Avoid Wagerweb

[durito]

Your posts make me more likely to play there.

[Justin7]

No, it was $42,000 - I went back and looked at all the plays and my deposits - it doesn't matter! The bottom line is I hope others never play at this pathetic sportsbook.

Thanks for your comments Dark Horse.

Wagerweb SUCKS!!!!!

WWS,

It's one thing to voice an opinion. It's another to misstate facts. I spent more time on your dispute than any other I've had. A vast amount of that time was unnecessary, and due to your conduct.

If you'd like to deep dig into the facts of your dispute to prove your figure, I'd be happy to. If not, please stick to facts that we agreed to.

In addition to numbers, you need to be fair in your description of what happened. Saying they "stole" from you is not really accurate. They identified over 70 times where you past-posted them by exploiting a vulnerability in the software. I dug deep into their management, and they had no clue you were doing this until you tried to do it twice in one call, and a clerk called it out (which wasn't the normal procedure). In 100% of these, you had a huge advantage - these plays were not accidents, but made calculated to exploit the hole in their software.

While different people may have different opinions, you accusing them of theft is ridiculous.

They canceled all those wager, winners or losers.

[magnavox]

The player exploited a loophole. But he didn't create it. It was left open by the book. How dumb can a book be?! He didn't use illegal means to get into the building and blow up a safe. He simply placed phone calls.

Same can be said about a computer hacker. He also "just" places phone calls and/or remotely connects through the internet. What if he exploits an internet bank's software loophole and loads his debit card with $1,000,000 then try to cash out? Do you still think a bank should pay him and say thank you for pointing out that loophole?

[pimike]

You just had to ask didn't you.

All joking aside though. Here is the thread below that would give you all the details on this particular complaint.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/state-indu...le+%2442%2C000

Sorry Dan but thanks!!!!!!!!!!

[Dark Horse]

Same can be said about a computer hacker. He also "just" places phone calls and/or remotely connects through the internet. What if he exploits an internet bank's software loophole and loads his debit card with $1,000,000 then try to cash out? Do you still think a bank should pay him and say thank you for pointing out that loophole?

Nothing was hacked. Bets were placed over the phone with a live clerk after the games had started. That is so obnoxiously basic that no book should be able to use it as an excuse. I mean, if a book can't even take care of that, what else are they incapable of?

Remember, as long as they can blame it on software, they're in the clear. Software? Isn't that somehow involved with internet betting?

And how can software be blamed when you're dealing with a live clerk, who can compare the game time to his watch? The games were left on the board, and in all likelihood that was a business decision. More action. The games did go off the board at one point, right?

Also, a book can't cancel wagers retroactively. Golden rule. A bet that is accepted should stand. Can the player change his mind? After the game is over?

If all best were canceled, both winners and losers, and the player got his money back, I have no problem with the way WW ultimately handled it. But that only happened after SBR got deeply involved. Not good enough for me, in terms of trusting a book.

WW : "Where's my Watch?"

[Justin7]

If all best were canceled, both winners and losers, and the player got his money back, I have no problem with the way WW ultimately handled it. But that only happened after SBR got deeply involved. Not good enough for me, in terms of trusting a book.

WW : "Where's my Watch?"

Before I got involved, Wagerweb canceled all past-posted wagers. The player was a net loser without these. They refunded his entire deposit, even though that account lost on the non past-posted plays. Wager Web's resolution was "nicer to the player" than my ultimate recommendation... But in fairness to WWS, SBR disagreed with my recommendations on this dispute. SBR recommended that WW pay WWS for all past-posted plays, notwithstanding my investigation and analysis.

[Dark Horse]

Justin, why did WW leave the betting window open after the games had started? And for how long?

[chemist]

Justin, why did WW leave the betting window open after the games had started? And for how long?

It's a good question. I'm on the other side of the world and don't subscribe to any cable channels that show the US sports I bet on. I rely on the game starting times advertised by sportsbooks and generally assume that they will take propositions off the board when they no longer wish to book action. Justin's position implies I'm a fool and if a book decides to confiscate my funds I shouldn't complain.

[Justin7]

Justin, why did WW leave the betting window open after the games had started? And for how long?

ASI's software has a "bug" in it. If a game goes off at 1pm, it will check the time when you confirm a bet if you are online. If you telephoned in, however, it uses the time the call began.

If you called at 12:59pm, and kept a clerk on the phone for 15 minutes, you could confirm your bet at 1:14, even though the game started earlier. You cannot do this online.

Re: Clerks... Your average clerk is about as bright as a typical Wal-Mart greeter. They are trained to do specific things. This does NOT include checking to see when a game is going off. When I did my stint offshore, I tried training some of the locals to "expand their abilities", and it was saddening. We finally gave up trying to get them to do anything more than the absolute basics.

[AgainstAllOdds]

so whats the final outcome of this...did the guy get paid?

[TLD]

so whats the final outcome of this...did the guy get paid?

No (as indicated by his continued bitterness over it).

Based on the facts as presented by Justin and others, I am of the opinion the player should be paid. (See my post #79 in this thread for my reasoning.)

If I were to base my decision on sentiment however, I probably wouldn't pay him a penny. I think he's been an ass about it from start to finish. I totally sympathize with Justin having to deal with constant lying and spinning from someone when you're just trying to get to the truth about a situation and facilitate a resolution.

[Dark Horse]

ASI's software has a "bug" in it. If a game goes off at 1pm, it will check the time when you confirm a bet if you are online. If you telephoned in, however, it uses the time the call began.

If you called at 12:59pm, and kept a clerk on the phone for 15 minutes, you could confirm your bet at 1:14, even though the game started earlier. You cannot do this online.

Re: Clerks... Your average clerk is about as bright as a typical Wal-Mart greeter. They are trained to do specific things. This does NOT include checking to see when a game is going off. When I did my stint offshore, I tried training some of the locals to "expand their abilities", and it was saddening. We finally gave up trying to get them to do anything more than the absolute basics.

In terms of who carries responsibility for what, the way this plays out to me is that:

- WW should pay the player. No questions asked.
- WW makes arrangements with the software company, either directly or legally, for compensation for its losses resulting from this software bug. It is the software company that carries the responsibility for this fiasco; not the player who pointed out the flaw.

In the bigger picture, this is not about an individual player. By buying into that argument the whole issue gets distorted. In the long run, if this player had not pointed out the loophole in the system and it had instead gone undetected for years, WW could have lost much more to players running into this bug by accident.

Instead WW took the player's awareness of the bug, accepted it as advice, benefits from it across the board, plus uses it against the player retroactively.

This player pointed out a serious security flaw in the system, that could have been milked by many players for years. So what if, in return, he got a touchdown in a limited number of games?

[gizmo2431]

From what I see, this matter was already settled. But to drop in my opinion, WW should have paid this person in full. The error is theirs, and because someone exploited it is fully their responsibility. They are running a business and it is not the customer's responsibility to ensure they run their business correctly. I believe any good, honest, legitimate business would have honored these winnings if they had not been in such a great amount. Say the price to payout was only $1000. WW would have paid this to save their reputation, but it seems that because the amount was so large they changed their principles on the matter. I would like to proceed with a for instance. I went shopping for a suit in downtown Chicago and came across a $1,500 suit that I wanted to purchase. I proceeded to the counter to pay for it, and the price that scanned on the register was only $200. This was a complete glitch on the software side of the company. The manager came over, and his decision for me was that it was their error and I could have the suit at the reduced price and he would proceed to fix the error from happening again. This is EXACTLY what WW should have practiced in principle. In no way should the customer suffer because of the inability of a business to run itself. It is pretty safe to say that through most of the posts I have read on here Dark Horse has pin pointed how this situation should have played out, but I see that it didn't exactly. Too bad WW passed the buck on its customer to suffer because of their lack of competence. Simply put, if they can't run the business properly that is their fault.

Seems like an old thread, but I got super bored and decided to read. The end.

[Dark Horse]

Correction on my earlier post. It was a software bug PLUS poorly trained clerks. So that divides the responsibility between the software manufacturer and WW. The player doesn't even factor in.

WW, in effect, admits they don't know how to run their business, but do they take responsibility? No. Instead they point an accusing finger at the player, without whom, by the way, the security issue would still be leaving them vulnerable.

As a general principle, be very careful going into a business relationship with anybody who has shown an unwillingness to take responsibility for their mistakes. It is never an isolated incident.

[robmpink]

.

[Bullajami]

I appreciate your position, Dark Horse, but I do not agree. The actions of the bettor are very much part of the issue.

If one of my employees forgets to lock up the store (or my lock is defective), I may have a poorly trained clerk (or a busted lock), but the person who exploits those loopholes and comes in and takes my stuff is still a thief.

[Dark Horse]

At least linguistically, it doesn't make sense to connect the dots between 'loophole' and 'illegal'. If it were illegal, it wouldn't be a loophole. And if it's not illegal, you can't punish someone for actions that are not appreciated.

There's another problem, that is easily overlooked and seems to be a recurring offshore theme: Once a bet is placed and won, the money is in the player's account. That account should be off-limits to the book. The book only has access to the money that the player puts in play, and only until those wagers are graded. The player trusts the book with this responsibility, and trusts it to act in the same way that a Vegas book would. So when these books breach that trust, by going into the account as if the money is just as much theirs as the player's, they are already defining themselves as sh*t books. It is outrageous that books get away with this. An account at a good book should be as safe as a bank account. The books that don't understand this basic principle don't deserve our business.

If possible, I would like SBR to acknowledge this, and include it as a 'your money is 100% safe' standard. Any book that has crossed the line into a player's account does not deserve this recommendation.

[Justin7]

There's another problem, that is easily overlooked and seems to be a recurring offshore theme: Once a bet is placed and won, the money is in the player's account. That account should be off-limits to the book.

So if I steal from someone and they don't catch me right away, I get to keep it?

[Dark Horse]

Stealing is illegal. Your point of view is that something illegal happened. To me this was a loophole, and not illegal. That's a basic difference of opinion, and all we can do is agree to disagree.

But yes. Once the bet is graded and the ticket is cashed, that's the end of it. No retroactive power by the book whatsoever. That's why a casino has tight security. Offshore books should pay the same amount of attention to that field. To prevent stealing.

If they don't want to invest in security, that's their problem. That lack of attention to detail doesn't give them the right to go into a player's account after the completion of a transaction. The only money available to the book should be the money the player choses to wager. The rest of his money should be as safe as in a bank. And any book that doesn't act by that basic principle either doesn't know its business, or lacks integrity.

I realize this is a black and white statement. But that's how I want to do business. I believe that in the long run integrity always wins.

[curious]

Stealing is illegal. Your point of view is that something illegal happened. To me this was a loophole, and not illegal. That's a basic difference of opinion, and all we can do is agree to disagree.

But yes. Once the bet is graded and the ticket is cashed, that's the end of it. No retroactive power by the book whatsoever. That's why a casino has tight security. Offshore books should pay the same amount of attention to that field. To prevent stealing.

If they don't want to invest in security, that's their problem. That lack of attention to detail doesn't give them the right to go into a player's account after the completion of a transaction. The only money available to the book should be the money the player choses to wager. The rest of his money should be as safe as in a bank.

This is a nice sentiment but it will never happen. Offshore bookmaking operators are thugs who view your money as their money and they are free to do whatever they wish with their money.

[Dark Horse]

It's not a sentiment. It's my choice. I will never play with those books.

And I would recommend that nobody else does. Play only with the few class acts. Leave the thugs for what they are. Let them go out of business.

[DIF]

my experience with wagerweb is not good either.

IMO this should be a D- book or something.

I play my freeplay for 200 on a big underdog. to win 2200.

the underdog won.

my balance was up to 4000$ when I decide to withraw the funds.I was rather sure my roll over was about $200x5.or $200x7

when I requested a payout I realize their roll overs was deposit+winnings out of the winnings of the free plays . 2000+200x7 or something like that. that means 15,400$.

SO. what shall i do then? I thought.

OK . I decide take a couple of big favourites try roll over it faster. I need money home to pay my rent.

I was finally completed and decide withraw again. (I thought)



So. they give me an email of this bonus-pyramid about their rules.

I also have to say their accounting service is very slow. I have to wait more than a week for answer.

So. They told me about their bonus pyramid. Now it was to win as counting, not the money I risk. I risk in 2 wagers about 5000$ to win 500$

their bonus-system is XXXX IMO. please dont make the misstake bet an big underdog for your freeplays.

I still got funds there and I smell they are in some danger. Hopefully I get them soon.

/DIF

[Rand790]

It is apparent that the majority of the intelligent public see that WAGERWEB SUCKS! It does make me feel very good to know that everyday people will read this and other negative comments about this pathetic sportsbook and will never play with this sportsbook. I wish the owner of WAGERWEB would have the courage to voice his opinion on this matter - I can't believe the owner is allowing this dispute to destroy this organization's reputation...........so very sad.

[Rand790]

Oh and Justin, one more time, can you please confirm that it was and is SBR's corporate position that WagerWeb should have paid me every dime that I won from this sportsbook?

Yes or No question........

[Rand790]

ROBMPINK is an employee of Wagerweb. What is the FEDEX tracking number? For sure this never happened........

Just post the tracking number and we'll see if you are for real -

[noyb]

it's funny how some people look at this case and are able to argue very well why the poster should have been paid (and i definitely agree Wagerweb screwed this player over), and then the poster himself comes along and makes such an "unfriendly" impression you lose all sympathy and interest in his case.

[Bullajami]

At least linguistically, it doesn't make sense to connect the dots between 'loophole' and 'illegal'. If it were illegal, it wouldn't be a loophole. And if it's not illegal, you can't punish someone for actions that are not appreciated.

Loophole: A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.

Past posting is directly violating the rules of WagerWeb, and every other sportsbook. It's not a loophole.

If the offensive end grapples the defensive end and wrestles him to the ground, but the linesman doesn't see it, that's not a loophole either - its holding. He's not breaking the law, but he is breaking a well-known rule. When he gets caught doing it later there will be a penalty.

If I can find a way to have 17 different Pinnacle accounts because the bonus is juicy, that's not a loophole, either. Its a rules violation, and I would expect to have my deposit refunded (unless I lost it) and my accounts closed when I am caught.

We want the books the be fair to us. We expect them to follow their terms and conditions. We demand it. If they don't we pitch a royal bitch - and rightly so. The books deserve to expect no less from us.

[Dark Horse]

You are aware that some books will accept action after the game has kicked off? It is a rule, but it is applied with flexibility. And WW obviously applied it with flexibility. So it becomes a judgment call. Some refs will call a foul, others will let it go.

To me the main issues are security, for which the book is responsible, and Vegas rules, which means that once the ticket is cashed the money can no longer be accessed by the book.

After reading about disputes here for a number of years I've concluded that the books must be held accountable for their lack of security. I no longer care how creative the player is in finding a loophole. That is to be expected. Vegas expects it. That's why the place is littered with eyes in the sky. If online books don't expect it, or are unprepared, they shouldn't be in the business. Stupidity doesn't give them the right to go into a players account.

The exception would be bonus fraud, because that doesn't involve the grading of wagers, and can't be immediately determined.

[robmpink]

ROBMPINK is an employee of Wagerweb. What is the FEDEX tracking number? For sure this never happened........

Just post the tracking number and we'll see if you are for real -

I was going to do this, but then I started thinking. It has my real name and location and other stuff. Why would I supply that info to you?

Let me ask you something? What does me having to get paid have to do w/ your situation? Are you trying to debunk the notion that I got paid?

If it is really that important to you, I would forward the info for a mod to look at, but in all honesty I don't think they give a hump. They already know I don't work for WW and live in PA.

[Rand790]

Wagerweb SUCKS!!!!

[Rand790]

Wagerweb SUCKS!!!

[magnavox]

DH, while I agree with you that books should be responsible for what they offer, unfortunately this is not an offshore standard. If you catch a book posting a line 50 cent off and bet it, it WILL get canceled by most A rated sportsbooks. This has happened many, many times before. Why don't you go and make your, such a strong, case for those 'unfortunate' players...

[Dark Horse]

I'm talking about graded wagers.

[Dark Horse]

DH, while I agree with you that books should be responsible for what they offer, unfortunately this is not an offshore standard. If you catch a book posting a line 50 cent off and bet it, it WILL get canceled by most A rated sportsbooks. This has happened many, many times before. Why don't you go and make your, such a strong, case for those 'unfortunate' players...

I would never bet into a bad line, but it would seem that a top book even then gives the player a choice: the bet stands, but it will be your last with us, or the bet does not stand. That shows me they understand and respect the correct relationship between player and book.

Anyway, I would say that in almost all cases the bad line is detected before the wager is graded. So the book would have to make two big mistakes in a row before the issue of retroactively going into a player's funds would even be on the table.

What I'm saying is that players can and should demand Vegas quality from offshore books. The time of accepting a different set of offshore standards is over. At least for me it is.

[Rand790]

Avoid WAGERWEB

I recently had a horrible experience with Wagerweb, as have many other players who have posted on this website. I won $37,000 and when I went to cash out they refused to pay. Regardless of my story, I wanted to point out SBR's rating of this terrible sportsbook:

According to SBR, Wagerweb is a "C" rated sportsbook and by SBR definition this sportsbook is classified as the following:

"An average to below average customer service with some risk to players funds."

Hope this helps some of you who are looking for a sportsbook -I, like SBR, strongly suggest using a SBR "A" or "B" rated sportsbooks.