Also interesting the length the book will go to, in order to prevent the case from going outside the loop of their management, and Igaming Ontario.
@vodking2 ай бұрын
Rob's "nowadays" counter this video - 2 1:18:44 Funny enough on that one, Rob says he doesn't think he said nowadays earlier to which Johnny disagrees. Johnny was right. Check 47:50 Rob! Sad day though. Sounds like Rob is actively trying to correct this. My man, please just let it rip. If nowadays is what pops into your mind naturally, be the free man that you are and vocalize it. For the people.
@nicmackavely77642 ай бұрын
Agree with John at 41 min mark - Regulated sportsbooks in Ontario are self regulated. They make a decision, and Igaming rubber stamps it.
@nicmackavely77642 ай бұрын
Seems like Igaming will side with the book, ,even when the book is clearly wrong.
@BrentMilcz2 ай бұрын
IGaming and AGCO (as far as the G part goes) is a toothless organization, no one should be surprised. I had 888 void an mlb moneyline bet after settling and paying me out! Surely that should be where they draw the line. They have set a precedent that the book can decide they didn't like their line exposure once they've lost, whereas we are not afforded the same luxury. They should at least have to commit to a wager once the game starts, let alone has been finished for 12 hrs.
@nicmackavely77642 ай бұрын
The fact that Igaming won't issue a written decision is not good at all. It prevents precedents from being established, and therefore allows the books to do whatever is convenient at any time.
@rf213122 ай бұрын
After watching this episode and the roundtable discussion regarding limiting bettors with the gaming commission that occurred about a week or 2 ago, it seems the sportsbooks have full control and basically can do whatever they want. On top of that, with some states like Illinois increasing taxes for sportsbooks, it will only make things worse for bettors. We'll start to see -115 on both sides instead of -110....
@LemonyBrisket2 ай бұрын
Robs looking good...and he knows it.
@rf213122 ай бұрын
Oh man… only 7 more attempts on my Martingdale bankroll… definitely not risking $2.5 million. Kids, Martingdale is stressful, don’t try it at home 😂
@paulpascoe6632 ай бұрын
I’m an Australian lawyer and I don’t know how much overlap there is with the US, but here there almost zero doubt that he could get a proper hearing on the grounds of denial of natural justice based on the regulator failing to include him in the decision making process at the very least by way of written reasons for decision. Pursuant to the rules of administrative law, a government enacted regulator must not only act in a fair and impartial manner, but also be SEEN to be acting in a fair and impartial manner. No judge in their right mind is going to rule that this regulator was seen to be acting in a fair and impartial manner. Not surprised though, bookies and casinos are just as scummy here in Aus, and the regulators are just as biased and anti-customer.
@andrelouis9422Ай бұрын
With the right lawyer you could prob get a proper hearing but the cost of the lawyer would be more than the payout from the case (if you won). Therefore your comment makes little to no sense unless the case amount was worth a crapload.
@moneyballerz21662 ай бұрын
1 day late confirmed....currently roof of mouth and tongue burned -EV fo sho🥵
@CirclesOffHQ2 ай бұрын
Oh no!
@rf213122 ай бұрын
Bettors need to continue to push for minimum bets, the more discussion about it, the more likely it will happen. It just takes 1 rec book to do it for the others to be "force" to do it. Remember, at one point college students would not be able to make money off their image... look at them now...
@ecolt02 ай бұрын
minimum bets will be bad for most bettors lol
@rf213122 ай бұрын
@@ecolt0 a minimum bet for limited bettors would not be a bad thing. Why do you think it would? We’re not saying minimum bets for all bettors, just limited bettors
@TimMcintyre4222 ай бұрын
Oakland Raiders #56 Pat Swilling
@ecolt02 ай бұрын
still martingale'ing johnny NO app.
@sammehigan112 ай бұрын
In fairness they paid out the winners that weren't affected so I'm sure if they voided those there'd be a different guy on this show arguing that he should have been paid out because his bet should have been paid out after the game where it was a guaranteed win
@damonwilson23072 ай бұрын
Does this mean Ceasar's has now limited his account?
@alexr96552 ай бұрын
He was permanently banned from Caesars.
@ecolt02 ай бұрын
He is banned
@notkevinfinnerty49592 ай бұрын
If have a question I want you guys to possibly cover on the next FAQS episode, where is the best place to send it.
@CirclesOffHQ2 ай бұрын
circlesoff@thehammer.bet
@bgoldgrab2 ай бұрын
Can we stop acting like it's so clear that this an unfair way to grade it? If I bet a player to hit a home run on fanduel and the game is shortened by rain - if he already hit a HR, it will grade as a win, if not it will void. This whole exclusion of "outcome already determined" can help the bettor too. Don't act like they deliberately twisted it to help them
@ianwinograd42132 ай бұрын
Each outcome by itself -- voiding 12 or 13 and grading the others at a loss is not clearly wrong. Only when you look at both outcomes does it become clear -- there are no winners, only losers. That's likely why nobody else complained -- each person only sees his own outcome.
@GoNyGoNyGo-kn2tx2 ай бұрын
The problem is the rule specifically says how it should be graded, but they graded it a different way.
@bgoldgrab2 ай бұрын
@@GoNyGoNyGo-kn2tx that's not the part I'm arguing with. I'm talking about how they're saying what would be more "fair"
@bgoldgrab2 ай бұрын
@@ianwinograd4213 there are winners - if you bet o10.5 wins that graded as a win. But according to people here that should have voided
@GoNyGoNyGo-kn2tx2 ай бұрын
@@bgoldgrabok. I see what you mean.
@bgoldgrab2 ай бұрын
I'd be more upset if they graded an over 10.5 wins as a void than what caesars did. Why are you guys arguing that the FAIR way to grade o10.5 wins (or exact win totals less than 12) is a void?