Pinnacle cancelling bets?

[PerpetualCzech]

According to members (http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=36&threadid=289127) they are.

Something smells wrong with the story though. I'll bet anything there are relevant details missing. If there's nothing more to it than what he said, then I'm afraid I'll have to be counted in the Non-Believer camp.

[Prop Man]

In the section wher eyou can check for pending and past bets, they do have a "Deleted" section. I know they deleted one of my bets this year. Pissed me off. There was absolutely no track of it, it just poofed, disappeared. This was before the "deleted" section existed, so I couldn't even find it was deleted. I wish I had documented that. It did happen to me once.

With GRK, it happened to me twice in SB props. One time, no sign of anything, no email. The second time (different prop), they emailed me saying it was cancelled.

[PerpetualCzech]

I just finished an IM chat with members and am now satisfied that he's telling the truth. There is a bit more detail to the story but I'll leave that up to him to elaborate on as he sees fit. He provided me with enough evidence so that I believe him.

The way he told it to me, if I were him I'd be absolutely pissed. I know someone pretty well connected to Pinn and I promised I'd give him a call and do a little investigation.

[daringly]

Is it just live bets? It's still bad, but I'd like to know more.

[EdTeach]

If what he says is true and I have no reason to doubt him it sets a pretty f'n dangerous precedent for other books.

[PerpetualCzech]

Through my contact, H is now aware of the situation.

Pinnacle has always had the policy that if they are getting double-triple-multiple popped on the same side from different accounts, they will cancel or reduce the size of the bets. I am sure that's what they believed happened in this case.

They critical issue here is *how long* did it take for them to cancel the bets. H believes (rightly or wrongly) that the bets were cancelled in a reasonable amount of time, so as far as he's concerned, standard policy is being followed.

If members or anyone out there can provide definitive proof that bets are being cancelled long after they are being placed, I will be happy to take a list of those bets back to H and have them investigate them.

[trixtrix]

nope, the "critical" question is if they also cancel bets for sides that get multi-popped; but eventually steams the other way. if they don't, then it's obv disadvantageous to the player. if you place 3 bets each on orland and lakers, orlando moves against you and lakers moves with you, but only the 2 bets on the lakers gets canceled.. then it's balatant thievery..

i assume henry has provided you proof that they also canceled multi-popped sides that were on the other side of the steam?

additionally, what does he mean by multi-popped sides? at the same price or the readjusted price following each subsequent hit? last i recall, pinny actively encourages you repop the sides indefinitely since they have dynamically readjusted lines, when did that change? i don't believe it's possible to get simultaneous bets in at the same price, w/ pinny's software? is this belief wrong?

[custer]

I don't think 'when' they cancel the bets really matters. Canceling bets for these reasons is wrong in so many ways. If they are having trouble with taking too much money on sharp injury info, they should either reduce their limits or pull the game off the board immediately upon the 1st max bet. Canceling the bets is free rolling the bettor any way you look at it.

[ahearnb]

additionally, what does he mean by multi-popped sides? at the same price or the readjusted price following each subsequent hit? last i recall, pinny actively encourages you repop the sides indefinitely since they have dynamically readjusted lines, when did that change? i don't believe it's possible to get simultaneous bets in at the same price, w/ pinny's software? is this belief wrong?
This is a very key point. It would be much different if their software allowed double popping at the exact same price (AND this is what was being done). I really can't believe that PC is sticking up for Pinnacle here, after hearing all the information. Custer is 100% correct IMO. I make a bet at an agreed upon price, the bet stands. It's really not that difficult....a freeroll is a freeroll.

[PerpetualCzech]

Please quote me the line in my post that indicates I am "sticking up for Pinnacle".

When they cancel the bets does matter, but I agree a more important issue is the fact there is no reliable way to inform the bettor in a timely manner that they are doing this. This of course leads to the getting-freerolled problem. This is something I should have addressed in my earlier post and I did mention it to members privately.

[Santo]

I guess the argument is that if they want to take this action, the other option is to close all the accounts they think are bearding or otherwise duplicating bets. I guess the players responsible wouldn't want that outcome either.

[ahearnb]

Please quote me the line in my post that indicates I am "sticking up for Pinnacle".

Pinnacle has always had the policy that if they are getting double-triple-multiple popped on the same side from different accounts, they will cancel or reduce the size of the bets. I am sure that's what they believed happened in this case.
This goes back to the point trixtrix made. Does their software allow 2 accounts to submit the bet at the exact same time and get the exact same line? You are sure that's what they believed happened in this case? (By saying that, it actually sounds like you are not sure.)

If members or anyone out there can provide definitive proof that bets are being cancelled long after they are being placed, I will be happy to take a list of those bets back to H and have them investigate them.
LOL, if this doesn't define sticking up for them, I'm not sure what would. A bet was placed. As Custer said, when it was cancelled doesn't really matter. If they found out the 3 best players for the Spurs were out 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 30 minutes later, does it really matter? Obviously, they found out this info as soon as they got popped however many times by however many bettors.

In the end, it's really difficult to prove exactly what happened from either side. I can't really be sure that Pinnacle didn't freeroll members and you can't really be sure that members didn't underhandedly double pop. So, you have to go with the facts. A bet was placed and accepted on a widely available line within the limits the bettor was allowed by a highly regarded sportsbook. Send paper.

[Prop Man]

Members' post and the whole thread looks like it is now deleted.

[PerpetualCzech]

In the end, it's really difficult to prove exactly what happened from either side. I can't really be sure that Pinnacle didn't freeroll members and you can't really be sure that members didn't underhandedly double pop. So, you have to go with the facts.

No you don't. Another option is that you can just admit you don't know enough and refrain from making any opinion at all. As is always the case, on internet boards if you don't backslap the player and throw all your support behind him then you are seen as "sticking up for the book". My favourite one was here (http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=36&threadid=260199&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=) where my first post was giving the player some genuine advice on how to proceed and I still got slammed, presumably because I wasn't cheerleading hard enough for him.

I do admit I sympathize with the books in one way: it seems that always in these situations the players love to come out with their conspiracy theories about how the book is sitting there rubbing their hands just waiting to screw the player in any way they can. That's just not what's going on. Whatever happened, Pinnacle believed members was trying to take advantage of them in some way. Somewhere, somehow, there's a misunderstanding.

The best way I can help is to try to make sure the right people (or rather, the right *person*) at Pinnacle is made aware of the situation, and that's what I've done. Cheerleading or backslapping members might make him feel better, but it doesn't really solve much.

[ahearnb]

I already admitted I didn't know everything. You just quoted it. Maybe you do, I'm not sure. I guess I just assumed that there could be no way that you know with 100% certainty that Pinnacle didn't freeroll the guy. I just gave my opinion on what was presented in this thread and at LVA/BC. I like to think I'm impartial between player and book, but maybe not completely.

EDIT: And you still didn't answer trixtrix's question that I repeated in my post. Surely you know the answer.

[PerpetualCzech]

I have been involved in cases where I've (inadvertently) gotten the same price as someone else, although it's not common. I do know that if H feels that it's being done deliberately then he doesn't hesitate to start cancelling and warning and if it continues, closing accounts. I highly doubt that that's what members was doing, but it's possible that Pinnacle *thinks* that what he was doing.

[ahearnb]

That, I completely agree with. :)

[trixtrix]

As is always the case, on internet boards if you don't backslap the player and throw all your support behind him then you are seen as "sticking up for the book".

no, the reason why you are seeing as "sticking up for the book" is b/c of quotes like this:


Something smells wrong with the story though. I'll bet anything there are relevant details missing. If there's nothing more to it than what he said, then I'm afraid I'll have to be counted in the Non-Believer camp.

when you explicitly implied that he was lying; yet, you made no similar strong comments regarding the possibility of the book lying, when it turned out he was telling the truth.

it's statements like this that make players doubt your veracity.

if you want people to not question your objectivity, then you must first proceed in a neutral manner. when you first come on here and make a blanket statement like pinnacle can't possibly be in the wrong, and then don't even try to backtrack, how do you expect posters to view your statements?

[PerpetualCzech]

Thanks for twisting my words. I never said "Pinnacle can't possibly be in the wrong". I said the story smells fishy to me. You want to know what part made me say that? This part:

"One was reduced almost 4 hours after bet was accepted."

I didn't believe that at the time and have since found out it's not true.

You must have also missed my next post where I reported my chat with members and said "I just finished an IM chat with members and am now satisfied that he's telling the truth." (I suppose I should have said "mostly") and "The way he told it to me, if I were him I'd be absolutely pissed."

Or maybe you caught it and just ignored it because you like to pile on the evil guy who dares to consider that books might actually make an effort to be fair at times and occasionally make mistakes.

[WarDekar]

FWIW Pinny will *never* (AFAIK) let you double pop something immediately. They welcome you to bet the re-adjusted line, but they also have a 30 second window where you can't bet which is their opportunity to move the line more if they want.

I assume what has happened here is there were multiple bets being made on all these wagers within that 30 second window. Pinnacle thought it was a group acting together, because they all would get the information at the same time, and then bet it within 30 seconds of each other. Even though the price was adjusted, Pinny clearly thought since it was always the same people in that window that they must be working together and started only letting one bet stand.

I can see where Pinny is coming from, but as long as they weren't acting together I think it has to be allowed.

[ahearnb]

I can see where Pinny is coming from, but as long as they weren't acting together I think it has to be allowed.
And it has to be proven somehow that they acted together, right? This is exactly what I am saying.

[daringly]

FWIW Pinny will *never* (AFAIK) let you double pop something immediately.

If multiple accounts are involved, you can. And you will draw their wrath.

[Brian]

I've had a couple of live bets canceled at bodog. Are you only talking about live bets? or regular bets too?

[tomcowley]

This is still crap. If they don't want the action, automatically OTB the game temporarily after one flagged bet, or take other countermeasures. A bet on a good line should never be canceled or reduced, ever, unless it's over an agreed upon (but not software-enforced) limit on that particular account.

Pinnacle saying "we only want to take X action on a certain number" and reducing/splitting up the action after the fact, is ridiculous. Imagine if SIA started doing this- oh, wait, even freaking SIA has a hardcoded limit on how much 1-sided action they'll take on a number.