.

You knew what you were doing. Good try...

**NBAtanker** · 01-17-20, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Crusherrr

I almost hope they take his adjusted winnings for trying to scam them. Then he has the audacity to make a post like this here about it like they tried to screw him over.

This isn't a $20 bet you placed. You wagered presumably your entire balance on these bets. I'm guessing at least based on the strange bet size including cents.

You knew what you were doing. Good try...

Exactly your not going to bet that amount on a +550 he obviously knew which is fair enough but to make this over the top thread when they actually honoured the bet and didn’t free roll him is laughable

**ace7550** · 01-17-20, 10:49 PM

Can't there be some rule where your 1st post on SBR isn't a long story about how you got scammed by an A rated book?

**Optional** · 01-17-20, 10:49 PM

One point the OP has left out of his story is that he saw the bad line, joined Bovada to bet it, and then hit it soooo hard there was no way it would evr get through un noticed.

And as others have pointed pointed out LASK had already won 3 of its 5 group matchups and was under +200 to top pool. (ie LESS than the generous odds Bovada gave him)

This guy took a shot and lost. Full stop. Disappointing for him, but when it such an obvious shot and done to such a big level, I do not feel the slightest bit sorry for the guy. Try being a bit smarter and bit less greedy next time possibly?

**Optional** · 01-17-20, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by ace7550

Can't there be some rule where your 1st post on SBR isn't a long story about how you got scammed by an A rated book?

There is a definite anti-correlation between the length of the first post and explanation, and how genuine a complaint is.

**NBAtanker** · 01-17-20, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Optional

One point the OP has left out of his story is that he saw the bad line, joined Bovada to bet it, and then hit it soooo hard there was no way it would evr get through un noticed.

And as others have pointed pointed out LASK had already won 3 of its 5 group matchups and was under +200 to top pool. (ie LESS than the generous odds Bovada gave him)

This guy took a shot and lost. Full stop. Disappointing for him, but when it such an obvious shot and done to such a big level, I do not feel the slightest bit sorry for the guy. Try being a bit smarter and bit less greedy next time possibly?

The hilarious thing is he put “that can change the whole betting industry” when Bovada gave him nearly double the odds haha. Bovada was A in my book think I’ll give them a A++ after this

**Optional** · 01-17-20, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by NBAtanker

The hilarious thing is he put “that can change the whole betting industry” when Bovada gave him nearly double the odds haha. Bovada was A in my book think I’ll give them a A++ after this

And that he made this thread at all, after already having this explained to him.

**milwaukee mike** · 01-17-20, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by NBAtanker

The hilarious thing is he put “that can change the whole betting industry” when Bovada gave him nearly double the odds haha. Bovada was A in my book think I’ll give them a A++ after this

let's not get carried away

i'm trying to meet a rollover there and my live bet limits are now $1, that's just sad

**PD77** · 01-17-20, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Optional

One point the OP has left out of his story is that he saw the bad line, joined Bovada to bet it, and then hit it soooo hard there was no way it would evr get through un noticed.

By that logic, shouldn’t the large wagers have been noticed on 11/21 instead of 12/12, 3 weeks after he placed the bets? I’m not defending OP, but they had to see the wagers beforehand and knew the lines were off, why not reach out and remedy the situation before the bet is settled. If the facts are as everyone has stated it does look like OP still received a favorable settlement from Bovada but it looks really bad to change odds on a wager your accepted post match. Maybe I’m missing something.

**Optional** · 01-18-20, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by PD77

By that logic, shouldn’t the large wagers have been noticed on 11/21 instead of 12/12, 3 weeks after he placed the bets? I’m not defending OP, but they had to see the wagers beforehand and knew the lines were off, why not reach out and remedy the situation before the bet is settled. If the facts are as everyone has stated it does look like OP still received a favorable settlement from Bovada but it looks really bad to change odds on a wager your accepted post match. Maybe I’m missing something.

Ok, you agree that the OP was fine to join to target a very obvious error, bet nothing else, still get paid out at better than the correct odds... and now think this case changes the whole betting industry?

We disagree I guess.

**xKMACKx** · 01-18-20, 02:44 AM

"That can change the whole betting industry"

**nyplayer33** · 01-18-20, 03:56 AM

Op is dumb

**Roscoe_Word** · 01-18-20, 07:55 AM

IMHO, a book should be responsible for the lines they post.

**milwaukee mike** · 01-18-20, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Roscoe_Word

IMHO, a book should be responsible for the lines they post.

that sounds good in theory, but if they let every shot taker in the world hit them for 25k then they wouldn't exist for long

what if it's a -500 that they have accidentally listed for +500?

**PD77** · 01-18-20, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Optional

Ok, you agree that the OP was fine to join to target a very obvious error, bet nothing else, still get paid out at better than the correct odds... and now think this case changes the whole betting industry?

We disagree I guess.

you are putting words in my mouth Opti, I never said that. In fact I said this thread would never change the betting industry. The things you described, “obvious line error”, “joined Bovada to bet it” , and “hit it soooo hard there was no way it would evr get through un noticed”, those all red flags that Bovada SHOULD have noticed the day he joined and wagered $5000 on one event, in fact it did go unnoticed for 21 days.
I do not wager on soccer so I do not fully understand the wager, the way I read it he placed at soccer future on 11/21 for Lask Linz winner group D, which was settled on 12/12. What were the true odds on 11/21 and what were the odds leading up to the final match on 12/12? How many matches between 11/21 and 12/12? And when did Bovada finally notice their line error and correct it?

**Optional** · 01-18-20, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by PD77

you are putting words in my mouth Opti, I never said that. In fact I said this thread would never change the betting industry. The things you described, “obvious line error”, “joined Bovada to bet it” , and “hit it soooo hard there was no way it would evr get through un noticed”, those all red flags that Bovada SHOULD have noticed the day he joined and wagered $5000 on one event, in fact it did go unnoticed for 21 days.
I do not wager on soccer so I do not fully understand the wager, the way I read it he placed at soccer future on 11/21 for Lask Linz winner group D, which was settled on 12/12. What were the true odds on 11/21 and what were the odds leading up to the final match on 12/12? How many matches between 11/21 and 12/12? And when did Bovada finally notice their line error and correct it?

You probably should know this stuff before backing up a guy who is trying to use SBR to unfairly smear the book.

They were leading the group with two matches to play.

They were chalk faves on the 3 way line in both remaining group matches.

There is no question the fair odds were less than the +200 he was given by them. Closer to +100 than +200 would have been reality.

And this was picked up 16 minutes after the market was graded, not some length of time later you have a valid complaint about. They probably took 15 of those mins deciding what was fair odds to pay him.

Fair industry practice, for offshores, is to cancel errors if noticed before the event, or pay them out at "correct" odds if not picked up until after a result is known. This is a good rule for both parties.

Try this with a Malta licensed book and see if you get paid anything or not before you tell me Bovada look bad again. They have acted more tolerant of an obvious shot taker than the majority of books in the world normally do.

**PD77** · 01-18-20, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Optional

You probably should know this stuff before backing up a guy who is trying to use SBR to unfairly smear the book.

They were leading the group with two matches to play.

They were chalk faves on the 3 way line in both remaining group matches.

There is no question the fair odds were less than the +200 he was given by them. Closer to +100 than +200 would have been reality.

And this was picked up 16 minutes after the market was graded, not some length of time later you have a valid complaint about. They probably took 15 of those mins deciding what was fair odds to pay him.

Fair industry practice, for offshores, is to cancel errors if noticed before the event, or pay them out at "correct" odds if not picked up until after a result is known. This is a good rule for both parties.

Try this with a Malta licensed book and see if you get paid anything or not before you tell me Bovada look bad again. They have acted more tolerant of an obvious shot taker than the majority of books in the world normally do.

I’m not backing up the OP, I already stated that, I was trying to get a better understanding of the events and I think you mostly provided that. If these events are true then yes, OP received a reasonable settlement, but Bovada will continue to attract shot takers by leaving future wagers open during a match with only two matches remaining. You are the one throwing Bovada under the bus by stating how blatantly obvious the line error and shot taker were in there actions yet Bovada did not notice for 21 days. I too find it hard to believe Bovada didn’t notice a new account depositing almost $5000 and wagering all of it on a futures bet with a bad line but Bovada is a very large operation so I guess they just didn’t see it until after settlement.

**Pareto** · 01-18-20, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Optional

There is no question the fair odds were less than the +200 he was given by them. Closer to +100 than +200 would have been reality.

This is not true.

Yes, Linz were heavy favourites in the last game vs Sporting. But that was only because Sporting had allready qualified for the next round and didnt care about winning the group. Only 3 players from Sportings normal lineup was on the team for the game vs Linz. And therefor the odds on Linz also dropped a lot before kickoff. Odds on Linz started at around +125, and ended around -160. I can assure you if Linz played a Sporting team that needed points in order to qualify the odds would have been much better than -160 and also better than +125.

**jjgold** · 01-18-20, 01:09 PM

guy was just a shot taker

Most gamblers are

zero case

**Roscoe_Word** · 01-18-20, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by milwaukee mike

that sounds good in theory, but if they let every shot taker in the world hit them for 25k then they wouldn't exist for long

what if it's a -500 that they have accidentally listed for +500?

After being hit for 25K, Mike, my guess is they would pay more attention in the future. Painful lessons are the ones best learnt.

**Pareto** · 01-18-20, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by jjgold

guy was just a shot taker

Most gamblers are

zero case

He was clearly a shot taker. The original odds of +525 was way too high. If he only had bet a few hundred dollars on it I could have believed he didnt know it was too high.

**lonnie55** · 01-18-20, 01:55 PM

1) Fair odds should have been around +200 or +250, I agree to most of the posters in this thread.

+100 would be too low, Opti. Bear in mind LASK was "seeded" #3 in this group. PSV #1, Sporting #2. PSV was away fav against Sporting and heavy fav in the last group match, so actually PSV should have been the odds-on fav for winning the group even after match day 4, followed by Sporting, followed by LASK

2) The book kind of free-rolled the OP because they waited until the bets were settled. They should have corrected their mistake way earlier.

3)

Originally posted by Optional

Try this with a Malta licensed book and see if you get paid anything or not before you tell me Bovada look bad again. They have acted more tolerant of an obvious shot taker than the majority of books in the world normally do.

This.

OP should be glad the book didn't just void the bets as most books would have done so.

**Chiefs83** · 01-18-20, 02:02 PM

They booked his bet and only gave an issue after his bet wins. Poster was pretty much free rolled. I know he hit them on a bad line but waiting till after results is final should not be allowed. I think he should be paid everything either tho I doubt that will happen. Interesting post tho.
Good luck guy

**pimike** · 01-18-20, 02:17 PM

[QUOTE=PD77;29201747]you are putting words in my mouth Opti, I never said that. In fact I said this thread would never change the betting industry. The things you described, “obvious line error”, “joined Bovada to bet it” , and “[COLOR=#000000]hit it soooo hard there was no way it would evr get through un noticed”, those all red flags that Bovada SHOULD have noticed the day he joined and wagered $5000 on one event, in fact it did go unnoticed for 21 days.
I do not wager on soccer so I do not fully understand the wager, the way I read it he placed at soccer future on 11/21 for Lask Linz winner group D, which was settled on 12/12. What were the true odds on 11/21 and what were the odds leading up to the final match on 12/12? How many matches between 11/21 and 12/12? And when did Bovada finally notice their line error and correct

Disregard

**unlearn** · 01-18-20, 02:26 PM

They free rolled your shot taking ass and paid you fair odds when it won which I see no problem in them doing in this case. Be grateful you got paid anything

**pimike** · 01-18-20, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by unlearn

They free rolled your shot taking ass and paid you fair odds when it won which I see no problem in them doing in this case. Be grateful you got paid anything

This is the bottom line!!

I don’t understand some people. I really don’t.

**lonnie55** · 01-18-20, 02:44 PM

Well, the reality is that offshore books can do whatever the F they want without any legal consequences whatsoever. In light of this, we are dependable on their decisions, if we like it or not.

Did the book free-roll him? Yes. But should OP be glad that he at least got something out of this? Yes, because most books would have just voided the bets and showed him the door afterwards.

**ace7550** · 01-18-20, 03:29 PM

On this subject, is there any industry standard on where odds variance ends and bad lines begin?
I ask because I make bets everyday and I usually have my money in 4 or 5 different books because I want the best odds possible. For example I placed a moneyline bet today on a team that was +148, but every other book had them at +130 or +135. If it had been +500 when everyone else was +200 I wouldn't have bet it because that's an obvious line error and will get cancelled.