I think forum owners sweeping this under the table to collect and protect ad money.
-
Comment -
funny how quotes from just a few days ago no longer apply in this case.
"You book the bet you pay the bet."
"Plus, here is the litmus test; would the book refunded all the money if the player had lost?"
"There is a rule that all books have: All confirmed bets are final. Opera, if Wagerweb did not want the bet they should not have booked it. Once its confirmed its final. "
keep up the hypocrisy guys, way to goComment -
funny thing right, one time my sports account at a book was restricted to 500$ max. and then when i was playing nl poker at the same book i was able to bet my stack which was above 500$. it turns out i won but apparently in unjustified manner as the book has restricted my action to 500$ ACROSS THE BOARD, obviously the only honourable solution for me in this case is to track down the player who i won the pot from and was unfairly wronged, and pay back his money + interest...Comment -
i am going to withhold a complete blastoff on sbr for the moment, but i have plenty of ammunition. i will wait for an official detailed response from bill, et al. before getting deep into this. if i dont see a logical, just and detailed explanation as to why this book is able to get away with this, i am prepared to play this out to checkmate.Comment -
Read the thread about Wagerweb, where SBR is valiantly trying to get back money for the player who past-posted halftime wagers by as much as 10 minutes after kickoff, and it becomes crystal clear that they're more concerned about advertising money than protecting the player.Comment -
thats where i got the above quotes from sbr_john. cant stoop much lower, betjam, as well as this forum is burying itself right next to the eogComment -
Pressure building on Jamaica to pay.Comment -
I think the player should be paid, but it’s not a slam dunk either way for me. My position is probably closest to what JC said.
Most of the points and questions that have been raised are either irrelevant or I think I know where I’d side on them, but the remaining one that seems important to me that I only have a lean at most on is “Can a player of the degree of ‘sharpness’ that this player is, be reasonably obligated to interpret the account note and the software behavior to mean that he had $500/no dupe limits not only in the sportsbook but in the racebook and other separate but affiliated areas of the website as well?”
But anyway, I don’t agree with the many on both sides who are vehement that the other side is just outrageously wrong. I’d like to see a cooling down of some of the rhetoric about how obviously crooked the book is or what a thieving cheat the player is, or this increasingly common kneejerk reaction that if a moderator or someone associated with SBR expresses an opinion favorable to a book it proves the site is a bunch of useless whores in the pocket of the sportsbooks.
This is a close call that reasonable people can differ on. As I stated, I think the side that says the player should be paid has slightly more merit, but I don’t think only liars or morons could see it the other way.Comment -
There are several reasons why I don't believe this is close, namely a) BetJam's initial reaction was to cancel the winner and keep the losses from the losers, b) Scotty has falsely reported several details on the boards, i.e. repeatedly claiming it said "strict limits" when "strict" was never part of it, c) Scotty shared personal information about this player, including his name and location, with the Shrink, who has a horrible reputation as someone who promotes scam sportsbooks, despite BetJam's assurances on their signup page that the info is "confidential," and Scotty did not have the player's permission to share this information.
And finally, d) BetJam's software can obviously be configured to limit racebook bettors as people have reported having their limits lowered by software, and the player was limited to exactly 2x500 bets, plus the original bet limit notice was done ambiguously (and the player disputes that he was informed verbally, as BetJam told SBR). Given that, the burden should be on the book to put the limit on the racebook after the player was limited at sports, and they couldn't be bothered to configure their racebook that way. The player clearly has more credibility in reporting the dispute and BetJam didn't take simple measures to limit the player.
I'm not sure how anyone can look at the Wagerweb (past-posting) thread and this one, where SBR is trying to get the past-poster paid but not the guy who might have made duplicate bets, and not think that taking advertising money has something to do with their responses. On what planet is betting twice worse than deliberately past-posting?Comment -
There is something that Scotty himself wrote that really makes my point:
"Could his urgent reminder message have read "STRICT NICKEL LIMITS / NO DUPES …Scotty 800 329 2640 (this means sports, ponies, black jack, slot machines, tennis, auto racing, soccer, props, futures, etc. etc. etc……)?? Possibly but that is not needed for sharps, don't let him fool you."
BJ's argument stands on the fact his message was not the least bit ambiguous. However, above he states it includes slot machines and blackjack. Can anyone at SBR honestly say when they read the login message they assumed my bets would be limited at blackjack and slot machines as well? Yet according to Scott, that is clear as day.
OscarComment -
The fact that Scotty felt the need to repeatedly add "strict" after the fact is pretty clear evidence that he didn't think the original message was clear enough.Comment -
thats sucks...I sent them a copy of my ID because they told me thats the only way I could have their "card".....thats bullshit...and they didnt even give it to me after that...they told me its only for $1000 a month bettors...I reaLLY regret sending them that document...I'll never make a deposit there
lol..I cant even post across the street anymore cause I guess they didnt like my opinion about the people who puts food on their table...are the kickbacks that great??Comment -
I finally found it, this was posted to the RX by "Inside the Pylons":
"1. My racebook limits have been reduced to well below the posted limits on my account with their racebook software. Sportsbook is still full limits. No message of any kind."
So clearly they have the ability to lower the racebook limits if they so choose, but chose not to do so in the case of OscarK. How can SBR and BetJamaica claim that his racebook limits were supposed to be $500 given the above?Comment -
Jamaica took shots at the player
you will rarely see a forum go against a advertised bookComment -
we go to the bottom of the 8th....
GM 12
SBR NOTHINGLast edited by sundownlv; 12-12-07, 08:50 PM.Comment -
front page of website, exhibit #1:
This dispute highlights WagerWeb's on-going problems with risk management and their inability to deal with issues in real time. If the book identifies a bet placed after the start of a game it is expected to cancel the wager immediately, informing the player of its error of failing to close the betting market on time- as opposed to allowing the player's funds to be risked and later canceling the bet upon auditing his wagering history. Regardless of past-posting claims, Wagerweb has unjustly punished the player labeling his account as fraudulent instead of addressing individual wagers. SBR has asked Wagerweb to address each individual bet and to pay the player for all wagers where he was allowed to put his funds at risk.
uhh, let me check the top of the page.. wager web there? nope...dont see it there.
but oh, look at that.. there's bet jamaica. and an A+, wow whadaya know.Last edited by sundownlv; 12-12-07, 08:38 PM.Comment -
of course they would rule for the player against wagerweb. there is no wagerweb banner at the top of the site. we all know that blatant past posting after teams gained an advantage isnt near as bad as betting set limits in a racebook multiple times, nothing being said as the losses were graded, but the winner comes in and they dont pay.
"You book the bet you pay the bet."
"Plus, here is the litmus test; would the book refunded all the money if the player had lost?"
"There is a rule that all books have: All confirmed bets are final. Opera, if Wagerweb did not want the bet they should not have booked it. Once its confirmed its final. "
the above only applies when the book in question doesnt advertise on a forum apparently. selling out for the mighty dollar, congrats eog, i mean sbrLast edited by absolutvodka99; 12-12-07, 08:40 PM.Comment -
say oscark never wins that horse bet. in fact he goes on to lose a total of 25k. he goes to bet jamaica management (scotty) and asks for his moeny back after he DISCOVERS that he was inadvertently circumventing his wagering limits.
is there just one single individual out there who thinks:
a> scotty would refund his circumvented wagers.
b> if scotty refused and sbr took up the moderation, that sbr would rule in oscark's favor.
THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL A SPORTSBOOK FREE ROLL.
Last edited by sundownlv; 12-12-07, 08:51 PM.Comment -
I think this SIA situation is the most similar dispute to what oscar is dealing with.
"SportsInteraction (SBR rating C-) refuses to reconsider decision to confiscate player's $15,000 in winnings. The player was told that his account was closed yet was able to wager for an additional five months. SportsInteraction was asked to consider a settlement with the client due to the fact that if the bettor had lost all funds, it would be unlikely the account would be reviewed resulting in a refund. SBR's position has been made clear: SIA allowed the player to risk funds, benefited by the chance to win money from the player, and is responsible for the booked wagers."
Why is this case any different? If oscar hadn't hit this "big" win and had lost substantially over time BJ would defintaly keep the money. SBR needs to take a look at the precedent thay have set with previous rulings and stay consistent.
The only difference I see in these two cases is that SIA isn't an advertiser and BJ is.Comment -
that was going to be exhibit #3.Comment -
Didn't mean to steal your thunder sundown.
Exhibit #3b- This thread, http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...e-update.html?, shows that John and Bill both state the player should be paid in the similar SIA dispute.
John makes it pretty clear that if the player was allowed to risk his funds then he should get paid if the bet wins.
SBR needs to reconsider their decision.Comment -
correct, baker. and here are a few key quotes/zingers from the administrators.
SBR JOHN (Admin) : If he would have lost would they have refunded those losses? No. They should pay.
SBR BILL (Admin) : The player's funds were at risk so he he won the money. If SIA really wants to be sure the player understands they don't want his action they can cash him out.
SBR JOHN (Admin) : But the book was in error if they let him bet. Its pretty simple to disable someones account. It takes all of 15 seconds and thats taking a break in there too.Comment -
Come on John. Whether or not sports limits also apply to the horse book is very gray. Most professional bettors seem to think of the two (sports and horses) as different enttities.
How can you side with the player when a book tells him his account is closed and he knowingly continues to bet, but then not side with the player when he bets over the alleged limit for his account , when that limit may or may not have been intended to also apply to horses?
Whether the limit was also intended for the horse book is much less clear than when the player was told his account was closed in the SIA case, yet in the SIA case it is the books error but in this case it is the players fault?
You need to go back and reference your SIA decision and go from there.Comment -
what is so difficult to understand here, john? the sportsbook software allowed him to bet $500 with no duplicates. the horseracing software allowed him to bet $500 TWICE.
contrary to what sbr bill and shrink have stated, the login message of "$500 limits no dupes" is far from being clear. i dont claim to be a rocket engineer, but if i log into the sportsbook, get that message and the software accepts $500 wagers and nothing more while the horse racing software CONTINUTES to allow $500 times two as it always had, i would be one to conclude that the limit was meant for the sportsbook. the 2nd half of the message, 'no dupes' is completely ambiguous in meaning and vague. the primary and most used definition of the noun dupe is entirely different from the secondary definition of dupe, being short for duplicate. i personally would have thought he was referring to dupes as in being duped on a line move, etc. i think it is preposterous to state that the login message was clear and to the point. it was anything but that.Last edited by sundownlv; 12-12-07, 10:41 PM.Comment -
oh, and by the way. WHO IN THE HELL IN THE HISTORY OF BOOKMAKING HAS CUT A PLAYERS STRAIGHT BET LIMITS ON HORSERACING ?
G
M
A
F
BComment -
Very disappointed in SBR to side with an advertiser who is clearly in the wrong.
Bet Jamaica accepted "oscar's" $1000 horserace wagers. They kept his $1000 bets that lost. He won a 6-5 bet for a $1000 and was paid for that wager.
He wins on a 26-1 longshot and all of a sudden his winnings is confiscated saying he bet over the limit.
Its exactly similar to what happened to the SIA bettor that SBR ruled in the players favor saying that SIA accepted the wagers and would of kept the money had he lost.Comment -
ya, but no banner waving proudly at the top of the screen.
no A+ recommended rating for SIA.Comment -
OK so now it doesnt matter?
Look you guys are doing a noble job presenting your arguement. Which actually seems to be reduced to the difference between sports and horse wagers.
We need to see the unshaded history. Maybe it will tell us no more than we know. But thats how we form a final opinion.
It may well come down to a simple point. When a player has his limits cut does it include horses? The book says it does and the player says it does not. The book makes the player click on a pop up that says no dups and he makes a dup anyway all be it in the racebook. Is it ok because that dup was on horses?
An A+ book should probably just pay him and boot him. So maybe BJ will do that. But if the book communicated the limits its certainly within their right to cancel over the limit plays even if the software allowed it. If not, why even bother to have limits? The limits would be whatever the software accepts.Comment -
john, the argument goes far beyond differentiating between sports and horse wagers and you know this unless you didnt read this entire thread. gm touched on many aspects.
let me ask you a simple question, john.
WERE THE PLAYER'S FUNDS AT RISK?
YES OR NO
......please dont spin, just answer the question.Last edited by sundownlv; 12-12-07, 10:59 PM.Comment -
Yes.
Did the play click on a pop up that said $500 limits No DUPS? And then proceed to place a dup? no spin please
Comment -
JohnSBR, The fact that Bet Jamaica accepted oscar's $1000 wagers leading up to the confiscation of his winning the 26-1 longshot tells me or more importantly, told oscar that's what his limit was. Thats the issue.
The smoking gun has been exposed! The poster "Inside the Pylons", a Bet Jamaica customer said this: "The racebook limits on my account are well below the posted limits so they obviously can change limits on an individual account basis with their software." The poster went on to say his racebook limits do not apply to his sportsbook limits.Comment
