BetJamaica dispute

[Chuck Sims]

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

SBRJohn, to make a max $1000 wager at the BJ racebook, their software makes you place two separate $500 wagers. Please confirm this as I read it on another forum. If true, it destroys the argument she knowingly bet over her limit.

[absolutvodka99]

WERE THE PLAYER'S FUNDS AT RISK?

YES OR NO



.

game set match.
and there we have it folks. if you dont advertise on this site, you can close someones account and a glitch re opens it and you have to pay up because "his funds were at risk", or you can wait for a team to score in the second half of a football game then bet the side and the book has to paybecause "funds were at risk" "if the book confirms the bet they have to pay". if you advertise on this site, you can get away with welching on a wager when a guys funds were at risk, and get totally away with it. a total sham what some people choose to not see for the mighty buck. you might have saved good ol scotty 10k here, but the damage is already done. 90% of the lva forum is basically finished with any association with the nonsense brought forth from betjm, and that in the long run will cost them much more than having to fork over the 10k due to miscommunication, vague limits, and poor software. total class act to that scotty is, by giving out personal details to Ken "The Shrink" Weitzner of xxx xxx xxxxxx xx., xxxxxxxxxx, xx, when he wasnt given permission to do so. i guess if scotty can do it, i can to

[SBR_John]

Thats good stuff Chuck thanks. It would seem it comes down to just that. Anyone else out there with restricted limits at BJ care to comment on how your account is restrcited between sports and horses?

[absolutvodka99]

Thats good stuff Chuck thanks. It would seem it comes down to just that. Anyone else out there with restricted limits at BJ care to comment on how your account is restrcited between sports and horses?

all of that information was already devulged in this thread, but apparently you have yet to read any of it, and have already formed your opinion. sad, really

[SBR_John]

Actually vodka man I wish it were that easy.

If a player sends in bogus funds, plays a bad line, past posts or circumvents limits it doesnt matter if his funds were at risk or not. In this case the player is hanging on a thread that he did not exceed the limits.

[TLD]

So if he made duplicate $500 bets what would your opinion be? This poster or anyone?

If it can be asserted with near certainty that he knew or should have known that the “$500 limit/no dupes” restriction applied not only to the sportsbook but to the whole site, then he was in the wrong to put in duplicate $500 horse bets. And while it would have been better for Bet Jamaica to have used its software to block such bets, I’m OK with how they handled this.

If he did not have reason to interpret the “$500 limit/no dupes” as applying beyond the sportsbook, or even if it’s in a gray area, then he was not in the wrong to put in duplicate $500 horse bets, and Bet Jamaica’s accepting the bets means they are obligated to honor them.

Though I’m open to additional evidence of what is standard practice in the industry and what is commonly known by bettors of this customer’s level of sophistication and “sharpness,” at this time I believe the latter is the case, and therefore I would rule in favor of the player.

[absolutvodka99]

so, why on earth are you advocating wager web paying the player who was betting past post halftimes right in the other thread on the basis that "if the bet is confirmed the book has to pay"? my goodness, you cannot be any more hypocrytical

[sundownlv]

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

that is exactly what the message reads when he logs into his account. rehashed hundreds of times.

and since you brought up that message, what leads you guys to believe that $500 limits no dups is a STRICT AND CLEAR message? it is not that at all. in fact it is vague and ambiguous.

[absolutvodka99]

the racing software is set up in a manner to accept 2 bets of $500 dollars, thus equaling the $1000 limit on the top tier race tracks. you cannot wager more than $500 on one ticket, and ANYONE who wants to bet $1000 has to make 2 seperate 500 wagers. considering the sports book would not let him make "dupes" after he had already had a 500 dollar bet on the game, but the racebook allowed him to do so, he had reasonable cause to go forward with the wagers because the book did not restrict the race wagers. the fact that they were accepted, graded, and PAID over multiple bets again substaintiated the fact that he did nothing wrong, and he could play the house limits in the racebook. as earlier stated by inside the pylons "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.

[SBR_John]

Im not.

By the way welcome to the forum.

We cant agee even within our office on WW. However, that was a case that involved a live wagering clerk on the floor of the book.

[SBR_John]

that is exactly what the message reads when he logs into his account. rehashed hundreds of times.

and since you brought up that message, what leads you guys to believe that $500 limits no dups is a STRICT AND CLEAR message? it is not that at all. in fact it is vague and ambiguous.

Somewhat agree. As Bill stated, this player was aware his limits were $500. Was he aware that included the horses? Thats the $64k question.

[Paterno]

Scotty has mentioned a couple times for posters to call him to discuss further details. Why cant these details be brought to the forums?

I am still holding out hope Betjam is in the right but based on all facts right now, player needs to get paid.

[oscark]

Somewhat agree. As Bill stated, this player was aware his limits were $500. Was he aware that included the horses? Thats the $64k question.

John,

I was definitely not aware of the limit. My standard win wager is $1500. When I realized the max at BJ was $1000, I bet the remaining $500 at WSEX. Since the debacle and I stopped betting horses at BJ, I have been betting $1600/horse at WSEX. If I had known the limit was $500 at BJ, I would have just bet $1000 at WSEX.

Please remember, I am betting on horses here. There is no reason for me to try and circumvent limits on horses. I could bet at the same odds at a number of different books. It just doesn't make sense.

I have invited you guys to confirm this part of the story with WSEX if you would like.

Oscar

[sundownlv]

Somewhat agree. As Bill stated, this player was aware his limits were $500. Was he aware that included the horses? Thats the $64k question.

ok, but john seriously now. that really is a 2 cent question.
why on earth would any reasonably thinking individual believe that his "straight bet" limits had been reduced on horseracing...i mean, seriously john, how often does that happen? we've been in this business long enough to know that just doesnt happen everyday. do sportsbook limits get reduced? yes every day all over the place. horseracing straight bets? uh, NO.

what about the fact which has been reiiterated counteless times that the sb allowed $500 no duplicates and the horse book allowed 500 1 duplicate per norm. what about the fact the man put his funds at risk, had them deducted from his account and even got paid on 2x500 bets in the horsebook AFTER this vague login message was implemented?

come on, this stuff is childishly obvious. why are you painting yourself into a corner?

[sundownlv]

and one last, extremely relevant question, john.

had oscar never won that race and continued to go on to lose $30,000, $15,000 of which were circumventing his supposed strict limits, would you side with him in a case against bet jamaica to collect that $15,000?

YES OR NO

[Chuck Sims]

SBRJohn, you may have missed my earlier post. Here it is:

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.

[SBR_John]

So after he lost $30k and came to us wanting $15k back would we side with him? Is that the correct question? No chance.

Oscar you are the player in question here?

I will look into a couple of things, some have been hinted at already. Also I want Bill to contact a few A+ bookmakers and find out how this relationship between horses and sports works when a player has his limits reduced.

You have a good stable of backers here who will hopefully be objective although I know these disputes can get the blood flowing.

[SBR_John]

I saw it Chuck and posted to you. Thats a great point.

[sundownlv]

so,

A. bet jamaica reserves the right to accept $500x2 wagers for 2 months despite having a supposed 'STRICT' message that contradicts this.

B. bet jamaica reserves the right to collect all the $500x2 losses from the player when he loses.

C. bet jamaica reserves the right to wave a RED FLAG when and if the player wins big and enforce their message as being unambiguous and STRICT!!!

D. bet jamaica reserves the right to keep all circumvented wagers when and if the player later discovers that he was inadvertantly betting over the house limits (you just answered this)

did i miss anything, here?

[SBR Lou]

why on earth would any reasonably thinking individual believe that his "straight bet" limits had been reduced on horseracing...i mean, seriously john, how often does that happen? we've been in this business long enough to know that just doesnt happen everyday. do sportsbook limits get reduced? yes every day all over the place. horseracing straight bets? uh, NO.

I think you're right. I can't see them cutting his sportsbook limits then specifically stating "this applies to horses too!!", but maybe they did. I think they'll end up paying here because they look ridiculous.

[Chuck Sims]

Thanks SBRJohn. If able could you ask a reputable sportsbook like WSEX, that offers non pari-mutual horserace betting, that if a new bettor starts making $1000 win bets on the horses, do they take notice? This has been talked about by many sharp players. They find it ridiculous to believe a racebook would not notice a bettor making $1000 win bets at the racebook.

Bet Jamaica claims they had no idea "oscar" was making $1000 win bets at their racebook. Only after he won on a 26-1 longshot did BJ suddenly notice oscar's action. It does not pass the smell test.

[groovinmahoovin]

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.

That, plus Jamaica's continued dishonesty in their posts to other gambling boards. They gave personal information about this player,including his name, to an unsavory individual without the player's permission.

It may well come down to a simple point. When a player has his limits cut does it include horses?

Except that SBR's previous position has always been, if the funds are at risk, the player should be paid. As was written about the SIA situation:

"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."

How can you possibly say with a straight face that it's fine to bet after a player was explicitly told his account was closed, but not ok to bet after one's limits are ambiguously lowered???

[groovinmahoovin]

Actually vodka man I wish it were that easy.

If a player sends in bogus funds, plays a bad line, past posts or circumvents limits it doesnt matter if his funds were at risk or not.

But betting after he was told his account was closed, i.e. is limits are 0, is fine?

"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."

[groovinmahoovin]

game set match.
and there we have it folks. if you dont advertise on this site, you can close someones account and a glitch re opens it and you have to pay up because "his funds were at risk", or you can wait for a team to score in the second half of a football game then bet the side and the book has to paybecause "funds were at risk" "if the book confirms the bet they have to pay". if you advertise on this site, you can get away with welching on a wager when a guys funds were at risk, and get totally away with it. a total sham what some people choose to not see for the mighty buck. you might have saved good ol scotty 10k here, but the damage is already done. 90% of the lva forum is basically finished with any association with the nonsense brought forth from betjm, and that in the long run will cost them much more than having to fork over the 10k due to miscommunication, vague limits, and poor software. total class act to that scotty is, by giving out personal details to Ken "The Shrink" Weitzner of xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx., xxxxxxxxxx, xx, when he wasnt given permission to do so. i guess if scotty can do it, i can to

The Shrink posted to his toilet of a gambling board that address is out of date, but if you put his real name into Zabasearch, his current address shows up, and Google reveals that he had a business license there as recently as a month ago.

[Thremp]

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.

Great good to see you support vague rulings and players getting freerolled. Acceptance and payment of previous "dupes" should be validation this is accepted and the limits are not the same.

You are phrasing your argument in the best possible light and it looks like shit. SBR also looks like shit in this issue because they are pretty clearly defending one of the ad sources solely because of this. They take a hardline stance with non-advertisers who do similar things. Why was he only allowed two dupes at horses? Why didn't they set the software? Why did they accept and pay dupes before this one?

You're essentially saying that dubious clauses like what sportsbook.com said is fine. I mean... They had a clause in their T&C did they not? And they accepted wagers and came back and retroactively corrected them?

This is just as clear cut, yet you're saying its not. Why? $$$$

[Chuck Sims]

"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."

WOW! The Bet Jamaica bettor has a stronger case than the SIA bettor that SBR ruled in favor of!!!

[Twoniner]

I'm a first time poster moving over from LVA to post on this case..

To answer someones question above:

Nobody can bet more than $500 per ticket on win bets at BetJm, even if their limits are higher

Here is the message you recieve

You can not wager more than $500 on WIN bet. Reduce your bet amount and try again. Thank You.

Here are the facts

1- The limit at BetJm is usually $1,000 which players must bet in two $500 bets, no?

2-BetJM definitely has the ability to limit certain players at the racebook, no?

3-They didn't limit this horse account, correct?

4-They accepted their regular horse limit $1000 win bets untill the player hit a big winner.

How in the world is there a question here?

[Cloak & Dagger]

Re: Betjamaica Dispute
PSUONE,

She bet two Nickel Limits bets, Her Bet Jamaica limits were one Nickel Limit bet/No dupes. We will honor the limit she was allowed as stated.

If you think we are taking a shot at her then you are very mistaken. She was the one obviously taking the shot and it didn't work. We didn't even realize this until a large winning ticket surfaced to be time checked. At that time it was revealed what she/he is doing and all wagers were corrected accordingly.

I think it would be extremely enlightening for yourself or any individual who thinks we are the ones taking shots to simple spend two minutes to give me a call personally. I think you owe it to yourself and the other posters.

Have a good evening.

Scottyj

800 329 2640












^^that was posted over at EOG earlier....

like they didnt know there was a $1000 bet on a horserace in their book....oooookkkkk

but what people arent talking about....what people are missing

is....

the reason why they booked the bet....WAS BECAUSE THE HORSE WAS 26-1....are you trying tell me betjam wasent taking a shot at the player??

think about it....you are a book....and someone just dropped $500 to win on a 26-1.....on horseracing......the toughest bet in the world.....I know cause Ive been playing horses for 15 years.............I say "book it" if im the book......lol.....which they did....scotty err betjam took a shot and got burned....all they had to do was not take the bet....I keep hearing across the street how betjam and the greek are financially sound blah blah blah....but yet they are taking a shot at a player for $500????

coupled with the fact they gave out the players personal info???????? I'll never spend one red cent there.....ever.....even if they do pay.....I dont want my personal info given out

thats just my opinion.......I feel sorry for the player

[jjgold]

Any $500 win of course is noticed by sports book managers, they took shots at him as they knew racing is very hard to even pick a $4.80 winner let alone a longshot so they figured they had free money.

[Cloak & Dagger]

Any $500 win of course is noticed by sports book managers, they took shots at him as they knew racing is very hard to even pick a $4.80 winner let alone a longshot so they figured they had free money.

words spoken by someone that has played horses before......







yo jj....I sent you a message on your youtube message email thingy....have a look when you get a chance eh?...I was requesting a video....and I got a blunt rolled up ready to watch the man jjgold speak on things...heh

[pjesnik24]

Is it me or everybody here is on player's side except John and Dozer?

[absolutvodka99]

Is it me or everybody here is on player's side except John and Dozer?

correct. but then again, i dont have a betjm banner on my shirt right now.

[SBR_John]

I dont think we are on anyones side. Players usually side with players. We are ususally accused of being too player friendly in disputes so this is a rather unique spot.

As I said to the player we have some more questions. We have our initial opinion based on what was known just like everone else. We certainly repect yours and have so in this thread.

Keep in mind we work a number of disputes and are working several now. I'm pretty confident we will get to the bottom of this one. Of course we are not the book. We have calls in and should be able to rap this up soon.

[Al Masters]

Funny there hasn't been any response back from Betjam poster.

Awhile back during breeders cup, he was here giving away 20 bills to bet on the breeders cup, when posters acknowledged and thanked him, he was always here to take his cudos.

Now when the shit hits the fan he's a complete no show.

[louis]

Jamaica can not cancel bets after the race

If they don't want "dupes" then they have to program their software not to allow it.

Or, they can also ask a player not to make "dupes" and then close the player's account if he doesn't listen; or ask the player not to make "dupes" and cancel duplicate wagers before the game starts.

But they can't book a bet and then give the appearance they are waiting to see if it wins to determine whether or not to cancel it regardless of what they told the guy orally.

The same applies in Las Vegas. If they ask a card counter not to play blackjack and he comes back and plays, they have to pay his winning bets. They can kick him out and never let him come back, but they still have to pay according to the results of his bets.

Same concept applies here. Sportsbooks can't cancel bets because some oral request was not honored.

I did not read this entire thread, but my opinion on what I know is that Jamaica has to pay these bets. I think they have been a reputable book up to now, if I were them I would close this guy's account, but pay him his money.

The guy deserves to have his account closed, but not honoring winnings is going too far.