Avoid Wagerweb

**Dark Horse** · 12-12-07, 05:53 PM

We can make it all very complicated, but basically this is the dark alley with a guy being robbed and the robber making a run for it.

SBR is supposed to come in and play Superman. Or Spiderman. Or Batman.

Not Robin...

That may work once or twice, but they'll catch onto that real quick.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-12-07, 06:01 PM

The books can always advertise at SBR if they want to rob people.

Anyone who reads this and the BetJam thread and sees that SBR considers bets that exceed an ambiguous limit to be "worse" than past-posted bets and doesn't realize that SBR has fallen into the "anything for a buck" crowd needs to have their head examined.

**eric dy** · 12-12-07, 09:24 PM

I can't believe WAGERWEB needs to the end of the week to make a decision................................ ..what is there to decide - they took the action, pay the man!

Can't believe the player is okay with continuing to wait!

WAGERWEB do the right thing. Is it really worth it? This negative publicity will cost you way more than $37K...........

**robmpink** · 12-12-07, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by eric dy

I can't believe WAGERWEB needs to the end of the week to make a decision................................ ..what is there to decide - they took the action, pay the man!

Can't believe the player is okay with continuing to wait!

WAGERWEB do the right thing. Is it really worth it? This negative publicity will cost you way more than $37K...........

You really are annoying. Do you have a tick up your ass? Are you the players crack dealer? Christ, they aren't stalling to gather deposits to possibly pay. Let them discuss it. Funny how you are so vocal here, but you haven't commented on the Betjam situation. Hidden agenda maybe?

**atakdog** · 12-13-07, 05:02 AM

I don't understand why WagerWeb doesn't just advertise here on SBR. Great for business, and then they could get away with this sort of behavior easily...

**eric dy** · 12-13-07, 10:20 AM

Rob, I am passionate about this problem with WagerWeb because I had a sportsbook try to do something similar to me in the past. I read the BetJam story, but don't know much about horse racing or the rules around horse betting with sportsbooks. So, I figure I shouldn't post my opinion when it is not very meaningful. Kind of like what you have done here.

Any other questions for me?

**louis** · 12-13-07, 11:31 AM

Don't judge SBR by just this one case

groovinmahoven, I totally disagree that SBR does "anything for a buck". They side with players more often than any other forum I know.

It simply is not true that any book that wants to give SBR bucks, is going to be welcomed to do so.

SBR is a powerful motivating force now, to get Wagerweb to do the right thing and pay this guy, but they are not going to be allowed to advertise here.

Those who have been around understand the SBR business model. Sure they want to make a "buck", but these bucks have come because players trust them, they have integrity, and only the most reputable books are allowed to advertise.

I totally agree that bet Jamaica should pay this guy, but you can't judge SBR on just this one case. I hope SBR encourages Jamaica to pay the guy, and simply close the guys account. I bet this is what is going to happen.

**eric dy** · 12-13-07, 11:53 AM

From talking to many people who I know who bet often, SBR is the best "watchdog" in the business. I agree with Louis. It sounds like they work very hard to protect the customer.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-13-07, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by louis

groovinmahoven, I totally disagree that SBR does "anything for a buck". They side with players more often than any other forum I know.

I agree, and I have thought very highly of SBR in the past and have recommended them. But in this instance, they have contradicted several recent rulings where they said "the player had money at risk" like the SIA ruling.

Deliberately past-posting wagers and stalling on the phone to do is a definite angle on the part of the player. Betting the standard limit in a racebook after you've been limited on sports, when the book has the ability to control the racebook limit and the player could bet at a different book that pays track odds (player has already mentioned placing the remainder of his bet on WSEX) is not an angle by any stretch of the imagination. To side with the past-poster and not the player who at worst accidentally circumvented ambiguous limits where the book couldn't be bothered to set their software correctly is quite frankly absurd.

I am morally certain the rulings would have gone differently BetJamaica was the book in the past-posting thread and WagerWeb was the book in the horse thread, which is why I stand by my categorization of "anything for a buck."

**Dark Horse** · 12-13-07, 02:11 PM

You continue to compare two cases (because doing so serves your purpose), that should be judged separately; as all cases.

From this simple example it is clear that your ability to categorize - as in 'categorization of "anything for a buck"'- is deeply flawed.

**eric dy** · 12-13-07, 02:32 PM

I agree with Dark Horse that these are two separate cases. If you think WAGERWEB is in the right in this example - you are a fool. You really should treat each case separately.

**groovinmahoovin** · 12-13-07, 02:44 PM

I have no "purpose." I have always liked SBR and spoken highly of SBR on the other gambling boards, but their actions in this matter concerned me so much that I went out of my way to create an account and post. (And I can easily prove I'm not a ghost poster as I've posted to SSB and LVA under this same username for about 5 years and am well known to the moderators and administrators of those boards.) I am calling it as a see it, and in this case, I see that SBR is biased towards an advertiser.

If someone told me last week that SBR would try to get the past-poster paid but rule against the horse player, I never would have believed it, not in a million years, that's how shocked I am by these decisions.

**eric dy** · 12-13-07, 03:26 PM

I bet that SBR is doing everything in their power to help you. I haven't read all of the threads but I know they are good people and will do what is right.

**Dark Horse** · 12-13-07, 03:33 PM

Groovin,

You are obviously emotionally invested in this case. Nothing wrong with that. But you have to appreciate that there is greater objectivity in a dispassionate approach, such as examplified by SBR. If both parties in a dispute would take your emotional approach, before long they'd be screaming at each other at the top of their lungs. No solution there.

SBR has a long track record of solving disputes, and a second-to-none reputation in doing so. If you look at their track record and what they have done for bettors, a service freely provided, then you, and not SBR, are out of line. Advertisers that do not meet the standard, such as WWTS, have been thrown out. So your attitude is one of biting the hand that's trying to reach out. Have a little faith, sit back, and let's see how these cases play out.

**robmpink** · 12-13-07, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by eric dy

Rob, I am passionate about this problem with WagerWeb because I had a sportsbook try to do something similar to me in the past. I read the BetJam story, but don't know much about horse racing or the rules around horse betting with sportsbooks. So, I figure I shouldn't post my opinion when it is not very meaningful. Kind of like what you have done here.

Any other questions for me?

So you used to pass post and the book voided your bets?

**BigDog** · 12-13-07, 08:56 PM

guys like this asshole hurts the industry and shouldn't get shit back! I wouldnt even give the sorry bastard his original deposit back! **** this cheating prick!

**bigboydan** · 12-13-07, 11:13 PM

I was just surfing the net tonight looking for interesting stories, and stumbled across this scoop over at Sting's site. I thought you guys might wanna read it... So here it is.

Online Gambling Site WagerWeb Responds to Complaint

Online gambling website WagerWeb.com won't pay a player claiming to be owed over $30,000. That player admits to have placed bets prior to games starting time. He claims that WagerWeb allowed this to take place and, as such, should not be disputing the amount owed. The online gambling site, considered among the more reputable in online sports betting and in business since 1997, insists the player in question is nothing more than a scammer.

"This was a player doing it for every bet he made betting 1st halves," disclosed Dave Johnson, General Manager of WagerWeb.com. "I have run a successful business for 10 years. You met and have been to my office. I have over 1500 active players weekly and we never get complaints except from people not playing fairly. Im not in the business of stealing from people. You dont build the type of business we have from not being fair.

The player first complained on the SportsBookReview.com website, where he received pity from some and disdain from others.

"Players such as these deserve NOTHING," said one gambler on the SBR Forum. "I don't care what you guys think. Book the Bet , Pay the Bet (Bull****). Dishonest whores like this should be getting zero."

Johnson admits to working with SBR in coming to a resolution in this case, nonetheless.

"My fraud department has worked effortlessly to find a fair middle ground on all disputes. We have worked with them to find a way to be fair but at the same time not a candy store.

"Remember, my ultimate priority is to run a profitable business who NEVER has a slow pay complaint. Thats why my players stay here year after year. If I have to ruffle a few feathers amongst a small group of scammers I am willing to do it to ensure my real players always get paid."

But players such as this one only serve to harm legitimate online gamblers. In the past, the industry has had to tighten the reigns on lucrative signup bonuses as a result of a minority of individuals taking advantage.

A number of online gambling operators, including WagerWeb, would consider creating a sort of black list that features names of scammers and those individuals who follow a trend of taking advantage of bad lines and past posting.

Another scammer was recently exposed at betED.com after he (posting as a woman on the SBR forum in pink fonts) turned out to be someone betting on behalf of another bookmaker in Costa Rica. This was clearly against betED's online gambling policy (found under the rules and regulations section of their website).

----

**Dark Horse** · 12-13-07, 11:20 PM

What a joke. Total misrepresentation of the thread on this topic here.

**Lucas** · 12-13-07, 11:59 PM

i agree
that is also reason, why the stupid G911 article has no link to this thread; obviously WW decided, that couple of propaganda columns is cheaper way of improving image

unortunatelly i know about another of their dishonest behavior and i am going to reveal it soon

Ho can they be B book

They use every excuse to steal money.

**Bill Dozer** · 12-14-07, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by BigDog

guys like this asshole hurts the industry and shouldn't get shit back! I wouldnt even give the sorry bastard his original deposit back! **** this cheating prick!

You would keep deposits? Good thing you don't manage a book!

**Bill Dozer** · 12-14-07, 12:36 AM

We should have an update tomorrow.

**dwaechte** · 12-14-07, 12:42 AM

No matter where people stand on the issue, I think they need to stay away from the extremes mentioned in a lot of these posts.

Whether it be "**** this cheating prick" or "They use every excuse to steal money", neither side has a lot of validity in my opinion, and it certainly doesn't add to the discussion. Everyones entitled to their opinion, but doing your best to state it in an elegant manner would do wonders for the discussion at hand.

**eric dy** · 12-14-07, 05:31 PM

It is amazing to see the difference between an A rated sportsbook and WagerWeb (not sure what their rating will be soon). With BetJam the manager of the sportsbook worked directly with SBR, communicated on the postings, and paid the customer all in a few days. WagerWeb, unless I am missing something, has done nothing but continue to ask for more time to make a decision. Something is not right here - I can't imagine being the guy who won $37k and is sitting around waiting for a decision.

I again commend BETJAM for stepping up to the plate. I hope you get all kinds of new business because of it.

**Bill Dozer** · 12-14-07, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by eric dy

It is amazing to see the difference between an A rated sportsbook and WagerWeb (not sure what their rating will be soon). With BetJam the manager of the sportsbook worked directly with SBR, communicated on the postings, and paid the customer all in a few days. WagerWeb, unless I am missing something, has done nothing but continue to ask for more time to make a decision. Something is not right here - I can't imagine being the guy who won $37k and is sitting around waiting for a decision.

I again commend BETJAM for stepping up to the plate. I hope you get all kinds of new business because of it.

Wagerweb is going to challenge the meaning of "business week" here... Didn't get back to me tonight. I am confident they are taking a new view on this. Hopefully tomorrow morning we will hear about it.

**chano** · 12-15-07, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

You would keep deposits? Good thing you don't manage a book!

Are you saying its ok for a Player to take a shot at a book?

We need to start showing some consequences when a player tries to **** a book. There is consequences when a book tries to **** a player. Player should learn a lesson here......

**robmpink** · 12-15-07, 08:36 AM

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion is correct. Like the guy before me said, what kind of message does it send if the guy gets paid? It is almost like saying we should go out and try to find ways to exploit the book. Exploit it until we get caught, and expect the book to pay for the lesson learned.
Whatever the case is, I hope things work out for both parties, if at all possible.

**bigboydan** · 12-15-07, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by chano

Are you saying its ok for a Player to take a shot at a book?

We need to start showing some consequences when a player tries to **** a book. There is consequences when a book tries to **** a player. Player should learn a lesson here......

I can't answer for Bill at all, however I'll give my .02 cents on the subject Chano.

It's obvious this player was a shot taker. But this "shot taker" would have never got one of those bets down "IF" WagerWeb had competent clerks that were on the ball. I feel if anyone is truly at fault here it's the book, because they should have caught this problem right away if they were on top of their game sorta speak.

I'm not handling this dispute at all, however based on what facts are mentioned in this thread. If it was up to me. I'd rule the book would have to pay the man $25,000 and strongly suggest to WagerWeb use those other 12+ dimes and hire somebody to train their clerks to do a better job catching/preventing "shot takers" for doing this again.

**Doug** · 12-15-07, 01:34 PM

WW has always been sloppy, but they used to be reliable for paying. I'll never go back there.

If they call me, I'll bring this up as a reason to stay away, even if they wind up paying this.

**magnavox** · 12-15-07, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

It's obvious this player was a shot taker. But this "shot taker" would have never got one of those bets down "IF" WagerWeb had competent clerks that were on the ball.

The same can be said on betting obvious bad lines. I believe a player is a shot-taker if he bets TEAM +7 and correct line is -7. In such a scenario player is in a no-win situation; the book will keep the bet if it loses and cancel if it wins -- your very own statement, bigboydan.

**Dark Horse** · 12-15-07, 07:57 PM

A bad line is an exception. These late bets were habit, and knowingly allowed by the book. Big difference.

**eric dy** · 12-15-07, 08:54 PM

Did this player get paid? What is going on here? I can't believe this is taking so long....................

**eric dy** · 12-15-07, 08:58 PM

I just noticed that SBR has DOWNGRADED WagerWeb from a B- to a C. Very interesting..........does that mean they are not paying this guy OR is this for some other reason?

**magnavox** · 12-15-07, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

A bad line is an exception. These late bets were habit, and knowingly allowed by the book. Big difference.

Same can be said to defend other side -- if this would be an exception, then fine, pay the player. However that player almost exclusively was making that kind of past-posting; not to mention... using a trick.

On a side note, BJ paid the other player in full, but one of Scotty's arguments was that wagers were NOT past-posted.

What striked me the most was SBR's approach to both cases, totally different with regards to retroactive grading.

**BigBollocks** · 12-15-07, 09:52 PM

WW shouldn't have to pay this player a cent. SBR has become a refuge for shot-takers, bonus whores, cheaters, and small timers I'm afraid...

**eric dy** · 12-15-07, 10:30 PM

Totally disagree with you BigB........not even going to comment. If you don't like SBR, get off the site.....go over to WagerWeb and chat with them.