Originally <a href='/showthread.php?p=16272662'>posted</a> on 10/05/2012:

Quote Originally Posted by robmpink View Post
What could be interesting after 2 plus years? Was the player not giving you the entire story when the dispute began?
No, it was Wagerweb.

Wagerweb originally claimed that the player was warned either verbally via telephone, or via chat not to bet correlated parlays. The player denied that this occurred. Several years ago when I was handling this, I requested proof from Wagerweb that the player was warned. There should have been a telephone recording or chat log record. Wagerweb offered to produce it, but failed to.

In the last six weeks, Wagerweb added a new detail to defend its actions. It stated that an update of dsi had a bug in it, where if the book disabled in-game parlays, DSI would still allow first-half in-game wagers. Wagerweb produced a log of wagers, and a vast majority of the wagers were clearly first-half correlated parlays.

Trixtrix contacted me about Wagerweb's upgrade, understandably furious. He said that he could not bet CPs for some games (the really good ones). If this were true, it would suggest that Wagerweb was incorrect in its statement of a DSI bug. The wager log supported Trixtrix's version of what happened, and refuted Wagerweb's latest claim. There were no first half parlays that included a first-half spread of more than 13.5 (dog or favorite).

There are two things someone could infer from that. The first inference is that Wagerweb disabled in-game parlays (and h1 parlays) where the line to total ratio was especially good. I would guess from the wager log that any game with a full game line to total ratio of less than 1:2.5 was disabled. The other possible inference is that Trixtrix was disguising his play by passing on the best plays for longevity. I don't think this happened though -- he was playing both pairs of CPs for a given game, which is much more obvious than just playing the better CPs.

Another development in this dispute sounds bizarre. The manager of Wagerweb recently accused me of bearding with Trixtrix. To support this contention, the manager claimed that he (Wagerweb manager) and I had a telephone conversation several years ago. According to this conversation, Trixtrix and I area good friends and former roommates from college. Also, I could play CPs at Wagerweb because "I knew I would get paid." This contention is just batshit crazy. I asked for a copy of the telephone discussion, but it was never produced. I am familiar with Trixtrix as a forum poster, and when I helped him a few years ago with SBR. Outside of that I know very little about him.

Due to this last development, I tried to pretty much stay out of this discussion. If Wagerweb thought the money in dispute here was mine (it's not), I wouldn't be helping the player much by getting involved. I explained this to Trixtrix. At this point though, I don't think Wagerweb has any intention of revisiting this dispute, and Trixtrix is just screwed.

On a minor point, I dissent from Wagerweb's upgrade to D+.