Topic: FORTUNEJACK.COM |Deposit 777 play with 1777 mBTC |Live Casino, Slots, Betting - page 147. (Read 464809 times)

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

What frustrates me the most about what happened is that a bookie cannot just cancel a bet because odds drop against their favor.

There are endless cases where various players get llisted at let's say 6.0 odds and then few hours later drop to 3.0, or start at 5.0 and then drop to 2.5, or 3.0 and drop to 1.5-2, or start at 2.5 and then drop below 1.5 - I can go on & on. If I got in at the initial odds, you can say I got a little lucky, but it is not my fault nor is it "unfair" to the bookie, because they are the ones who decided to post these odds themselves and make them official for several hours.

It is certainly not a "technical" error either and is not uncommon at all, especially when the odds were universally the same at all times across the whole industry. Therefore, bookies never cancel bets because of these types of situations. I've never had this happen to me before, and I don't know anyone else who did either.

My case is no different than the example I used above.

Much like on the other hand, a player could have been first opened at 2.5 and then dropped to 4.0, or started at 3.0 and then dropped to 5.0 or gotten significantly worse odds/better valuation a few hours later, which also happens a lot and is not uncommon.

So if I bet on a player at 2.5 and then a few hours later he's at 4.0-5.0 - that feels "unfair" to me and now I feel bummed that I didn't wait a bit longer, but it is 100% my fault & responsibility for placing the bet at the given 2.5 odds, because at that timeI thought it made sense & was worth the risk, so I cannot blame anyone else but myself for placing the bet.

And surely the bookie is not going to cancel the match because of this situation either, because it doesn't make any sense. So I have to suck it up and accept the fact that now odds are different and I can't do anything about it other than hope my player wins so I can win the bet at 2.5x.

At the end of the day, it all balances out at the end - sometimes you get in more favorable odds and sometimes they're less favorable, but the bottom line is that no bets get canceled because of a change of odds, especially when they are universally the same across all bookies.

So you have to respect the odds and fair play at all times, and not go canceling around bets just because the odds changed against you - this happens too many times to count, yet no reputable bookie ever cancels a bet because of that.

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That's pretty much the last thing I have to say about this, and I hope most of the community members agree with me as well. 

-
Already answered the same question.

Will clarify once again - it's not the community deciding whether we're wrong or true, this is the way of us reporting their feedback publicly (As their feedback is crucial for us as a company in general - we will be considering things mentioned within the poll and a thread)

That's it, pretty much - the decision will be noted afterwards.

-
Good luck with the bonus - I'm sure you can make it happen and pass the previous milestone of 1.7 mBTC. 

Yup.. I’ve also said the same thing a few pages back.  The books will always cancel your bet if the line is stale.  I’ve had mine canceled before at a fiat book.

And yes, it’s industry standard.  But I guess most people in crypto are new to sports betting?  Another thing I noticed in the space is wanting to play higher limits but doesn’t want to go thru KYC.

I just received another 40x + 1x "bonus appetit."
Challenge accepted! Last time I could only salvage 1.7 mBTC in the end, lol.

-
will not argue that much - we respect the opinions of our community members.

They've as well suggested adding that as an option to be voted equally.

I guess you don't really understand how powerful they could be in terms of support and generally speaking improving the casino as a whole.

i'm sure fj will fix this they've been in the gambling world for a long time and they never disappoint customers

maybe to have at least clarity in regards to Majority decision , adding that 25% option ( while FortuneJack has already offering this) will Give the communities Heart and position on the matter.


In this case People in forum and not only those winner must be including in the voting because this will serve an example and basis in the coming same situation as we Knew that Not Only FJ experience this same scenario as in the past or even recently this has happen and been posted above .

I'm Sure that FortuneJack and the winners will come to best result , that everyone will be happy and also will Give Light in the futures event.

Good to See that Again FJ and the Team is proving their sincerity about issues and troubles they are facing to be resolved.

Everything must be given chances mate , Let FJ resolve this issue with the help of the winners , and also of our community here in gambling section.

I'm also not exactly sure why the first option was given when FJ is already offering at least 25% of the initial bet. IMO the poll should have only featured these 3 options.

Anyways, doesn't really matter. Would love to see what the majority of people think in the next few days.

Exactly. I'm using this case to try and have a much broader discussion about betting in general, while remaining on point here as well. Ethics are important and we should be demanding more from our bookies, especially the ones we have some sort of connection with. After all, playing the ethics card did get us at least that 25% bonus FJ is offering now - they were adamant their decision was final and no compensation would be given.
Smart people do write bots, bots do take advantage of arbitrage opportunities, but then these accounts get betting restrictions - and the betting site wins again. Not fair once more, because I never heard anyone getting restricted while losing big.

I don't agree that margins can be much higher, 1.85 for a 50/50 bet is already way too low. We started from 1.95, some sites still have it (FJ has among the best and fairest odds for these markets), the bookies are again bleeding us as much as they can. Just because we still pay up.

___________________________________

Regarding this case, it's not just that the bet is being voided. They actually told him he can cash out, so it's an error on an error. He also thought he had an open bet - if it was voided instantly, he would have bet elsewhere.

Although I do stand on the side of the player, I can also see that FJ is trying to sort this out. Their TOC protects them so I appreciate them still deciding to offer something - no matter my general opinion that these types of errors should be solved at a cost of the betting provider, not the user.

Fair enough i guess for Both parties , FJ and the Winners is indeed may favor this if that's the consensus outcome.

Anyway i don't want to get involved in the arguments because i did not win that time but i Give my Vote now though will not reveal in what part i favor of.

Hope that FJ will soon be done on this because they are one of the respectable gambling site that i find here since i enter the online gambling and this forum.

That email was sent to them 1 month later which is way too late.

If this was actually a technical error and betrader notified this to FJ during the period when odds got changed + around the time I partially cashed out (it was a 5-hour difference btw), then FJ would have voided it right then & there without any delays.

But the fact that they didn't and then claimed a change of odds as their only reasoning to cancel my bet 7 hours later and 2 hours before the match was about to start, proves this was not a "technical" error like they claim it was, and therefore the bet should never have been canceled in the 1st place - which means I deserve to win my bet in full.

I also don't understand how they can possible say it was a technical error as a reason to cancel my bet, when the same exact odds & swings happened across all bookies universally, yet none of them canceled this bet for their users due to any "technical" errors, as it should be.

Based on that email, if the odds provider indeed say it was an error, then seems like there is no argument.

It is just strange the betting was voided later I guess.

Anyway, I agree with DarkStar, this has to be mediated by a recognized mediator, it doesn't serve anyone to have it publicly taken apart here and getting dirty laundry aired. I believe this has happened in the past before but because of terms and conditions, generally mediators side with the casino (as unfair as it sounds, unfortunately, most T&C as published reserves the right of casinos).

I would take the 25% and learn my lesson.

-
Here's the screenshot of the provider showcasing the odds error.



Unfortunately, there's no email within the betting time frame as usually betradar himself as well as we automatically annulled part of the data in a month which is not used that much, talking about the emails. However, we did ask the company representatives to once again state the fact of having the odds error as an email.

Thanks for your interest, though - means a lot to us!

Another winner on the bugs' edge LoL.
@EpicChamp here, 🍌🍌🍌 have a banana maybe this can help you realize something that FJ doesn't owe you any.

Oh Please...

Please read a few comments above where I explained why this was not actually a technical error to begin with (as well as countless of times on this + my own thread for other reasons as well), and should not be considered as such and used as an excuse or reason to cancel my bet.

They even wrote themselves that they canceled the bet because odds changed from 2.6 to 1.7 as their reason, and that's FAR from a "technical" error like being placed at 6.0 when you intended to make it 1.6 or less. There was 0 mention of anything relating to a technical error from them as the reason for canceling the bet in my email.

the regulator is obliged to protect consumers by including in the license conditions that the bookmaker has no right to cancel bets and impose personal limits.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/sportsbet-ordered-to-pay-winnings-on-unfairly-cancelled-afl-bets-20191031-p536bt.html
I hope it happens sooner

If we're going to talk business, all major sportsbooks void odds for being wrong. I've even had Pinnacle void for odds errors before. Sometimes as a gesture of goodwill, they'll pay errors, but everyone betting on errors shouldn't be upset if they end up being voided, especially if it's voided before the match starts.

You can argue the ethics of this all you want, but that's just how the industry is. I think the industry would be very different if books were forced to pay errors - margins would be way higher so the average player loses more at the expense of a few smart people writing bots to immediately find errors and max bet them.

I kinda agree with you here. I never said companies should payout odds errors because the community wants it. I said I feel they should do it because in my view, you either run a legitimate business or you do not run a business at all. Bookies spend millions of dollars to get the odds right - to get the margins exactly where they want them to lure us in and make the odds look better than they are. That's their business, so I also feel that they should not hide themselves behind TOC when they get it wrong. They should pay out, not just FJ, any bookie that has made a mistake. Why? Because we're not in kindergarden and because that's how businesses should be run. If I put my apartments on Booking.com for 15 instead of 150 dollars, I would not be able to cancel it and say 'sorry'.

Also, I really did not wish to put a precedent of any sort. Both sides were saying the vast majority of the community agreed with them so I felt it might be a good way to test how we breathe. I never wanted it to be a public poll (nor anonymous for that matter).