Lol Caesars Fail

[4Dragons]

Holy shit did he actually do that?

no

Cleveland Steamer mayhaps?

[offthetop]

I bet the shot put winner in the london olympics. Mine got second and the next day the winner got thrown out for drugs. The pricks wouldnt pay

[tyde]

I bet the shot put winner in the london olympics. Mine got second and the next day the winner got thrown out for drugs. The pricks wouldnt pay

WTF

[YUUP]

I bet the shot put winner in the london olympics. Mine got second and the next day the winner got thrown out for drugs. The pricks wouldnt pay

Any chance of you starting a Shot Putt wormhole?

[offthetop]

I bet the shot put winner in the london olympics. Mine got second and the next day the winner got thrown out for drugs. The pricks wouldnt pay

Any chance of you starting a Shot Putt wormhole?

yuup

but no college shot putting

[jsearles22]

I don't see anything there that necessarily makes it a losing bet.

Obviously it was a called game, but it's technically not anymore. It's simply something so rare they didn't anticipate, and they already paid off one side, and don't want the possibility of having to pay the other also.


Common sense dictates it would be their house rule because they can't not pay winning bets on every called game based on something that may occur every 30 years, but that's fucked up.

It's very unlikely they'll budge, but they probably should once, and then write it into rules going forward.

BCR is literally always right. If I ever find myself disagreeing with him in the future, im just going to blindly agree with him and rest assured I was simply wrong.

I get that Drexel (God) would be pissed if he didnt get paid. But I agree with the take from the casino's point of view too. They paid out the winners already of the completed game. If its later protested, and the other team wins, they cant call those people back and get their money back! So why should the casino be on the hook to pay both sides? Honest question. What could/should the casino do to make sure their ass is covered in these very rare cases? Could they have some type of insurance or something?

[4Dragons]

I don't see anything there that necessarily makes it a losing bet.

Obviously it was a called game, but it's technically not anymore. It's simply something so rare they didn't anticipate, and they already paid off one side, and don't want the possibility of having to pay the other also.


Common sense dictates it would be their house rule because they can't not pay winning bets on every called game based on something that may occur every 30 years, but that's fucked up.

It's very unlikely they'll budge, but they probably should once, and then write it into rules going forward.

BCR is literally always right. If I ever find myself disagreeing with him in the future, im just going to blindly agree with him and rest assured I was simply wrong.

I get that Drexel (God) would be pissed if he didnt get paid. But I agree with the take from the casino's point of view too. They paid out the winners already of the completed game. If its later protested, and the other team wins, they cant call those people back and get their money back! So why should the casino be on the hook to pay both sides? Honest question. What could/should the casino do to make sure their ass is covered in these very rare cases? Could they have some type of insurance or something?

You take it to the Gaming Commission of the State of Nevada and they decide. Has no bearing on what the casino wants.

[Dan Druff]

I don't see anything there that necessarily makes it a losing bet.

Obviously it was a called game, but it's technically not anymore. It's simply something so rare they didn't anticipate, and they already paid off one side, and don't want the possibility of having to pay the other also.


Common sense dictates it would be their house rule because they can't not pay winning bets on every called game based on something that may occur every 30 years, but that's fucked up.

It's very unlikely they'll budge, but they probably should once, and then write it into rules going forward.

BCR is literally always right. If I ever find myself disagreeing with him in the future, im just going to blindly agree with him and rest assured I was simply wrong.

I get that Drexel (God) would be pissed if he didnt get paid. But I agree with the take from the casino's point of view too. They paid out the winners already of the completed game. If its later protested, and the other team wins, they cant call those people back and get their money back! So why should the casino be on the hook to pay both sides? Honest question. What could/should the casino do to make sure their ass is covered in these very rare cases? Could they have some type of insurance or something?

Your last line is what they need to do (not the insurance, but that they need to make sure their ass is covered.)

If they did not set up proper and clear rules for what constitutes a "win", then they need to err on the customer's side on both sides of the bet.

Yes, this becomes a freeroll for those customers, but it's the only fair way to handle it at that point. They can't just invent new rules on the fly.

I do wonder if Caesar's has any rules in place regarding protests, such as if a team protests and overturns a victory.

Let's say they have some kind of rule like, "Results of sporting events become final within 15 minutes of completion. At that point, any further protests, score changes, or extensions to the game will be ignored, and the final score as determined at the point 15 minutes prior to completion will be considered the result of the bet."

And of course, it would have to be in line with state laws on the matter.

In such a case, Brandon would be out of luck, but the other side (Cubs) would win, regardless of what happens in the continuation.

But I don't know if Caesar's has such a stipulation anywhere. If they don't, then they really should honor both sides of this one.

[ftpjesus]

BCR is literally always right. If I ever find myself disagreeing with him in the future, im just going to blindly agree with him and rest assured I was simply wrong.

I get that Drexel (God) would be pissed if he didnt get paid. But I agree with the take from the casino's point of view too. They paid out the winners already of the completed game. If its later protested, and the other team wins, they cant call those people back and get their money back! So why should the casino be on the hook to pay both sides? Honest question. What could/should the casino do to make sure their ass is covered in these very rare cases? Could they have some type of insurance or something?

Your last line is what they need to do (not the insurance, but that they need to make sure their ass is covered.)

If they did not set up proper and clear rules for what constitutes a "win", then they need to err on the customer's side on both sides of the bet.

Yes, this becomes a freeroll for those customers, but it's the only fair way to handle it at that point. They can't just invent new rules on the fly.

I do wonder if Caesar's has any rules in place regarding protests, such as if a team protests and overturns a victory.

Let's say they have some kind of rule like, "Results of sporting events become final within 15 minutes of completion. At that point, any further protests, score changes, or extensions to the game will be ignored, and the final score as determined at the point 15 minutes prior to completion will be considered the result of the bet."

And of course, it would have to be in line with state laws on the matter.

In such a case, Brandon would be out of luck, but the other side (Cubs) would win, regardless of what happens in the continuation.

But I don't know if Caesar's has such a stipulation anywhere. If they don't, then they really should honor both sides of this one.

Only to play Devils Advocate here but does it really matter if the Giants fail to pull this game out then Zod still loses irregardless. Yes the Cubs suck but everybody seems to assume that the Giants are gonna just magically pull their dicks out of their hands and win this game they are down 2-0 in.

[jsearles22]

Your last line is what they need to do (not the insurance, but that they need to make sure their ass is covered.)

If they did not set up proper and clear rules for what constitutes a "win", then they need to err on the customer's side on both sides of the bet.

Yes, this becomes a freeroll for those customers, but it's the only fair way to handle it at that point. They can't just invent new rules on the fly.

I do wonder if Caesar's has any rules in place regarding protests, such as if a team protests and overturns a victory.

Let's say they have some kind of rule like, "Results of sporting events become final within 15 minutes of completion. At that point, any further protests, score changes, or extensions to the game will be ignored, and the final score as determined at the point 15 minutes prior to completion will be considered the result of the bet."

And of course, it would have to be in line with state laws on the matter.

In such a case, Brandon would be out of luck, but the other side (Cubs) would win, regardless of what happens in the continuation.

But I don't know if Caesar's has such a stipulation anywhere. If they don't, then they really should honor both sides of this one.

Only to play Devils Advocate here but does it really matter if the Giants fail to pull this game out then Zod still loses irregardless. Yes the Cubs suck but everybody seems to assume that the Giants are gonna just magically pull their dicks out of their hands and win this game they are down 2-0 in.

And it didnt end up mattering one bit. Good call FTP

[PLOL]

[Dan Druff]

[jsearles22]

So I have yet another sports gambling related oddity to relay. I was in Vegas over the weekend. Sunday night my Royals were playing a nationally televised game so I decided to throw a little money at it. I go into the sports book at the Wynn and put $100 on the Royals to cover. They go into extra innings and give up 2 runs in the top of the 9th. Then a hurricanadotsunami rolls in and the rest of the game gets postponed until 9/22. So i go down to the Wynn the next day to see if I can angle shoot them. The Royals clearly arent going to cover no matter what. I ask the guy at the counter whats up, he asks for my ticket, I hand it to him, he punches like three buttons, opens the drawer, and hands me my $100 back! I was shocked. He said basically the game would fall outside their basic time frame to finish and essentially all bets were void. He did confirm that some irate people on the other side had been in trying to collect and were pissed when they just got their bet back.

Since I was free rolling the $100, I figured I'd drop a hail mary:

[Sanlmar]

The appeal makes my proline ticket for that night a winner (a tiny one now). Coulda sworn the Cubs grounds crew was mob run. So shady to let that shit happen.

Slim P

[Dan Druff]

So I have yet another sports gambling related oddity to relay. I was in Vegas over the weekend. Sunday night my Royals were playing a nationally televised game so I decided to throw a little money at it. I go into the sports book at the Wynn and put $100 on the Royals to cover. They go into extra innings and give up 2 runs in the top of the 9th. Then a hurricanadotsunami rolls in and the rest of the game gets postponed until 9/22. So i go down to the Wynn the next day to see if I can angle shoot them. The Royals clearly arent going to cover no matter what. I ask the guy at the counter whats up, he asks for my ticket, I hand it to him, he punches like three buttons, opens the drawer, and hands me my $100 back! I was shocked. He said basically the game would fall outside their basic time frame to finish and essentially all bets were void. He did confirm that some irate people on the other side had been in trying to collect and were pissed when they just got their bet back.

If this was in their official rules (which it probably was), then this is fine, albeit kind of unexpected for most bettors.

My problem with the way Caesars handled Brandon's situation was that the "protest to a game being granted the next day" situation wasn't covered by their rules, as far as I could see. It was ambiguous, in which case they should always favor the bettor, even if it means letting both sides possibly win.

[jsearles22]

So I have yet another sports gambling related oddity to relay. I was in Vegas over the weekend. Sunday night my Royals were playing a nationally televised game so I decided to throw a little money at it. I go into the sports book at the Wynn and put $100 on the Royals to cover. They go into extra innings and give up 2 runs in the top of the 9th. Then a hurricanadotsunami rolls in and the rest of the game gets postponed until 9/22. So i go down to the Wynn the next day to see if I can angle shoot them. The Royals clearly arent going to cover no matter what. I ask the guy at the counter whats up, he asks for my ticket, I hand it to him, he punches like three buttons, opens the drawer, and hands me my $100 back! I was shocked. He said basically the game would fall outside their basic time frame to finish and essentially all bets were void. He did confirm that some irate people on the other side had been in trying to collect and were pissed when they just got their bet back.

If this was in their official rules (which it probably was), then this is fine, albeit kind of unexpected for most bettors.

My problem with the way Caesars handled Brandon's situation was that the "protest to a game being granted the next day" situation wasn't covered by their rules, as far as I could see. It was ambiguous, in which case they should always favor the bettor, even if it means letting both sides possibly win.

I noticed earlier that you only posted rule #7 on their sheet. Is it possible that some wording on another rule pertained to Brandon's situation?