Wager Web dispute....input needed

Justin7 · 07-17-07, 08:53 AM

Myfootball -

Discussions with sportsbooks are usually confidential. When you "go public" with a question like that, you make it very difficult for me to maintain your confidentiality. For people to intelligently answer this question, there are at least 3 pieces of information they need, and much of it is harmful to your case. Is your goal to drag Wagerweb into a pissing match? Do you want to waive your confidentiality and have someone else explain why your "survey" is jaded when you leave out half the story?

There are two sides to (almost) every dispute, and this one is certainly not clear-cut. Don't pretend it is by going public, and omitting Wagerweb's issues.

BigBollocks · 07-17-07, 09:20 AM

Dave from all that I've heard about the case (I'm certainly not privy to as much information as Justin, but feel I know more than enough to have an informed opinion) I wouldn't pay out a nickel to you and your cronies if I were wagerweb. You all clearly took a shot at the book, but seeing as how it appears you are going to be rewarded I guess congratulations are in order. I personally don't see how wagerweb stands to gain by paying you out as your group has already gone beyond destroying their name beyond repair. In addition, I feel that them paying you all out admits guilt on their part and makes themselves look like a suspect/slow pay book as opposed to standing firm on the issue. You and your gang basically won free money through your plan, but trying to deny that you were familiar with one another at first was obviously ridiculous.

As far as your direct question here I wouldn't hesitate to send them your information, as they clearly have a valid reason for wanting access to such information.

BigDog · 07-17-07, 10:47 AM

Justin and BigBollocks answered ALL questions to this thread and it should now be locked! ....Very true and accurate responses by both of you!

MYFOOTBALLGAME · 07-17-07, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Myfootball -

Discussions with sportsbooks are usually confidential. When you "go public" with a question like that, you make it very difficult for me to maintain your confidentiality. For people to intelligently answer this question, there are at least 3 pieces of information they need, and much of it is harmful to your case. Is your goal to drag Wagerweb into a pissing match? Do you want to waive your confidentiality and have someone else explain why your "survey" is jaded when you leave out half the story?

There are two sides to (almost) every dispute, and this one is certainly not clear-cut. Don't pretend it is by going public, and omitting Wagerweb's issues.

Justin, I have no problem with all of Wager Webs concerns being public. I would prefer this to be a public forum and have everything out in the open. We have told our stories. Wager Web should come and say theres if they have more to add. I just stated a general question. The email from Dave had been posted on the forums previously...it's nothing new.

raiders72002 · 07-17-07, 04:44 PM

This isn't the first time that MFG has used forums to extort money from books and it won't be the last.

MYFOOTBALLGAME · 07-17-07, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by raiders72002

This isn't the first time that MFG has used forums to extort money from books and it won't be the last.

lol...your funny Raiders. Good to see you haven't changed. Your right, when a book steals from me I always say something about it. If you call them stealing my money and me trying to get it back extorting, that's mighty fine with me.

acw · 07-17-07, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by MYFOOTBALLGAME

Looking for forum input here. Should we trust wager web with our socials, dl #'s etc?

No, but knowing that these Caribbean cowboys will always come with these questions has recently been the reason for me to stop playing with them.

And Justin7,
Sorry to say it, but the fact that this whole saga cannot be discussed in the open makes the book look bad to me!

Santo · 07-17-07, 07:08 PM

Well MFG Said he's happy to have it in the open, so hopefully J7 will proceed to post the details, then everybody can make a more informed decision.

luke m. · 07-17-07, 07:38 PM

My football game, it will do no good by providing ss# or place of employment because these guys will never pay you. My 2 friends and I provided all of the identification, and it still didnt do any good. I ask Dave Johnson to show his ID because that is just a bullshit name and so is Charlie Adkins because he can barely speak English!

raiders72002 · 07-17-07, 08:43 PM

Try and settle off forum first. The book may tell you to F off if you don't try to settle behind the scenes first.

I always question the motives of guys that want to immediately run to the forums and post.

Most disputes can be settled without the use of going public.

Justin7 · 07-17-07, 09:24 PM

Myfootballgame,

Do the other participants in this dispute also not mind if these details are shared?

MYFOOTBALLGAME · 07-18-07, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Myfootballgame,

Do the other participants in this dispute also not mind if these details are shared?

Justin,

I'm not sure, you would need to ask them.

tacomax · 07-18-07, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by acw

And Justin7,
Sorry to say it, but the fact that this whole saga cannot be discussed in the open makes the book look bad to me!

No it doesn't.

SBR are trying to come to a conclusion based upon the evidence. Putting everything into the public domain doesn't assist matters in the slightest. And putting everything into the public domain doesn't mean you'll get the full story. I'm sure that MFG can write pages and pages of prose to prove how he's an innocent gambler being robbed. I'm also sure that he'll leave out all the information which puts him in a bad light

inane drone · 07-18-07, 07:03 PM

Wagerweb/Casablanca are theives and Kevin,Dave (I think thats his name) are there to steal your $$$.
Take you money and burn it....at least you will get some heat from that.If you send $$$ to these bums you WILL get screwed eventually.I would rather go to the county fair and play those carnival games than do business with these clowns.
They stole 50k from my account 2-3 years ago...What goes around comes around

acw · 07-18-07, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by tacomax

I'm sure that MFG can write pages and pages of prose to prove how he's an innocent gambler being robbed. I'm also sure that he'll leave out all the information which puts him in a bad light

You should just read some of the posts that books have been making during the past 7-8 years on these forums trying to defend themselves. 9 out of 10 times even before I would hear the side of the player, they themselves prove to be guilty.

20Four7 · 07-18-07, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by inane drone

Wagerweb/Casablanca are theives and Kevin,Dave (I think thats his name) are there to steal your $$$.
Take you money and burn it....at least you will get some heat from that.If you send $$$ to these bums you WILL get screwed eventually.I would rather go to the county fair and play those carnival games than do business with these clowns.
They stole 50k from my account 2-3 years ago...What goes around comes around

Quite an interesting first post. At least you have been around a while before making this post. The trouble with the books is if you take a shot at them, they shoot back very hard.

BigDog · 07-18-07, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by inane drone

Wagerweb/Casablanca are theives and Kevin,Dave (I think thats his name) are there to steal your $$$.
Take you money and burn it....at least you will get some heat from that.If you send $$$ to these bums you WILL get screwed eventually.I would rather go to the county fair and play those carnival games than do business with these clowns.
They stole 50k from my account 2-3 years ago...What goes around comes around

Wagerweb has a long history of paying quickly and this is still true today.....I trust SBR when they research complaints and to this point Wagerweb still has a great rating.....Guess it all comes down to who you believe,SBR or scam artist? I'll take SBR

Mudcat · 07-18-07, 08:56 PM

Input has been requested and here is mine:

I have read a fair bit about this complaint. As much as I want to be fair and open-minded to the players - and it's true that I really don't know the whole story - my true feelings clearly show through in my actions.

And my actions are these: nothing. This complaint hasn't affected my activity with WagerWeb/BetDon in any way. If I thought this complaint had substance, I would simply pull out. I am not the slightest bit more nervous about my balance.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong and I'll say I was wrong. But I believe these "players" were cheating and deserve the shaft.

inane drone · 07-18-07, 09:11 PM

Cheating? My total bonuses, rebates, referral bonuses etc. from casablanca added up to a grand total of zero dollars.I played maybe 1 or 2 plays a month there and when I went to withdraw MY money I was told by Kevin to take a hike....50k bye bye

BigDog · 07-18-07, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by inane drone

Cheating? My total bonuses, rebates, referral bonuses etc. from casablanca added up to a grand total of zero dollars.I played maybe 1 or 2 plays a month there and when I went to withdraw MY money I was told by Kevin to take a hike....50k bye bye

NO ****ING WAY THATS ALL THERE IS TO THIS STORY! This shit is really starting to get old

Mudcat · 07-18-07, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by inane drone

Cheating? My total bonuses, rebates, referral bonuses etc. from casablanca added up to a grand total of zero dollars.I played maybe 1 or 2 plays a month there and when I went to withdraw MY money I was told by Kevin to take a hike....50k bye bye

I can understand how you would wish that people would see you vouching for yourself like that, and that would make a difference. I wish a lot of things too.

Dark Horse · 07-19-07, 04:22 PM

It's been a while since this problem was first discussed. From what I remember it involves brokers who were allowed to move funds between accounts by Wagerweb, were given high percentage bonuses, and were only 'apprehended' after WW changed a rule. I remember thinking it was very difficult to judge without a precise timeline of events.

homedog · 07-19-07, 07:23 PM

I have no idea about this complaint or the complaint before, but you have to wonder about the guys who have consistent problems getting paid because the book has issues with their methods.

My best judgment is that there is some funny business going on even though it might skirt the rules.

If it does skirt the rules, then the book should pay. No questions.

If they get caught in their scheme then the players should suffer.

There is nothing worse than a bunch of scammers making it hard for the honest folks.

SBR_John · 07-20-07, 01:45 PM

Where are the sides on this?

If SBR has heard all sides I think the players would benefit by hearing at least a brief opinion.

Justin7 · 07-20-07, 02:29 PM

We are slowly grinding forward. At this point, Wagerweb has requested proof of ID for the 9 accounts (in the form of a driver's license or passport). We are waiting for the players to do this.

Wagerweb has consented to me disclosing information.

So far in the dispute, Wagerweb showed that 5 players were using linked IP addresses. The players responded, saying all 5 were on AOL.

Wagerweb linked 2 accounts. In a 6 month period, there were 6 instances where linked account #1 incorrectly entered the password for linked account #2, and vise versa. In this 6 month period, the player's were mostly doing 1 wager per week... 26 weeks, 52 wagers between the two accounts, and 6 password reversals. To me, that was compelling that one person was controlling both accounts.

According to WW's version of the facts, they initially asked for IDs at the start of their investigation when this whole thing began. The parties don't seem to dispute that WW does not yet have confirmation of ID, although the players argue that successful payouts to banks in the past should be sufficient.

Wagerweb also uses the wagering history log as evidence that the 9 accounts were being controlled by one person. In the 6 month survey, many of the wagers were placed within 60 seconds of each other on the same game. In most instances, several of the 9 accounts were playing the same game. While that isn't unusual in itself, keep in mind that in the 6-month period, each account was usually betting 1 game per week (which was a logical way to maximize Wagerweb's bonus). The pattern of many accounts betting at the same time, while not conclusive, is suggestive that one person was controlling the accounts.

Wagerweb's defense in this original matter is that the players defrauded them by opening up multiple accounts. The industry standard is one person, one account. While the facts out there don't conclusively show that one person (or even several people) controlled all 9 accounts, there is certainly enough there to confirm WW's concerns. WW's request for proof of Id for the players is reasonable in this dispute.

BigBollocks · 07-20-07, 02:42 PM

Justin that's not the whole story as I understand it. From what I gathered they had a great bonus plan offered, and would bet both sides of a game once a week. They could never lose, and were clearly shot-taking at the book.

On top of this, they then denied knowing one another on here originally. After this, they claimed they worked in an office together and put in bets separately, even though it later came out they'd sometimes put in bets with 10 minutes of each other late at night.

This whole thing is ridiculous, and why SBR is wasting their time anymore on this is completely beyond me. You do too much good to help shot takers and liars in my opinion...

Justin7 · 07-20-07, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by BigBollocks

Justin that's not the whole story as I understand it. From what I gathered they had a great bonus plan offered, and would bet both sides of a game once a week. They could never lose, and were clearly shot-taking at the book.

On top of this, they then denied knowing one another on here originally. After this, they claimed they worked in an office together and put in bets separately, even though it later came out they'd sometimes put in bets with 10 minutes of each other late at night.

This whole thing is ridiculous, and why SBR is wasting their time anymore on this is completely beyond me. You do too much good to help shot takers and liars in my opinion...

There are two sides to every story. They didn't bet both sides of every game (although they did do that frequently). The bonus plan was ridiculous - 10% rebate once per week. You could blindly bet games throwing darts, and you were at +EV if you only did one game a week. Add in a little shopping or an intelligent opinion, and you can do some real damage to a book.

The players' action was clearly sharp, but there's nothing wrong with using your brain to beat a crazy bonus. The real issue here is whether someone opened/controlled multiple accounts. The limits were $5k/play, so you were limited to a 5k wager per week. With the bonus, each play would be the equivalent of +101. With a little shopping, you could get the equivalent of +104 (and this comparable to the player's return). The book's expected losses to a smart player were about $100/week/account. If a player could control multiple accounts, he could mint money until caught. *IF* multiple accounts were used by one person, this case gets very complicated - since money was transferred between all the accounts frequently.

On the other hand.... The original settlement reached between WW and the players had an EV for Wagerweb of about 500k better than the status quo. If there was no wrongdoing on the part of the players, the players got screwed. At this point, I can't say who's in the right.

Dark Horse · 07-20-07, 04:35 PM

Didn't Wagerweb allow these players to move funds between accounts?

Also, how much did the players actually withdraw in the past? And is there a connection between a withdrawal request and WW's new rule?

I would look very suspiciously on a book that paid itself half a million bucks based on a changed or new rule.

Players were taking a shot at the book, but was the book aware of this (and if so, when), did the book allow it or even assist with it because no harm was done until the funds would be withdrawn?

Don't bonuses like these require approval from upper management? So how can they claim they didn't know what was going on?

With the little information and many questions I have, I lean towards the players taking a shot at the book, but the book taking a much bigger shot at the players.

But it is all speculation as long as all the facts aren't on the table, and I now don't really understand why we've been discussing this issue for so long without access to all the facts.

raiders72002 · 07-20-07, 04:59 PM

MFG has scammed other books. He once used a free play as a big ML dog and played the other side to maximize the free play. This was clearly against the stated rules by the book.

MFG then went to the RX and Shrink brokered a deal between the book and MFG. MFG agreed to the settlement and the agreement that this would not be brought to any forum.

MFG reneiged on the agreement and cried to every forum out there. Do not trust this guy at all.

MYFOOTBALLGAME · 07-23-07, 06:09 AM

Raiders is a confused. What's new.

Originally posted by raiders72002

MFG has scammed other books. He once used a free play as a big ML dog and played the other side to maximize the free play. This was clearly against the stated rules by the book.

MFG then went to the RX and Shrink brokered a deal between the book and MFG. MFG agreed to the settlement and the agreement that this would not be brought to any forum.

MFG reneiged on the agreement and cried to every forum out there. Do not trust this guy at all.

I wish you had atleast one fact right here Raiders, but instead you tell about 6 lies. You are ignorant beyond comprehension. My dispute with betus in 2002 was all over the forums. The RX for the most part. There was never a rule against using the free play in any way.
The Shrink did NOTHING to help me get paid....it was Bill Dozer here at SBR and Roberto of TOW to a lesser degree. Bill negotiated the deal with betus where the Shrink of the RX at the time failed to accomplish anything.
The only part I reneged on was informing posters of what I considered a con book and telling the facts about what happened to me at betus. Players can use their own judgement where to play, but when I have an issue with a book I don't mind informing others. That is what the forums are for, sharing information. Betus reneged on abut 100 things, so they deserved no sympathy on my behalf.

MYFOOTBALLGAME · 07-23-07, 06:36 AM

Justin, you stated above that the players got 10% back, I'm sure it was a typo and you meant to say 5% which is the case. Also as you mention on the id's. The players you mentioned that logged in for one another a couple of times aren't interested in sending in their id's if they are not going to get money back. So is there a way to get things resolved with the two of them? They said they have been corresponding with you via email.
You said to scan you all 9 id's at the same time and we are still waiting on a the two people mentioned above to be made aware that they will be getting money back. If not then the rest of us want to proceed.

Justin7 · 07-23-07, 10:14 AM

MyFootballGame,

WagerWeb would like to eliminate those 2 accounts from the dispute. I'm not ready to give up on them. Realize - if these 2 accounts do not produce ID, it will make things harder for the other 7.

This dispute is compllicated, because of all the money transfers between the accounts. If you trust a guy enough to send him 20k with an account-account transfer, I'm sure he'll produce ID for you. If these 2 do NOT produce ID, WagerWeb will win on its defense. If there are 2 ficticious IDs, the deal that was made was fair, and the other 7 players will get the status quo.

SBR_John · 07-23-07, 11:18 AM

My only problem with raiders is he says things he knows for a fact are not true. This in the past has hurt players like in the BoS theft cases.

Posters should not assume a player has broken a rule or maybe he has but sometimes the book employs confiscation too quickly as a remedy.

We will help MFG, raiders or any player work through a dispute. The books will mostly agree we are not simply the players advocate. This player and every player deserves a chance to be heard fairly.

Dark Horse · 07-23-07, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

MyFootballGame,

WagerWeb would like to eliminate those 2 accounts from the dispute. I'm not ready to give up on them. Realize - if these 2 accounts do not produce ID, it will make things harder for the other 7.

This dispute is compllicated, because of all the money transfers between the accounts. If you trust a guy enough to send him 20k with an account-account transfer, I'm sure he'll produce ID for you. If these 2 do NOT produce ID, WagerWeb will win on its defense. If there are 2 ficticious IDs, the deal that was made was fair, and the other 7 players will get the status quo.

After all this time there are still two accounts without ID's?!

Guess they can't afford a fax machine that would take care of this in two minutes.

Originally posted by MYFOOTBALLGAME

The players you mentioned that logged in for one another a couple of times aren't interested in sending in their id's if they are not going to get money back.

It's the other way around...

But why worry about such an insignificant detail when you can pass up on, what, 500K?