Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by Alamorich:
I have a 5 game win streak going and Covers shows the streak at 3. I am 7-3 L10 and they have that right. I have emailed covers about the problem but I have not recieved a response. What is the use in playing when Covers can not keep score or correct their mistakes. I have been a subscriber since 2006. I am very disappointed and wont participate in the contest until this get fixed. A Covers member since 2006 should be very aware that there are occasional technical glitches, almost always minor (as with this one), that almost always get corrected within 24-48 hours. Also, before ranting here as if you were robbed of something, you would be better served by considering: - your streak was at a level where you hadn't won a prize yet - you were still a very significant underdog (approx 15-1) to win even the first prize ... an inexpensive baseball cap - you were still a million miles away from any possible (perceived) threat to a cash prize - you can post to the 'Covers help' forum to politely point out minor technical glitches (or email them, as you did, but...) - to expect Covers to do anything more than forward notes about minor glitches to their techs is ridiculous - Covers has no history (that I'm aware of) of ripping people off; and - if all five games said 'win' next to them on your detailed list, you were never at any risk at all of losing anything, ever, anyways |
Covers-Team | 359 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Roundup:
I also had 201 wins and was temporarily in 2nd place. I knew that was wrong, but I hope that 201st win wasn't counted against me in the standings because it was a late Lakers game. I ended up in the 45th spot. I was really hoping to win a mug (35 - 40). Your placing appears correct. Your 200th win was the Baylor-Texas NCAAF game which began at 9:00pm. The person who finished in 40th was recording their 200th win around that time with the Radford-Winthrop NCAAB game that began two hours earlier. |
VANBUCK | 15 |
|
|
Do we know for certain that there will be no more leagues added today? COVERS STAFF, it would be nice if you posted to the forum and didn't leave us hanging. |
TOPGUN23300 | 6 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Lindberghfan:
Sorry Clepto you wont be getting the hat because you live in Canada read the rules YOU need to read the rules. I received a hat (which I will gladly sell) last week. I received a hoodie in early spring. |
Double-A | 97 |
|
|
About 2 minutes before the game started, I locked in "over 114.5" in today's St. Peter's @ Fairfield NCAAB game. My selection screen definitely said 114.5 at the time I entered the pick, but upon locking it in, the confirmation screen said "over 117". WTF? If the line happened to change in the few seconds that I had the selection screen up, should I not have received a message saying as such and giving me an option of either accepting the new line or skipping the pick? I believe that is what happened to me once before on this site. Why not this time? For the record, I would not have taken the game at 117. The game just started, so this is not "Monday morning" complaining. I might still win. Regardless, please look into this and fix the problem (and please credit me with the win if the 2.5 points do end up screwing me).
|
derailleur | 1 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Rizzo:
All the picks on that matchup at that line were removed... Not true. They were voided the next day. They were never removed. Removing them when the problem was initially detected would have allowed for another pick. Voiding did not. Quote Originally Posted by Rizzo:
...so there was no advantage to anyone. Not true. Every one of the players who did not have their pick voided received an advantage over the few that did. The way that you handled the problem may not have affected the final results this time, but these are still the facts despite your cognitive dissonance. Since you've admitted in another thread that this problem has happened in the past and there is nothing to prevent it from happening again, isn't it high time for Covers to provide a clearly defined rule so that we all know how to best avoid this happening to our picks? |
Rizzo | 54 |
|
|
Rizzo, With all due respect, I think your decision to remove a point from myself and anyone else who had Oakland +27.5 is very wrong and I think the decision should be reversed and the point (re-)awarded. When I made the pick, I knew the +27.5 spread to be an incorrect flip-flop of the true line. However, I was not making the pick to "cheat" anyone. I simply made the pick because the line was there and I knew it was open to everyone else (who hadn't already made their picks) as well as me. Since the rules (which I re-read immediately before locking in the +27.5) do not clearly state what will happen in the case of a technical error, there was no way for me to determine if a decision by me to not take it for "ethical" reasons would equate to me screwing myself (as the advantage would still remain open to others). Also, while in this specific case I (and presumably others) could fairly easily identify the existence of a technical error, this could just as easily happen (or have already happened without detection) when the spread is/was -1 or -2 ... making it virtually impossible for any player to identify a technical error over a simple, legitimate line movement. In the end, this random error was just that. A random error. If you happened to be online for the approx. 3 hours it was available, then lucky for you. Those who will complain that they had already made their picks have no case as the inability to capitalize on this is the same as the inability to capitalize on a large, unexpected line movement (eg. a 10 point swing on the announcement that a QB is not playing). There are pros and cons to picking early, and you can win or get burned by doing so. Everyone knows that. However, your decision to remove the point is not random and is not based on a clearly defined rule. I understand that you have every right to do it. That I do not question. But considering the lack of a clear rule on how errors such as this would play out, do you not think it better for some players to feel "screwed" (whether they are or not) by random bad luck (and their personal decision to pick early) than by an intentional, subjective decision made by someone else to take their point away?
Also, for the future, while I understand that technical difficulties like this may be unavoidable, could Covers not have voided all contest plays on this line when it was discovered (approx. 3 hours later) and then messaged all contest players to at least allow the opportunity for a replacement pick since there were at least 5-6 hours left of start times? |
Rizzo | 3 |
|
|
I am relatively new to Covers and simply want to know how this occurs. A number of Ultimate Race players have DET @ -150 in tonight's NHL game. Once a team becomes greater than a -150 favourite, they are unavailable to pick. DET is currently -156 so, as I have not picked them yet, they are not available to me. Okay. Advantage to anybody who got them early. I understand. However, when I look at the "Covers Contest Odds" on the odds page, the line history for the game is as follows: 12/05/10 12:26:24 PM ... -155 (Open) 12/06/10 1:56:23 AM ... -155 12/06/10 2:56:23 AM ... -152 12/06/10 4:06:23 AM ... -156 If they were never at -150 or lower, how did three top-25 players (galgeorge, dnicess21, pointsspread) plus others get them at that price? Are the above times just random snapshots? I would have assumed they are indicators of EVERY time the line moves, but I could be wrong. |
derailleur | 1 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by TOPGUN23300:
A simple upgrade could provide some well deserved sanctity by simply changing one aspect. If a player could not see anyone's picks until they had submitted their own picks. END of STORY. Maybe this would end all the copying nonsense once and for all. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your proposed upgrade wouldn't change anything. I have a friend or two on this site - as do many others. If I was challenging for first and/or the top 25, I could just have a friend pick first and then forward me the intel. |
thirdperson | 14 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.