Roobet Voided Over $3 million in Legit Winnings

[nutildah]

With all due respect, its quite obvious you're full of shit by this point. If there was any merit behind your claims you would have posted the betslips of the rest of your 15-leg parlay. The only fault of Roobet is letting people bet on these matches after they had concluded. Should they pay out winnings for their mistake? Absolutely not. I'm assuming they returned the bet amounts to your balance, so no harm, no foul.

The nice thing for the OP is that this may be another case where some bets are good. All bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out.

Honestly I don't understand what your major malfunction is, but for whatever reason you are unable to digest all information being provided to you in any situation you stick your nose into, and you have no right to be taken seriously. This is why you shouldn't comment on matters you are incapable of fully understanding.

the point is they were all from the same tournament and started at the same time.

[stompix]

3million is not some pocket change,  wonder what was the stake on this and how many odds...

He has shown 4 bets, one is a 670, them multiplied gets somewhere in the x110 range, now assuming they are all the same, it could easily go to 1.5 mills with just 12 of them with $1 wager, and I doubt he has put more in such a thing because he knew from the strat he might now get away with it.

Anyhow, nobody is losing $3 million won legit and post just two screenshots of it, nothing natural in his attitude, I mean, seriously, $3 million? I would have called by now every referee in Bristol and have them on tape when they started those matches if I knew I was right about the timing here!!!!

[AHOYBRAUSE]

3million is not some pocket change,  wonder what was the stake on this and how many odds...

He has shown 4 bets, one is a 670, them multiplied gets somewhere in the x110 range, now assuming they are all the same, it could easily go to 1.5 mills with just 12 of them with $1 wager, and I doubt he has put more in such a thing because he knew from the strat he might now get away with it.

Anyhow, nobody is losing $3 million won legit and post just two screenshots of it, nothing natural in his attitude, I mean, seriously, $3 million? I would have called by now every referee in Bristol and have them on tape when they started those matches!!!!

Exactly that. Every law firm would be interested in this case, also they would work on a fight for you now, pay later basis and get every information that's necessary to prove the player is in the right. With 2 small screenshots what's there to see? I mean if I had a solid case and would want people to rally behind me I would certainly show as much proof as possible to make my case the. The way this is handled is kinda ridiculous and show that even OP doesn't take this too serious.

[Rating Place]

With all due respect, its quite obvious you're full of shit by this point. If there was any merit behind your claims you would have posted the betslips of the rest of your 15-leg parlay. The only fault of Roobet is letting people bet on these matches after they had concluded. Should they pay out winnings for their mistake? Absolutely not. I'm assuming they returned the bet amounts to your balance, so no harm, no foul.

The nice thing for the OP is that this may be another case where some bets are good. All bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out.

Honestly I don't understand what your major malfunction is, but for whatever reason you are unable to digest all information being provided to you in any situation you stick your nose into, and you have no right to be taken seriously. This is why you shouldn't comment on matters you are incapable of fully understanding.

the point is they were all from the same tournament and started at the same time.

Stop being an ass. Are you going to post something stupid every time that I post. If you don't understand sports betting, then you should stay out. Late bets are cancelled, all bets made before the start of the game are good.

Roobet cancels late legs and recalculates the parlay payout "if" there are good legs.

Standard rules

A “Parlay” is a bet where the customer chooses two (2) or more selections and requires every selection to be correct in order for the Parlay to win. In the event a Parlay contains a selection which is settled as void or push, then the individual selection will be excluded from the Parlay, and the odds of the Parlay will be recalculated to reflect the remaining selections in the Parlay.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

all bets made before the start of the game are good.

Show the bets placed before start of the game and show that they are single bets not  the part of the accas.

[Rating Place]

all bets made before the start of the game are good.

Show the bets placed before start of the game and show that they are single bets not  the part of the accas.

All his bets may have been past posted. If so, he’s not entitled to anything. If some weren’t past posted, then they are winners. It doesn’t matter if they are singles or part of a combo.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

All his bets may have been past posted. If so, he’s not entitled to anything. If some weren’t past posted, then they are winners. It doesn’t matter if they are singles or part of a combo.

So you don't know the bets yet you are arguing. Single or part of combo does not matter, really? You are good to allow misconduct and continue.

You might consider changing your username to Ranting Place.

[Rating Place]

Randomly selected but they are all the same.

Pinnacle
Standard Parlays (called "Multiples"): If any selection in a parlay is declared void or is a push, that selection is simply removed from the parlay. The parlay is then recalculated with the remaining selections. The odds for the voided leg are treated as 1.00 (or "no action"), and the total odds of the parlay are reduced.

Paddy Power
Standard Parlays: If any selection in a multiple bet is a non-runner or is otherwise declared void (e.g., an abandoned match), the bet on that individual leg is void. The multiple bet is then adjusted accordingly. For example, a "treble" (a three-leg parlay) with one void leg becomes a "double" (a two-leg parlay), and the odds are recalculated based on the remaining selections. If this results in a single-leg bet, that single bet will stand.

BetOnline.
Standard Parlays: If a game is canceled, results in a push (tie), or a specified pitcher doesn't start in baseball, the parlay is reduced to the next lowest number of teams. So, a four-team parlay becomes a three-team parlay. For a two-team parlay where one game is a push, the bet becomes a straight wager on the remaining game.

Bet365
General Parlays: bet365's rules state that if a selection is a "non-starter/scratch or void selection," the parlay will be settled on the remaining selections, with the "To Return" figure reduced accordingly.

Caesars Sportsbook
General Parlays: Caesars rules clearly state that in parlay wagers, the stake will run on to the remaining selection(s) if a selection is made void or does not participate. The number of selections in the parlay is reduced by the number of voids or pushes.

BetMGM
General Parlays: BetMGM's house rules state that if a selection within a parlay is a push, void, or cancellation, the parlay is reduced, and the payout will be recalculated with the remaining legs.

FanDuel
General Parlays: FanDuel's house rules state that if a selection in a parlay is a "non-runner or otherwise void," the bet on that individual leg will be voided and the parlay bet will be adjusted accordingly. For example, a three-leg parlay with one voided leg becomes a two-leg parlay. If a voided leg means the parlay becomes a single bet, that single bet will stand.

DraftKings
General Parlays: DraftKings explicitly states that if a selection in a parlay is settled as void or a push, the individual selection will be excluded and the odds of the parlay will be recalculated with the remaining selections.

[holydarkness]

Will just quietly drop this ToS from Roobet here, in case anyone who doesn't bother to read the agreed ToS between player and sportsbook decided to chime in [chimed in?] and derail situations by... incoherently ranting.

[nutildah]

The nice thing for the OP is that this may be another case where some bets are good. All bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out.

Honestly I don't understand what your major malfunction is, but for whatever reason you are unable to digest all information being provided to you in any situation you stick your nose into, and you have no right to be taken seriously. This is why you shouldn't comment on matters you are incapable of fully understanding.

the point is they were all from the same tournament and started at the same time.

Stop being an ass. Are you going to post something stupid every time that I post. If you don't understand sports betting, then you should stay out. Late bets are cancelled, all bets made before the start of the game are good.

It has nothing to do with "understanding sports betting" so much as being able to comprehend basic English. Since you missed it the first and second times, let me increase the font size of OP's own words for you:

the point is they were all from the same tournament and started at the same time.

If you had bothered to read this, you wouldn't have said something like this:

The nice thing for the OP is that this may be another case where some bets are good. All bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out.

ALL THE MATCHES STARTED AT THE SAME TIME. Which was 8 AM. Even if they didn't all start _exactly_ at 8 AM, ALL matches OP bet on concluded before 8:50 AM.

It is highly likely (nay) a statistical certainty that OP placed his bets sometime between 8:50 and 10 AM.

Case closed.

[Rating Place]

The nice thing for the OP is that this may be another case where some bets are good. All bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out.

Honestly I don't understand what your major malfunction is, but for whatever reason you are unable to digest all information being provided to you in any situation you stick your nose into, and you have no right to be taken seriously. This is why you shouldn't comment on matters you are incapable of fully understanding.

the point is they were all from the same tournament and started at the same time.

Stop being an ass. Are you going to post something stupid every time that I post. If you don't understand sports betting, then you should stay out. Late bets are cancelled, all bets made before the start of the game are good.

It has nothing to do with "understanding sports betting" so much as being able to comprehend basic English. Since you missed it the first and second times, let me increase the font size of OP's own words for you:

the point is they were all from the same tournament and started at the same time.

If you had bothered to read this, you wouldn't have said something like this:

The nice thing for the OP is that this may be another case where some bets are good. All bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out.

ALL THE MATCHES STARTED AT THE SAME TIME. Which was 8 AM. Even if they didn't all start _exactly_ at 8 AM, ALL matches OP bet on concluded before 8:50 AM.

It is highly likely (nay) a statistical certainty that OP placed his bets sometime between 8:50 and 10 AM.

Case closed.

Listed time is different than actual start time. Listed time doesn’t mean anything and causes problems with past posting. Sometimes matches start early and people past post. Sometimes matches start late and bets are allowed after the listed time. Past posted events are always cancelled.

@holy stop quoting that rule in the ToS. You are taking it back to the previous case. Books can cancel before the match, not after. Suspicious activity means something such as match fixing.

If you come across something for the first time, don’t try to learn from only looking at the ToS. Look at previous cases and industry standards.

[nutildah]

This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You suggested that some of the matches in the parlay may have started after 10 am, which cannot have happened, and here's why:

 - OP says he placed the bet 1 hour and 11 minutes before the start time.
 - he said all matches in the parlay started at the same time (even if they started a few minutes apart, it doesn't matter -- we know he was inferring that they are all from the first round of the tournament).
 - he claimed that all official sources said the tournament started at 10 AM, although this was clearly not true as you acknowledged in your first post)
 - 10 am minus 71 minutes is 8:49 AM, around the time the first round of the tournament had concluded and the second was beginning.

How could he even have a parlay with some matches from the first round and others from later rounds? Makes no sense at all.

If you or OP want to argue that the matches started at 10 instead of 8, then its on you to find anything that supports this.

@holy stop quoting that rule in the ToS. They can cancel before the match, not after.

The relevant clause is in 4.9, about canceling a bet made "after an event has started."

[Rating Place]

This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You suggested that some of the matches in the parlay may have started after 10 am, which cannot have happened, and here's why:

 - OP says he placed the bet 1 hour and 11 minutes before the start time.
 - he said all matches in the parlay started at the same time (even if they started a few minutes apart, it doesn't matter -- we know he was inferring that they are all from the first round of the tournament).
 - he claimed that all official sources said the tournament started at 10 AM, although this was clearly not true as you acknowledged in your first post)
 - 10 am minus 71 minutes is 8:49 AM, around the time the first round of the tournament had concluded and the second was beginning.

If you or OP want to argue that the matches started at 10 instead of 8, then its on you to find anything that supports this.

@holy stop quoting that rule in the ToS. They can cancel before the match, not after. Suspicious activity means something such as match fixing.

The relevant clause is in 4.9, about canceling a bet made "after an event has started."

The OP obviously knowingly past posted. I just mentioned that some matches may be good. You were wrong in the last case when you said one cancelled bet voided the parlay so I mentioned again that one cancelled bet doesn’t void a parlay.

No one thinks past posted events are good but a few past posts don’t cancel the whole parlay.

[holydarkness]

[...]
@holy stop quoting that rule in the ToS. You are taking it back to the previous case. Books can cancel before the match, not after. Suspicious activity means something such as match fixing.

If you come across something for the first time, don’t try to learn from only looking at the ToS. Look at previous cases and industry standards.

Why should holy stop quoting that rule in the ToS? It's the binding agreement between the player and the casino, where the casino reserves the right to refuse, restrict, cancel, or limit any bet, as well as voiding them in case of suspicion of unfair activity. So why should the clauses covering the matter not being quoted by holy? And further, does unfair activity specifically means strictly to match fixing? No other instances that can be categorized as unfair? Placing late bets where results already known is not unfair?

[nutildah]

The OP obviously knowingly past posted.

Then why would you say that "all bets started after 10 are good even if they throw the others out"?

I just mentioned that some matches may be good.

The first part of the tournament was over by 8:50 am, and it would have been impossible to have a parlay span 2 or more rounds of a tournament. So no, they couldn't have.

You were wrong in the last case when you said one cancelled bet voided the parlay so I mentioned again that one cancelled bet doesn’t void a parlay.

I never said that. Do you enjoy lying or is your memory just extremely poor?

Either way, you've once again proven that nobody should trust anything you have to say.

[Rating Place]

I'll look it up later and if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize.

edit- sorry that I accused you of saying one cancelled bet kills the whole parlay. That was holy. You're the guy that disagreed with the self exclusion.

Yes, all bets started after 10 are good. As far as the case at hand, it's over as far as I'm concerned unless the OP comes back and says some games hadn't started.

In looking back at your posts, I see you play fantasy football. Good luck this year. My draft is in a little over a week.

[holydarkness]

I'll look it up later and if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize.

edit- sorry that I accused you of saying one cancelled bet kills the whole parlay. That was holy. You're the guy that didn't understand the self exclusion case saying the player didn't try to self exclude when he clicked the self exclude form.

Yes, all bets started after 10 are good. As far as the case at hand, it's over as far as I'm concerned unless the OP comes back and says some games hadn't started.

holy what now? Quote holy on that thread where holy said that, please, so holy can get a better context of the statement that holy might said and you ranted into something completely else.

Oh, and... that self-exclusion case, of where the player suspiciously lock his thread after realizing the tide was not in his favor, nutildah did not didn't understand the self-exclusion. It's you who being naive and take player's word at face value.

[Rating Place]

I'll look it up later and if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize.

edit- sorry that I accused you of saying one cancelled bet kills the whole parlay. That was holy. You're the guy that didn't understand the self exclusion case saying the player didn't try to self exclude when he clicked the self exclude form.

Yes, all bets started after 10 are good. As far as the case at hand, it's over as far as I'm concerned unless the OP comes back and says some games hadn't started.

holy what now? Quote holy on that thread where holy said that, please, so holy can get a better context of the statement that holy might said and you ranted into something completely else.

Oh, and... that self-exclusion case, of where the player suspiciously lock his thread after realizing the tide was not in his favor, nutildah did not didn't understand the self-exclusion. It's you who being naive and take player's word at face value.

he clicked the self exclusion form and was sent an email. No one answers the email correctly. They are mad for being questioned when trying to self exclude. Maybe this is the first self exclusion case that you've come across. Ahoy self excluded although he didn't say that in the email. I'll go with what Ahoy said.


When someone clicks this, they are trying to self-exclude

[holydarkness]

I'll look it up later and if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize.

edit- sorry that I accused you of saying one cancelled bet kills the whole parlay. That was holy. You're the guy that didn't understand the self exclusion case saying the player didn't try to self exclude when he clicked the self exclude form.

Yes, all bets started after 10 are good. As far as the case at hand, it's over as far as I'm concerned unless the OP comes back and says some games hadn't started.

holy what now? Quote holy on that thread where holy said that, please, so holy can get a better context of the statement that holy might said and you ranted into something completely else.

Oh, and... that self-exclusion case, of where the player suspiciously lock his thread after realizing the tide was not in his favor, nutildah did not didn't understand the self-exclusion. It's you who being naive and take player's word at face value.

he clicked the self exclusion form and was sent an email. No one answers the email correctly. They are mad for being questioned when trying to self exclude. Maybe this is the first self exclusion case that you've come across. Ahoy self excluded although he didn't say that in the email. I'll go with what Ahoy said.

Given that thread was locked by the player himself [of which I am somewhat sure was due to his realization that the scale wasn't tipping toward him, as the overseers --you excluded-- on this board are standing on neutral ground], kindly create a new thread, discussing that matter, I'll debrief you to the length that I can, to hopefully make it abundantly clear to you that it is you who doesn't understand what happened with the self exclusion of that casino. Not me, not nutildah, you.

This will be my last brush of that topic in this thread, as that matter will be OOT here. If you want to talk about that matter and prove that... uhh, well, whatever you're trying to prove, create a thread, I'll address you to the fullest there.

[nutildah]

First of all, we're getting way off topic.

Second of all, thank you RP for your apology.

But since the other thread was locked, I think its important to point out the following, and I will try to be respectful about it.

he clicked the self exclusion form and was sent an email.

No, that's not what happened. Clicking on the infinite/indefinite option in the self-exclusion part of the website triggers a popup which is shown in the screenshot that I took:

Per BetFury, you're supposed to specify the reason why you want to close your account (also found in their ToS):

They do not send you an email. You send them an email. Specifically, you are supposed to tell them in the email that you wish to self-exclude per their Terms of Service. Could BetFury go about this process in a better way? Certainly. Did BetFury have any idea this user was trying to self-exclude based on the contents of their email? No, they did not.

I suggest you open a new thread about the issue if you want to continue this conversation as it has nothing to do with the current thread.

edit: me and holy were typing at the same time apparently & came to similar conclusions