SBR Has Become The Site For Scammers, Shot Takers, and Two Bit Hustlers...

[robmpink]

Now, I haven't checked post by post, but Eric Dy has to be setting some kind of record for most consecutive posts about the same subject in which he says the same thing. And right out of the gate no less!

He either is the player, friend of the player, ex employee of WW, or has some vested interest in the player getting paid for past posting. Good luck with your endeaver!

[louis]

It's possible Justin has or had a different opinion. Its a good thing he is allowed to have his own opinion. I initially sided with Wager Web, but after thinking about it for a while had no choice but to side with the player.

If WW advertised here it would be a different story? Its hard to answer that question because they would never be allowed to advertise here. They had a B- rating. I believe an A- is needed to be able to advertise. If WW wants to advertise here, what they did is certainly not going to help them realize this goal.

The books that are allowed to advertise here, would have handled the situation differently in my opinion.

Books like Greek and Wsex would most likely warn a player taking advantage of these types of flaws, and then close the account (after paying all winnings) if the warning doesn't work. They wouldn't steal player funds. I've been warned once before about something, and just started betting something else so my account wouldn't be closed.

[bigboydan]

Robmpink,

Whether they are an A,B,C,D, or F book... I'm sure the majority of players will take that strongly into consideration before posting up there when they ask me this question... "Are their any outstanding slow pay/no pay complaints levied against WagerWeb right now?". I will tell them they robbed a player out of his $37,000+ winnings after their clerks gladly accepted roughly 70 wagers from the player without any problem, and refused to pay.

[dwaechte]

Robmpink,

Whether they are an A,B,C,D, or F book... I'm sure the majority of players will take that strongly into consideration before posting up there when they ask me this question... "Are their any outstanding slow pay/no pay complaints levied against WagerWeb right now?". I will tell them they robbed a player out of his $37,000+ winnings after their clerks gladly accepted roughly 70 wagers from the player without any problem, and refused to pay.

I still don't like the terms being used in cases like these. "Robbery" and "Theft" are being thrown around a lot, and judging by numerous opinions on the board and from the companies themselves, these could be somewhat misleading terms. You're free to say what you want Dan, but I can think of a couple of different phrasings that I feel would be more apt. "Denied payment" or "Voided all past wagers due to breach of Company rules"?

Also, can anyone confirm that Rule #10 on WagerWeb's "general rules" was indeed there before this case took place? If it was, it really nullifies a lot of what people were saying who were supporting the player in this instance.

[eric dy]

Wow! That is pretty powerful !!!!!

Is it worth $37K WagerWeb?

[bigboydan]

Whats the difference really... I mean after all WagerWeb mislead this gentlemen into thinking he was going to get paid, until they gave him the shaft.

[eric dy]

I would recommend RAPED, PILLAGE or SODOMIZED -

WAGERWEB intentially keeps games on the board after the game has started and freely accept wagers from live clerks. Then the player wins, after 70 bets later (not 1 or 2 or 5) and they don't want to pay.

How can anyone support WAGERWEB??? - these are the facts! If they didn't want the action the LIVE clerk should have said the game was off the board.

Oh......the player kept the clerk on the phone for a few minutes...........hmmmm!!! Maybe they should improve their software or train their clerks.........wait......this must be the players responsibility.

Anyone who sides with WAGERWEB on THIS case is a fool......read the entire thread, call SBR and get the facts.............

[robmpink]

Robmpink,

Whether they are an A,B,C,D, or F book... I'm sure the majority of players will take that strongly into consideration before posting up there when they ask me this question... "Are their any outstanding slow pay/no pay complaints levied against WagerWeb right now?". I will tell them they robbed a player out of his $37,000+ winnings after their clerks gladly accepted roughly 70 wagers from the player without any problem, and refused to pay.

Why is it that the other mod did the investigation and didn't feel WW robbed the player, but you say they did? Did you do a thorough investigation as well? If so, you should report your thorough finding just like Justin did. Not everyone will agree. I understand that. When you say "robbed" these are words you use for the "turnkey" books or whatever you say. If Wagerweb is made up of a collection of thieves robbing people why would you only downgrade them to C?

[bigboydan]

In this case Wagerweb said they have admitted fault and initially said they were leaning towards a compromise (post #7).

[dwaechte]

Whats the difference really... I mean after all WagerWeb mislead this gentlemen into thinking he was going to get paid, until they gave him the shaft.

I'm certainly nit-picking a bit, but I feel there is a fair amount of difference between the sayings. Saying "Robbed", "Stole", or using "Theft" implies outright robbery, outright stealing, or outright theft. I doubt many scholars or even regular joe's would agree that "misleading (a) gentleman into thinking he was going to get paid" is outright theft. This isn't somebody breaking into a house and walking out with a plasma and some jewelry, it's a lot more complicated than that.

As an authoratative figure on this board, you are construing what you're saying in that instance as fact. If you want to say "They mislead the player into believing his wagers would be considered valid, and I personally would not trust them as a book", that's fine. But stating that the player was robbed, as fact, is somewhat misleading on its own.

[robmpink]

In this case Wagerweb said they have admitted fault and initially said they were leaning towards a compromise (post #7).

I'm not trying to bust your balls and i do appreciate what you guys do. From your knowledge of the situation do you really feel that WW knew what was going on for awhile in hope that the guy would lose, or the wagering clerks are really that dumb/uneducated/not privey to schemes? Christ if I was the GM I would have a problem paying the guy who took admitted shots. I'm not the GM and don't run a book so F me.

[bigboydan]

Nit-picking or not I can see your point. However WagerWeb admitted fault like they clearly have, don't you think they should pay this gentlemen?

[robmpink]

Nit-picking or not I can see your point. However WagerWeb admitted fault like they clearly have, don't you think they should pay this gentlemen?

The player shouldn't be paid for exploiting the book. Most shot takers just chalk it up as a loss and are happy getting their money back.

[bigboydan]

From your knowledge of the situation do you really feel that WW knew what was going on for awhile in hope that the guy would lose, or the wagering clerks are really that dumb/uneducated/not privey to schemes?

Whether they knew it or not they should have. The bottom line is they should have been on the ball and caught this problem before it escalated to the degree it did. I mean after all if you look at this picture of the WagerWeb offices, you will see that they have TV's everywhere.

[robmpink]

Whether they knew it or not they should have. The bottom line is they should have been on the ball and caught this problem before it escalated to the degree it did. I mean after all if you look at this picture of the WagerWeb offices, you will see that they have TV's everywhere.

I agree with you 100% they should have caught it. From my dealings with them I swear some reps are high when they take the bets. Some verbally sound high. Through my dealings with them it doesn't suprise me that it could have gone on this long without the reps giving a crap to notice. I notice the TVs don't have sports on though. Who even knows if they have the games on or just local TV at game time?

[bigboydan]

Your right it's not on any games at all even though the Latin DirectTV does offer the the sports packages down there. So yet their is another flaw with the WagerWeb staff not being on the ball. Hence why they admitted the fault like they did in the first place.

[bigboydan]

The player shouldn't be paid for exploiting the book. Most shot takers just chalk it up as a loss and are happy getting their money back.

Shot taker or not. WagerWeb said that they have admitted fault and initially said they were leaning towards a compromise. Now with that being said (again), don't you feel they are taking full responsibility for their negligent actions? I mean even WagerWeb feels they should pay this gentlemen a fair settlement.

[Justin7]

Bigboydan,

I don't recall WagerWeb admitting fault. This was the first time they had someone systematically past-post them by more than 30 seconds (what I would call an "innocent" past-post).

Most sportsbooks run one of two software platforms. Both of these allow past-posting, and give players the opportunity to past-post if they know the glitch and how to exploit it. I looked at the facts very closely, and concluded that WagerWeb did not realize what the player was doing until they discovered it when he tried to bet two games that already scored in the same call.

I thought WagerWeb had some fault - this was terrible risk management. I'd view it as Wal-Mart not having security cameras on, so its customers could rob them. If Wal-Mart didn't have cameras, they would get overrun by shoplifters. WagerWeb's fault was predicated on letting itself get robbed for so long. Between player and WagerWeb though, the player was the one whose sole purpose was to cheat WagerWeb.

WagerWeb's downgrade from B- to C in this dispute sets a new precedent for offshore betting. If a player cheats a book, the book lets it happen, and the player's money was at risk, SBR expects the player to be payed.

[bigboydan]

Bigboydan,

I don't recall WagerWeb admitting fault. This was the first time they had someone systematically past-post them by more than 30 seconds (what I would call an "innocent" past-post).

Most sportsbooks run one of two software platforms. Both of these allow past-posting, and give players the opportunity to past-post if they know the glitch and how to exploit it. I looked at the facts very closely, and concluded that WagerWeb did not realize what the player was doing until they discovered it when he tried to bet two games that already scored in the same call.

I thought WagerWeb had some fault - this was terrible risk management. I'd view it as Wal-Mart not having security cameras on, so its customers could rob them. If Wal-Mart didn't have cameras, they would get overrun by shoplifters. WagerWeb's fault was predicated on letting itself get robbed for so long. Between player and WagerWeb though, the player was the one whose sole purpose was to cheat WagerWeb.

WagerWeb's downgrade from B- to C in this dispute sets a new precedent for offshore betting. If a player cheats a book, the book lets it happen, and the player's money was at risk, SBR expects the player to be payed.

I defer to Bill and you on this complaint Justin, because I only can go by what I see posted on the forum since I'm not handling this dispute.

Bill did claim that WagerWeb admitted fault in one of his previous posts, so thats what I would have to go by. I guess my question to you is this then. "How many of thousands of dollars did this gentlemen win before WagerWeb realized they were a victimized by this shot taker?". I feel whatever that amount he was before they caught on should be the settlement figure they should pay him.

[picantel]

I love SBR but I have not forgotten or forgiven the little snafu with betcris. I still wonder what woulda happened had betcris not been such a huge advertiser here and been listed as A+

[SBR_John]

A C+ would have been enough imo. Maybe even the B- should have remained. This case and the many like it just highlight how difficult some of these disputes are.

Some mentioned if they were sponsors they would have been treated better. I would highlight the recent 5Dimes dispute where we ruled for the player and the book paid the $60k.

There will always be critics and I find them entertaining. The SBR model allows for open opinions among those that work disputes. We then publish the opinions and encouragre the book, the player and posters a chance to judge.

[Dark Horse]

Justin, past posting gives an advantage. Everybody knows that. If a book knowingly offers this option, then surely the time limit is their responsibility. If they don't guard that time limit jealously, isn't that their problem? Nobody put a gun to their head to rely on software to verify the time. These were live clerks! How was the bettor to know that not these clerks, but software (!) would in the end be held 'responsible' by the book?

Clearly, WW saw an advantage in accepting late action. Surely, they could have hired a person who's sole responsibility would be to take games off the board at the right time. To not have such security in place is gross negligence by the book.

All of a sudden WW expresses a problem with (what I assume is) a longstanding policy, when they get hurt. WW got outsmarted, not out-cheated; the fact that it wasn't very hard only speaks to their lack of awareness. Stupidity hurts. Most players can attest to that. Players have no choice but to take responsibility for their ignorance. Why can't books such as WW? (because they get leverage from the money still being in their possession?)

I would place 90% of the responsibility for this fiasco with the book, yet if there is to be a compromise, then it should only be for wagers that were clearly placed after a score favorable to the player. Anything beyond that is stealing from the player. But before considering any compromise, can we not first have WW's official position on wagers that were past posted and ended up losing? Since they open the retroactive door, by all means, let's go there...

[bigboydan]

I thought WagerWeb had some fault - this was terrible risk management. I'd view it as Wal-Mart not having security cameras on, so its customers could rob them. If Wal-Mart didn't have cameras, they would get overrun by shoplifters. WagerWeb's fault was predicated on letting itself get robbed for so long. Between player and WagerWeb though, the player was the one whose sole purpose was to cheat WagerWeb.

Lets say Wal-Mart didn't have security cameras at all, and it was up to the store watchers to catch the shoplifters. Now lets say that the shoplifter "successfully" shoplifted 10x's without getting caught, Then fenced the merchandise and collected the cash. Then on the 11th time the shoplifter "attempted" to shoplifted something and he got caught. Wal-Mart would have never known they had been ripped off 10x's previously, and would only have the "one" charge against that shoplifter with whatever merchandise he got caught with.

Now look at it this way and I'm sure your analogy can be seen in a different light. The only difference is the fact that WagerWeb did have security in place to catch this guy, and for some reason didn't bother caring until the gentlemen went to cash out after successfully getting away with it for over 60-70 wagers later.

[BEANTOWNJIM]

BOYS ALL THE COMPANY MEN IN THIS FORUM LIKE JOHN AND BIGBOYDAN WILL ALWAYS SIDE WITH THE SPORTSBOOKS ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE A PAID ADVERTISER.

I LOST ALL RESPECT FOR JOHN HERE AT THE SBR WHEN HE THOUGHT IT WAS ALLRIGHT FOR CASCADE SPORTSBOOK AND LENNY TO ACCEPT A BET 15 MINUTES AFTER A GAME STARTED THEN GRADE IT IN THERE FAVOR WHEN THE BET LOST.
A SPORTSBOOK CAN TAKE SHOTS ANYTIME THEY WANT TO LEAVE GAMES ON THE BOARD LATE ON PURPOSE THEN IF YOU WIN THEY SAY YOU BOUGHT POST AND WE CANT PAY YOU BUT IF IT LOSES THEY TELL YOU WE ACCEPTED YOUR BET AND YOU HAD ACTION. SO WHO ARE THE REAL SHOT TAKERS

[SBR_John]

First, cascade was not an advertiser here when you took your shot at them 5 years ago. We sided with cascade because you were the one that took the shot. If you would have won you would have expected to be paid. Hence; you were the shot taker.

We dont always rule in the books favor and beantown is an example of that.

I dont mind standing in for a shot taker if they play by the rules. The WW guy obviously bent the rules. We could work that out if both parties were willing to go through each bet and grade each one in the spirit of fair play. We stand ready.

[magnavox]

We could work that out if both parties were willing to go through each bet and grade each one in the spirit of fair play. We stand ready.

Now, we're getting somewhere.

[durito]

Here's my problem:

How many bets did Wagerweb take during this time by other bettors who were unaware that the game had started and may have taken a team that was already behind?

Will they be going through all lost bets and refunding those?

[magnavox]

Here's my problem:

How many bets did Wagerweb take during this time by other bettors who were unaware that the game had started and may have taken a team that was already behind?

Will they be going through all lost bets and refunding those?

I believe wagers that were also past-posted by other bettors by 4 or 6 minutes should be cancelled as well.

[bigboydan]

BOYS ALL THE COMPANY MEN IN THIS FORUM LIKE JOHN AND BIGBOYDAN WILL ALWAYS SIDE WITH THE SPORTSBOOKS ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE A PAID ADVERTISER.

I respectfully disagree Jimmy. I sided with the player in that BetJM case before it officially was brought here to SBR. (See posts #14 and 15).

[BEANTOWNJIM]

JOHN I KNOW YOUR NOT AN IDIOT BUT GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT ME BEING A SHOT TAKER.

YOU SAY YOU SIDE WITH THE RULES THEN HOW COULD YOU SIDE WITH LENNY AND CASCADE SPORTSBOOK IN MY CASE THEY BROKE THERE OWN WRITTEN RULES YOU FOOL.

ALL WAGERS WILL BE ACCEPTED UP UNTIL THE POSTED STARTING TIME OF THE EVENT (YOU SEE THE RULE CASCADE WROTE JOHN

THEN EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU ALLOWED THEM TO ACCEPT A BET 15 MINUTES AFTER AN EVENT STARTED.WELL JOHN EXPLAIN THAT YOU F-CKING RAT BASTARD LENNY AND CASCADE SPORTSBOOK ROBBED ME AND YOU KNOW IT.

[BEANTOWNJIM]

John If My Bet Had Won Lenny Would Have Been In Every Forum Saying How Can I Pay Beantownjim When He Bet A Game 15 Minutes After It Started We Have Rules.

But Since My Bet Lost Lenny Said We Took Your Bet And You Lost So We Are Stealing Your 660 Dollars.

Yah Right John Your A Watchdog Site Go Screw Yourself You Protected Lenny Ans Cascade When They Clearly Took A Shot At Me And Robbed My

[SBR_John]

You took the shot knowing if you lost you would claim you put the bet in late and it should be voided. You are not the first brain surgeon wise guy to past post. In your case you would have been paid had you won.

We do get shot takers and dont always rule for them. We follow the rules but we try to be careful and expose fraud by either party.

[jjgold]

The bet should of been voided, rules were on the website until Lenny erased them after the game.

Johnny pay this man his money

[bigboydan]

Coach, I thought Ken paid Jimmy his $660.00 a while back.

[SBR_John]

That shot attempt was 5 years and 18,000 crying posts ago. Justin or Bill might see it different if it happened today. To me, Jim took a shot. He took the early lead on a Over. When it went under and lost he cried that he put his bet in after the start.

Come to think of it 18,000 posts is probably lite. The real story here is not the shot taking its the 5 years of crying.