Read on Twitter
What can we take away from the Westgate ( @SuperBookSports)/Gill ( @beatingthebook) French Open dust-up? Thread below 
I hope people can disagree publicly without irreparably damaging relationships. I know & like both Gill & @JayKornegay, & think both are reasonable ppl. To the best of my knowledge, neither party is acting maliciously. I hope I can give my opinion without burning any bridges.
I don’t believe that Westgate cancelled French Open wagers made prior to March to try to gain an advantage. This is speculation, but they probably hadn’t taken a ton of bets, and at the time, it was unknown if or when the French Open would be played.
In fact, had they not cancelled the wagers in March, there are probably some people who would've like their wagers refunded. Who wants money sitting in a non interest-bearing acct for god knows how long (since at that point nobody knew if it would be played at all)?
The problem is that they didn’t clearly notify individuals affected. I agree with @spanky's comment https://twitter.com/spanky/status/1317120310437646336?s=20, that a few tweets from employees isn't enough to ensure individuals affected by the wager cancellations were notified.
But I don’t like how this incident has devolved into a small-scale war between people loyal to Westgate — and those that disagree with their handling of this situation.
I tweeted earlier this week that operators control media coverage of sports betting, and I wonder if media personalities involved with WG, regardless of whether they thought WG was right or wrong, felt some pressure to side with them.
Some people have gone so far as to defame Gill’s character, alleging that he knew the wager was cancelled before the French Open began; others have accused him of betting someone else's money entirely.
I get why Gill is pissed. Based on the house rules, if the Fr Open is considered a futures bet, it should be "action" regardless of date. He didn't know it was nixed, and consequently didn't re-bet Swiatek. I also get why WG doesn’t want to pay: they cancelled the wagers in March
Clearly, if we could rewind things, Gill would have made sure his bet still had action, and WG would have made sure to inform individuals whose wagers were cancelled. But we can't rewind.
I hope @JayKornegay is ok with me recounting this story, but I had a dispute with Westgate over the grading of a Von Miller under 3 tackles + assists Super Bowl prop bet in February 2016. Here was the wording of the prop:
WG (and a few other books) had tackle props worded this way every year. To me, it was clear: I was betting on the number of tackles, excluding sacks. That’s what I had based my bet on. Von Miller ended up with 6 tackles, 3 of which were sacks. WG graded the over as the winner.
I bet this at Wynn as well, & after initially grading it a loss, they refunded my wager. WG didn’t. Interestingly, WG had worded tackle props this way for a decade without issue, & in the 8 years I had bet SB props, there had never been a case where a sack made the difference.
I did not want to become adversarial, & ultimately took the loss, & WG clarified the wording moving forward. I share this story because in an ideal world, I could have taken this dispute to the NV Gaming Control Board without worrying about creating bad blood between myself & WG.
To be clear, Westgate gave me no indication that if I further disputed this (by going to Gaming), it would negatively affect my relationships and ability to bet there in the future, but I didn't want to take the chance that it would over a relatively small sum.
While the recent controversy is confusing, disputes such as mine and Gill's aren't unprecedented (even if the pandemic is). @capjack2000 tweeted that books should respect the "spirit of the wager", but sometimes, bettors exploit books in a way that goes against this very spirit.
Sometimes bettors are wrong. Sometimes operators are wrong. Sometimes it's malicious. But that's not always the case. I understood Jay's perspective, and why he didn't refund my bet, even though i disagreed. I still like and respect Jay.
In an ideal world, bettors (and media) wouldn't have to make a choice between pursuing their cause (or covering a story in a way that may upset an operator) and maintaining access. A media site could investigate a sportsbook cheating on live betting w/o the site losing $ from it.
In this utopia, bettors would be able to seek recourse (in the form of a truly neutral third party), without fear of facing retribution. (Another point entirely, but the incentives of many state gaming regulatory bodies can be...problematic).
In the case of Gill & WG, it seems that lines have been drawn around relationships and access. Ruffling the wrong feathers has real consequences. It's a bad situation all the way around. Hoping there's *something* we can take away from this that moves us in a positive direction.
