BetJamaica dispute

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 04:49 PM

Something else that needs to be mentioned is that BetJamaica shared personal details about this client with the Shrink without the player's permission, and the Shrink tried to smear the player's credibility by mentioning the player's location. Absolutely no A+ rated book should share personal details without permission, period.

**absolutvodka99** · 12-12-07, 04:49 PM

and while we are at it, why in the hell is this book sharing personal details of the account holder with the scumbag over from eog. gimme a break, this whole thing is a complete mess

**Santo** · 12-12-07, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by oscark

Sure, WSEX. Anyone who has connections there can feel free to confirm this.

And in fact, ever since this debacle, I have been betting $1600/horse there.

Oscar

Ok, I can't see that WSEX have a cap, and if you did indeed bet $500 there on this race, and could have bet over $1000, then I'd side with the player.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 04:51 PM

But those parlay payouts are different from the race payouts, yes? The 15/1 cap doesn't apply to parlays, and the parlay cap is probably something like "10/1 on 4 teamers, 20/1 on 5 teamers" or something like that. In other words, the sports cap is different from the race cap, meaning that the sportsbook is a separate entity from the racebook.

**The Actuary** · 12-12-07, 04:53 PM

John the player has to be paid and the longer he isn't the worse it is for thegreek.

If you want to know why you can stop by LVA or can let this languish and thegreek's and betjam's rep get annihilated here right before the NFL playoffs and the bowl games.

and this is not one, yea pay the man and be a hero,

this is one, he should have been paid fr jump street, sorry abt the mix up folks.

over and out, hope the world finds you prosperous and healthy.
TA

**Santo** · 12-12-07, 04:53 PM

We could get into a lot of semantics here

Do the different payoffs mean the limit would only apply to 5 teamers, and he could bet double on 4 teamers etc.. I don't think it leads us anywhere profitable.

The point that he/she could have got the bet in elsewhere, is the strongest in the players favour imo, as the odds are exactly the same (track odds).

**Dark Horse** · 12-12-07, 04:55 PM

Uhoh, invasion of first posters in the same thread.

**Santo** · 12-12-07, 04:56 PM

They're not really new posters. Well known posters from other forums. Primarily LVA as that is where the dispute originated.

**HedgeHog** · 12-12-07, 04:57 PM

I am severely disappointed by this decision. Did he past -post BJ--no. The software accepted his bet, so pay him. BJ sould pay him and kick the sharp out (becaus he's betting more than they allow and they told him as such). Do you have any idea how tough it is to beat the horses...

This is totally inconsistent, and SBR should be called on it. BJ/The Greek's rep is on the line for a few grand? Bill D is caving to a top book. Again, was it a bad bet (shot-taker), very simple question.

**SBR_John** · 12-12-07, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by groovinmahoovin

What advantage does the player have "duplicate betting" a horse bet at BetJamaica when the horse payout is the same anyway no matter where you place it? He could just as easily bet the other $500 at any book that takes horse bets. Use some common sense here.

I dont think I said he had an advantage. What he did have was a limit, a restrcited one at that. It was $500 with no dups. The player then put in a dup and now he wonders why they wont pay the dup.

Advantage or no advantage, he purposely exceeded his allowed limit.

**Dark Horse** · 12-12-07, 05:02 PM

Is it just me, or are we getting one story after another of retroactive decisions by books; with SBR at a -to me- alarming rate of siding with these books?

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 05:03 PM

I've posted to Sharp Sports Betting and LVA for about 5 years as "groovinmahoovin" and know plenty of people there personally, including Stanford Wong. I assure you that I'm not a ghost poster.

I've read SBR (mostly the ratings but I take a peek at the forum) for years too but never felt the need to post to the forum until now, which probably says something about how strongly I feel about this dispute.

**absolutvodka99** · 12-12-07, 05:03 PM

and on the fact that he was putting in a "dupe", it has been backed up by other posters who are familiar with the software that you cant bet a dime at once on a win bet. the limit on the tier 1 tracks is 1000, but in order to get the limit you have to submit 2 wagers of 500 each. considering the software in the sports book disabled his ability to make a bet larger than 500 or if he bet a nickel he was then unable to get another bet down, but the race book house limits were a dime and the software enabled him to make other wagers (and the vague pop up message said nothing about slots, races, etc) and the fact that the book honored , graded, and even paid off said wagers, he had the reasonable assumption that this was ok since race/sports are completley different entities. the book is completley free rolling here. its a shame that sbr sided with the book that gives revenue to sbr, but not surprising in the least

**Scooter** · 12-12-07, 05:03 PM

I am also severely disappointed by SBR's decision.

I've been following the thread on LVA for a few days.

Bill Dozer is incorrect in stating that the player was "verbally informed", based on all that has been posted by both sides. Neither side has ever stated that he was "verbally informed".

I, and most other bettors, regard the sportsbook and racebook as separate entities.
That is because the books clearly treat them as different entities.
They normally have different limits, different rollover requirements, different bonuses, etc.

I've felt that SBR is the one "watchdog" site with any integrity, but this decision seems ill informed and clearly wrong.

**SBR_John** · 12-12-07, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by The Actuary

John the player has to be paid and the longer he isn't the worse it is for thegreek.

If you want to know why you can stop by LVA or can let this languish and thegreek's and betjam's rep get annihilated here right before the NFL playoffs and the bowl games.

and this is not one, yea pay the man and be a hero,

this is one, he should have been paid fr jump street, sorry abt the mix up folks.

over and out, hope the world finds you prosperous and healthy.
TA

As I said earlier it wouldnt break my heart if the book paid him and sent him away. I have not seen the bet history in this account. But from whats posted the book is well within their right to pay on his limits, not the over limit dup.

**bigloser** · 12-12-07, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

I dont think I said he had an advantage. What he did have was a limit, a restrcited one at that. It was $500 with no dups. The player then put in a dup and now he wonders why they wont pay the dup.

Advantage or no advantage, he purposely exceeded his allowed limit.

The issue is why would he do this if he was aware of the limit.
There is absolutely no advantage to him.

The only conclusion possible therefore is he was not aware of the limit.

**SBR_John** · 12-12-07, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Is it just me, or are we getting one story after another of retroactive decisions by books; with SBR at a -to me- alarming rate of siding with these books?

Its you.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

I dont think I said he had an advantage. What he did have was a limit, a restrcited one at that. It was $500 with no dups. The player then put in a dup and now he wonders why they wont pay the dup.

Advantage or no advantage, he purposely exceeded his allowed limit.

You said "Its pretty clear the player knew he was duplicate betting and calculated BetJam would eat the software mistake," implying that the player was trying to take advantage of BetJam. Why would be do that when he could place the bet at any other place that pays track odds? He's even mentioned he was placing the additional amount (that he couldn't place over his $1000 limit at BetJam) at WSEX.

The "$500 no dupes" limit was a sportsbook one, not a racebook one. Do you deny that almost all books run their sportsbooks and racebooks as separate entities with separate limits, bonus requirements, etc.?

Not to mention that plenty of rather intelligent posters on LVA weren't even sure what the hell a "dupe" meant. I only know the meaning of that word from working as a bartender and bouncer ("dupe" meaning a duplicate ID) and I'm not even sure I've ever encountered the word "dupe" out of that context.

**bigloser** · 12-12-07, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

. But from whats posted the book is well within their right to pay on his limits, not the over limit dup.

Only if the player is aware of the limit

**Dark Horse** · 12-12-07, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

Its you.

Thank goodness. What a relief.

The world is safe another day.

**The Actuary** · 12-12-07, 05:12 PM

John the greek limits racing sharps down to $2 a bet in some instances,

yet allows them to bet dimes and nickels on sporting events.

The idea that there was some global limit in place is ludicrous.

**SBR_John** · 12-12-07, 05:13 PM

It doesnt matter if a book is an A book or an F book. If you exceed your allowed limit there is not a site out there that can help you. The best you can hope for is a thread like this and that it can be painted grey enough that the book will cave.

**Thremp** · 12-12-07, 05:16 PM

This is such an abortion. SBR's ruling is a joke and taints their credibility as well.

**HedgeHog** · 12-12-07, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

I dont think I said he had an advantage. What he did have was a limit, a restrcited one at that. It was $500 with no dups. The player then put in a dup and now he wonders why they wont pay the dup.

Advantage or no advantage, he purposely exceeded his allowed limit.

So kill the bet before the race goes off. Is this any different than Sports Betting. I can't believe you're siding with the Book here. Do you think BJ returns the money if the bet lost. The guy had his funds at risk and BJ took a shot at him. Worse, you allow it!

**Thremp** · 12-12-07, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

It doesnt matter if a book is an A book or an F book. If you exceed your allowed limit there is not a site out there that can help you. The best you can hope for is a thread like this and that it can be painted grey enough that the book will cave.

You make it seem like global limits are standard, when it seems its anything but the case. I'm sure his casino limits were also $500?

Give us a break.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

It doesnt matter if a book is an A book or an F book. If you exceed your allowed limit there is not a site out there that can help you. The best you can hope for is a thread like this and that it can be painted grey enough that the book will cave.

Why are you repeatedly ignoring the question of why a sportsbook limit would automatically apply to the racebook? Not to mention that the racebook is configured to accept exactly 2 $500 wagers Not 1, not 3, not 4, but 2.

I have tons of offshore accounts and at almost all of them, I have different limits, bonus requirements, etc. between the sportsbook and the racebook.

**jjgold** · 12-12-07, 05:18 PM

Lets get this guy paid

**SBR_John** · 12-12-07, 05:19 PM

Im out for the day. Did we get the bet history here Bill? Can we get permission from all parties to post all info? If so, I think that will help establish what happened.

Sometimes these disputes are shaded by both the book and player. Lets see the emails and bet history.

**sundownlv** · 12-12-07, 05:23 PM

bill, you are making a monumental error in not siding with the player, here. for honesty's sake, what is truly your ulterior motive? do you really want me to go into detail, drop quotes from other cases when you have sided with the player that make you look completely hypocritical? your decision is clearly illogical and lacks merit. if you wish to ignore the situation going forward, i will tear this down and get to the bottom of it. at this point, i believe a very detailed explanation is warranted.

sundown

**absolutvodka99** · 12-12-07, 05:24 PM

all the bet history will show, is that he placed several dime wagers on horses that were accepted by the books software (as opposed to sports where the software didnt allow him to make similar wagers so he was under the correct assumption that the limits only applied to sports), that were graded, and allowed, and even paid off. then there will be the big winner, and all of the sudden he had "strict global nickel limits in the casino, on races, and in sports." he could have simply bet the extra nickel at another site, had the bet been refused. he gained absolutley no advantage by placing this wager with betjam instead of wsex. coupled with the fact that you seem swayed by him being told verbally what the limits were, when in fact all that was stated about it was the vague message box, and the software and the book allowing the wagers in the racebook, how you end up siding with the free rolling book here is beyond me. a complete explanation is needed for this to hold any merit

**HedgeHog** · 12-12-07, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by jjgold

Lets get this guy paid

Damn straight. And it's probably the only time we'll ever agree.

**Thremp** · 12-12-07, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by HedgeHog

Damn straight. And it's probably the only time we'll ever agree.

Third.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by SBR_John

Im out for the day. Did we get the bet history here Bill? Can we get permission from all parties to post all info? If so, I think that will help establish what happened.

Sometimes these disputes are shaded by both the book and player. Lets see the emails and bet history.

You should probably be aware that BetJamaica, despite a notice when you sign up "please fill out this confidential info," shared the player's name and location with the Shrink without the player's permission, and the Shrink actually had the nerve to say that the player's credibility is questioned because his real name isn't the same as his username. So it should not be surprising if the player is a bit reluctant to have info shared, and I suggest you reassure the player that you won't share personal info like BetJamaica did with the Shrink.

I also think BetJamaica needs an immediate downgrade for sharing such personal info.

**absolutvodka99** · 12-12-07, 05:35 PM

completly classless for any personal details to be told to anyone outside of the matter at hand. no excuses, a scumbag move there absolutley

**HedgeHog** · 12-12-07, 05:35 PM

I quit. Big deal, right, but I won't accept this (all of 3 months here). This is so wrong. I won't put up with this shit. BJ needs to pay it.

PS Last Post.