Posted:
#51
I told you he was cheating 
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN how panamericana has picked games higher then -130 ?
Posted:
#52
[Quote: Originally Posted by Rizzo] Hey everyone,
After a lot of conversation between Lou and I, we decided that we can not award these wins to panamericana. He cheated the system and looks as though he could have continued to do so if we did not fix the issue.
We will not be resetting his streak, but we will be voiding (marking as a push) those matchups which were not within the contest guidelines.
We are sorry for any inconvenience, or if anyone disagrees with this, but we can not issue winning selections to a user who cheats our free contests.
Rules clearly state that any ML sport with a line greater than -130 will not be available for selection.
-Rizz
Rizz,
I respectfully disagree with your point of view on "the subject".Like I`ve said before I picked the games that were available and by now it is pointless to repeat myself anymore.
I`m glad that "my case" helped you guys to finally fix whatever issues you had with the technology and hopefully we won`t see any future software malfunctions on this great website.We are guests here,thank you...
Keep up the good work!
GL
After a lot of conversation between Lou and I, we decided that we can not award these wins to panamericana. He cheated the system and looks as though he could have continued to do so if we did not fix the issue.
We will not be resetting his streak, but we will be voiding (marking as a push) those matchups which were not within the contest guidelines.
We are sorry for any inconvenience, or if anyone disagrees with this, but we can not issue winning selections to a user who cheats our free contests.
Rules clearly state that any ML sport with a line greater than -130 will not be available for selection.
-Rizz
Rizz,
I respectfully disagree with your point of view on "the subject".Like I`ve said before I picked the games that were available and by now it is pointless to repeat myself anymore.
I`m glad that "my case" helped you guys to finally fix whatever issues you had with the technology and hopefully we won`t see any future software malfunctions on this great website.We are guests here,thank you...
Keep up the good work!
GL
Posted:
#54
It's a tough call, but I think the right one was made.
Pan: I don't think you were cheating per se, but don't try to act all innocent
Rizzo: any chance Covers could make all totals (with a moneyline of -130 or less) available for the Survivor contest?
Props on catching the Philly pick
I think Pan's streak should show as 9 on the leaderboard as well.
Pan: I don't think you were cheating per se, but don't try to act all innocent
Rizzo: any chance Covers could make all totals (with a moneyline of -130 or less) available for the Survivor contest?
Props on catching the Philly pick
I think Pan's streak should show as 9 on the leaderboard as well.
Posted:
#55
This is upsetting, especially since Rizz jumped in at first to say it would be fine, and later to renege on a written promise.
Unless you define "cheating" as taking advantage of the now-admitted mistake by Covers of offering lines greater than -130, I don't know how anybody could see it as such. All he did was pull up the page of lines being offered for the day and pick at will. Retailers are routinely forced to honor the posted price of mis-labeled items when they are cheaper than intended. I know Covers offers this contest free of charge to the online public, and as such most likely has legal right to do what they just did, but it doesn't make it any less dishonorable or unethical.
And this bit about how the "Rules clearly state that any ML sport with a line greater than -130 will not be available for selection." only serves to hammer home the point that this was Covers' mistake and not Pan's, or anybody else who successfully made a ML pick beyond -130 (I suspect that Pan and I were not the only ones).
Maybe I'm just disturbed at Rizz's insistence on associating Pan's name with the word "cheat"...
Posted:
#57
the sad thing is the ones who are at fault are the programmers for not writing the software properly but oh well.
its a free contest but it makes a lot of money for the site. I really enjoy making picks and everything about the site. just would like everyone to remember it turns a profit thats why it is provided. we make them money by being here and in return we get our contest and hopes of winning prizes.
its a free contest but it makes a lot of money for the site. I really enjoy making picks and everything about the site. just would like everyone to remember it turns a profit thats why it is provided. we make them money by being here and in return we get our contest and hopes of winning prizes.
Posted:
#58
Quote Originally Posted by KevDurizzant:
This is upsetting, especially since Rizz jumped in at first to say it would be fine, and later to renege on a written promise.
Unless you define "cheating" as taking advantage of the now-admitted mistake by Covers of offering lines greater than -130, I don't know how anybody could see it as such. All he did was pull up the page of lines being offered for the day and pick at will. Retailers are routinely forced to honor the posted price of mis-labeled items when they are cheaper than intended. I know Covers offers this contest free of charge to the online public, and as such most likely has legal right to do what they just did, but it doesn't make it any less dishonorable or unethical.
And this bit about how the "Rules clearly state that any ML sport with a line greater than -130 will not be available for selection." only serves to hammer home the point that this was Covers' mistake and not Pan's, or anybody else who successfully made a ML pick beyond -130 (I suspect that Pan and I were not the only ones).
Maybe I'm just disturbed at Rizz's insistence on associating Pan's name with the word "cheat"...
Thanks KevDurizzant,
I couldn`t have said it better myself...
and yes,we were not the only ones...even Rizz
| 06/04/10 | MLB | San Francisco | -130 | Pittsburgh | Pending | |
| 06/03/10 | MLB | Oakland | Boston | -128 | Loss | |
| 06/02/10 | MLB | Colorado | San Francisco | -134 | WON | |
It means a lot to me
Cheers,
Panamericana
Posted:
#62
Quote Originally Posted by Loco-D:
The theme continues though... of you taking advantage of Cover's mistakes
The theme continues though... of you taking advantage of Cover's mistakes
Loco-D,
You and your guesswork again
.At first I thought you might collaborate with the covers team but now I think it`s just your real nature,how sweet.You waste your talents here.I heard there is a new job opening at ???????????
?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????,check it out,you never know.On a serious note GL to you with your picks and have a lot of success in the crazy/volatile market,I mean it
Cheers
Posted:
#66
Quote Originally Posted by swahili:
why is the game from may 12 a push panam took Philly at -108 ?
why is the game from may 12 a push panam took Philly at -108 ?
Everybody got a PUSH for that game because Covers listed the Game 2 lines for Game 1 of the Doubleheader. Philadelphia went on to lose that game so I think Covers should have not made it be a push and had it count as a loss.
Posted:
#67
Quote Originally Posted by Tuppy:
Congrats on the continuation of your streak... It is unfortunate the decision they made.on your other picks.. but its time for everyone to move on ......You did not manipulate your picks in any way so for people to insist you cheated is just wrong....Good luck the rest of the way...
Congrats on the continuation of your streak... It is unfortunate the decision they made.on your other picks.. but its time for everyone to move on ......You did not manipulate your picks in any way so for people to insist you cheated is just wrong....Good luck the rest of the way...
Thanks,
but to move on?Au contraire Tuppy,au contraire...as Yogi Berra says"It ain`t over till it`s over"
Cheers
Posted:
#69
Yeah, I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the contest's line somehow got stuck at +105, while it was -140 or so at other books. I myself got duped, because I thought the line was right (I don't bet), so I thought oddsmakers knew something we didn't, so I took the M's in the contest.. lmao
Posted:
#70
Quote Originally Posted by Loco-D:
Yeah, I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the contest's line somehow got stuck at +105, while it was -140 or so at other books. I myself got duped, because I thought the line was right (I don't bet), so I thought oddsmakers knew something we didn't, so I took the M's in the contest.. lmao
Yeah, I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the contest's line somehow got stuck at +105, while it was -140 or so at other books. I myself got duped, because I thought the line was right (I don't bet), so I thought oddsmakers knew something we didn't, so I took the M's in the contest.. lmao
thats still where it opened at. everyone and their mom bet on the angels thats why it moved so much. actually closed at -160 at some places. you cant blame panamericana for the weak programming lol
Posted:
#72
Quote Originally Posted by lightsout2184:
thats still where it opened at. everyone and their mom bet on the angels thats why it moved so much. actually closed at -160 at some places. you cant blame panamericana for the weak programming lol
thats still where it opened at. everyone and their mom bet on the angels thats why it moved so much. actually closed at -160 at some places. you cant blame panamericana for the weak programming lol
Lightsout2184,
thanks for "defending the Fort" while I was away,lol.
Our fellow bettor Loco-D from beautiful Alberta province still believes I have bull`eye on my forehead.Take it easy,please....no more using me as a scapegoat for one`s mistakes.
Life is too short and I`m too old to be part of this kind of "heated" discussions.We are here because we love sports and most of us bets on them wherever there is a value.
Let`s continue to keep this great website to high standards where we can respect and help each other.Peace
Posted:
#73
First of all, I'm not a bettor. Second, I don't have anything against you. I was just pointing out what you did and how it is. I wouldn't have been mad if they let you keep your streak. I don't consider what you did hacking. Third, did you really think you could get away with it? I agree though... it was worth trying it out.
Peace.
Peace.
Posted:
#74
Quote Originally Posted by Loco-D:
First of all, I'm not a bettor. Second, I don't have anything against you. I was just pointing out what you did and how it is. I wouldn't have been mad if they let you keep your streak. I don't consider what you did hacking. Third, did you really think you could get away with it? I agree though... it was worth trying it out.
Peace.
First of all, I'm not a bettor. Second, I don't have anything against you. I was just pointing out what you did and how it is. I wouldn't have been mad if they let you keep your streak. I don't consider what you did hacking. Third, did you really think you could get away with it? I agree though... it was worth trying it out.
Peace.
Hot Forum Topics
