Avoid Wagerweb

[pavyracer]

I'm not concerned at all if the player gets paid or not. I'm not his attorney and I don't give a damn if the book stole the money. What concerns me is the poor management of the book which does not know when games start and does not know how to prevent accepting bets after a game starts.

This is why I would not be risking my money at a shotty book like this with poor piss management. The fish always stink from the head.

[JimmyG]

I'm not concerned at all if the player gets paid or not. I'm not his attorney and I don't give a damn if the book stole the money. What concerns me is the poor management of the book which does not know when games start and does not know how to prevent accepting bets after a game starts.

This is why I would not be risking my money at a shotty book like this with poor piss management. The fish always stink from the head.

Pavy

Understood.

I would question their manangement as well. They definitely need improvements to tighten up the ship.

They need to find better ways quick to make sure that they run a solid organization with no opportunities for the shot takers to steal.

[increasedodds]

Why did Wagerweb decide to take these bets? Why would any book?


One of three reasons -

Thought he would lose
Taking a shot.
Inept and unable to run a book after 10 years.

I can't tell you, but it is one of the three.

Also, please dont call this guy a wiseguy. Its an embarassment for all professional gamblers who visit this forum. Lets stick with scumbag, shot taker or crook. All three are more accurate than Wiseguy.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Sean

[Dark Horse]

Nope. Pretty question begging.

It's precisely the relevance of this part of the player's history that I dispute. Simply asserting that it's relevant doesn't make it so.

Translate it to a court situation. If someone has a prior record of the same behavior it is typically considered relevant.

If the allegations are true, then he's been using these tactics for a long time, and has done very well (we would know of about 200K, but there is no reason that it couldn't be much more). To you that may not make a difference, but to me it does. Why? Because, in that case, he's not a victim at all! He's had a nice source of income and could have known that it wouldn't last forever.

But even though it is relevant, that doesn't mean that the book's off the hook. WW has a policy of accepting late bets. That's risky. It can't use software as excuse. That would be a joke, because all books use software. If we're going to start there then anything can be retroactively blamed on software. It looks like WW was taken for a ride, but that comes with the territory. Security is priority numero uno in Vegas. Where was WW's eye in the sky? The book accepted the action, and would have had no problem if the wagers had lost. Therefore the book should pay. But how much?

How to decide between two sides taking, or willing to take, shots at each other? How would Vegas deal with someone like this? If a player outsmarts every casino by exploiting a loophole he would probably be paid, shown the door, and blacklisted. He would never be able to play at a legal casino again. That's for legal casinos. For illegal places the 'rules' are different. So, perhaps, ultimately this whole thing comes down to how WW sees itself. As legal or illegal...

On a personal note, what this guy did does put a smile on my face. Books make fortunes off the public by holding an unfair advantage. This player turned it around. Unless he clearly broke their rules, there is something unbelievably hypocritical about a book complaining about that. I do think the player is a thief, but he's a 'good thief' (a movie). In my opinion, after careful consideration, he should be paid -the full amount - and shown the door. Up to the offshore industry to blacklist him or not.

[JimmyG]

Translate it to a court situation. If someone has a prior record of the same behavior it is typically considered relevant.

If the allegations are true, then he's been using these tactics for a long time, and has done very well (we would know of about 200K, but there is no reason that it couldn't be much more). To you that may not make a difference, but to me it does. Why? Because, in that case, he's not a victim at all! He's had a nice source of income and could have known that it wouldn't last forever.

But even though it is relevant, that doesn't mean that the book's off the hook. WW has a policy of accepting late bets. That's risky. It can't use software as excuse. That would be a joke, because all books use software. If we're going to start there then anything can be retroactively blamed on software. It looks like WW was taken for a ride, but that comes with the territory. Security is priority numero uno in Vegas. Where was WW's eye in the sky? The book accepted the action, and would have had no problem if the wagers had lost. Therefore the book should pay. But how much?

How to decide between two sides taking, or willing to take, shots at each other? How would Vegas deal with someone like this? If a player outsmarts every casino by exploiting a loophole he would probably be paid, shown the door, and blacklisted. He would never be able to play at a legal casino again. That's for legal casinos. For illegal places the 'rules' are different. So, perhaps, ultimately this whole thing comes down to how WW sees itself. As legal or illegal...

On a personal note, what this guy did does put a smile on my face. Books make fortunes off the public by holding an unfair advantage. This player turned it around. Unless he clearly broke their rules, there is something unbelievably hypocritical about a book complaining about that. I do think the player is a thief, but he's a 'good thief' (a movie). In my opinion, after careful consideration, he should be paid -the full amount - and shown the door. Up to the offshore industry to blacklist him or not.

DarkHorse

I disagree when you say the 'player would be paid in Vegas'.

I think there are times when Vegas would pay but I dont think the 'Wagerweb Sucks' situation would be one of those times.

Card counting is not illegal in Las Vegas. Its is frowned upon and not welcome at the majority of places. If you card count and get caught you dont go to jail but you will be asked to leave. Also, all those valuable comps you collected will be taken away and you will be forced to pay your own room and food etc. However, they do pay you your winnings. Its similiar to a sportsbook who doesnt allow Wiseguys. Its their house and its their rules. If you open an account play and get booted you should expect to keep your winnings but not bonuses, comps etc.

Ive been thrown from a few casinos for counting so I know this is the case at the majority.

Finding an employee working at the sportsbook in a casino in Vegas to put bets in for you late would be considered criminal activity. If I met a girl who worked at the casino and put bets in for me late that would be considered a crime. It would be punishable and the casino could take measures to get all the money back in full as well as prosecute the individuals involved. There would be no comps paid, all money would be recovered and the player blacklisted.

Two very different situations.

Both are "outsmarting the casino" but one is done legally and the other illegally.

Wiseguys "outsmart" books but that doesnt mean their winnings should be taken.

Criminals "outsmart" books and their winnings should be taken.

I would put 'Wagerweb Sucks" in the second example. The 'girl' he was working with behind the counter was the flawed clerks/software which kept the game open.

If my second example was true the Casino would be responsible for the flaw by not having checks/measures to ensure their employees werent stealing. However, I doubt highly they would be in a position where people were calling them thieves because they tried to recover money stolen from them.

Is Wagerweb that different from the Casino? Do they deserve to be called thieves?

Also, with a prior record the person caught would be in that much more trouble.

'Wagerweb Sucks' with his prioir "conviction lol" from BOS or history would be in a shit load of trouble.

[increasedodds]

If you are a counter and given a free room, when you check in, make sure you write room complementary on the check in signed sheet with your credit card. Very unlikely that they will then charge you for it... If they do, you can dispute it. I've been booted many times, but never been charged for previously arranged comps. Sure you lose future ones...

[JimmyG]

If you are a counter and given a free room, when you check in, make sure you write room complementary on the check in signed sheet with your credit card. Very unlikely that they will then charge you for it... If they do, you can dispute it. I've been booted many times, but never been charged for previously arranged comps. Sure you lose future ones...

I have at the Ventian.

Was with a group of 8. They were covering all rooms, food etc.

When they caught us they walked us to our rooms with security and had us pack right then and there.

They let us cash all our winnings but told us 14k plus would be charged for comps. I never disputed. They wired our winnings back with no problems so I didnt fight the issue.

We liked staying at Mandalay better anyway...lol

[TLD]

Translate it to a court situation. If someone has a prior record of the same behavior it is typically considered relevant.

No problem. Provide an example--real or hypothetical--of a court case where:

1. There is no dispute about what the defendant did.
2. There is a dispute about whether what the defendant did is illegal.
3. The judge initially considers the disputed behavior legal, but then changes his mind and deems it illegal due to testimony that the defendant has engaged in this same behavior previously,

and then we can discuss whether that case is sufficiently analogous to the case at hand.

[Dark Horse]

Finding an employee working at the sportsbook in a casino in Vegas to put bets in for you late would be considered criminal activity. If I met a girl who worked at the casino and put bets in for me late that would be considered a crime. It would be punishable and the casino could take measures to get all the money back in full as well as prosecute the individuals involved. There would be no comps paid, all money would be recovered and the player blacklisted.

The 'girl' he was working with behind the counter was the flawed clerks/software which kept the game open.

.............. the Casino would be responsible for the flaw by not having checks/measures to ensure their employees werent stealing. However, I doubt highly they would be in a position where people were calling them thieves because they tried to recover money stolen from them.

The Casino, you say, is ultimately responsible for the flawed software. I agree. On top of that, and this still needs to be confirmed officially, everything so far suggests that it was WW's policy to allow players to past post. As long as it worked in their favor they were fine with it. There was no 'flaw' until they decided that the policy was working against them in this one case.

I think it is very important to establish if this was indeed WW's policy. If so, they would have a policy in place IN ADDITION TO responsibility for flawed software. A far cry from hiding behind a lame software excuse...

[JimmyG]

The Casino, you say, is ultimately responsible for the flawed software. I agree. On top of that, and this still needs to be confirmed officially, everything so far suggests that it was WW's policy to allow players to past post. As long as it worked in their favor they were fine with it. There was no 'flaw' until they decided that the policy was working against them in this one case.

I think it is very important to establish if this was indeed WW's policy. If so, they would have a policy in place IN ADDITION TO responsibility for flawed software. A far cry from hiding behind a lame software excuse...

Darkhorse

Good post

I was under the belief they DONT allow past posts.

In Justins previous threads he mentioned WW had it listed on their rules page Past Posted wagers would be cancelled.

Justin can check it but thats what i remember reading.

If the player accepted this rule and then opened the account knowing he was gonna break it... not much to stand on IMO...

[trixtrix]

DarkHorse

I disagree when you say the 'player would be paid in Vegas'.

I think there are times when Vegas would pay but I dont think the 'Wagerweb Sucks' situation would be one of those times.

Card counting is not illegal in Las Vegas. Its is frowned upon and not welcome at the majority of places. If you card count and get caught you dont go to jail but you will be asked to leave. Also, all those valuable comps you collected will be taken away and you will be forced to pay your own room and food etc. However, they do pay you your winnings. Its similiar to a sportsbook who doesnt allow Wiseguys. Its their house and its their rules. If you open an account play and get booted you should expect to keep your winnings but not bonuses, comps etc.

Ive been thrown from a few casinos for counting so I know this is the case at the majority.

Finding an employee working at the sportsbook in a casino in Vegas to put bets in for you late would be considered criminal activity. If I met a girl who worked at the casino and put bets in for me late that would be considered a crime. It would be punishable and the casino could take measures to get all the money back in full as well as prosecute the individuals involved. There would be no comps paid, all money would be recovered and the player blacklisted.

Two very different situations.

Both are "outsmarting the casino" but one is done legally and the other illegally.

Wiseguys "outsmart" books but that doesnt mean their winnings should be taken.

Criminals "outsmart" books and their winnings should be taken.

I would put 'Wagerweb Sucks" in the second example. The 'girl' he was working with behind the counter was the flawed clerks/software which kept the game open.

If my second example was true the Casino would be responsible for the flaw by not having checks/measures to ensure their employees werent stealing. However, I doubt highly they would be in a position where people were calling them thieves because they tried to recover money stolen from them.

Is Wagerweb that different from the Casino? Do they deserve to be called thieves?

Also, with a prior record the person caught would be in that much more trouble.

'Wagerweb Sucks' with his prioir "conviction lol" from BOS or history would be in a shit load of trouble.

no offense but you seem to have an unusual acute interest in this case while have little or no idea how "legal" vegas books truly work..

first of all, the player did NOT do anything ILLEGAL, whether it was done here or in vegas, there is NO WAY vegas casino would be able to charge him for any type of crime for past posting (lol, wtf are you kiddin' me or are you really that naive to believe this illegal spin?) now, it could be considered unethical or immoral, but last time i checked, they don't jail people based on morality court.. all that b.s about bribing employees to place backdated wagers is b.s, yes that's illegal there and that's illegal in vegas, but that has NOTHING to do w/ the subject at hand.. the player DID NOT ILLEGALLY bribe a book employee, so what is the pt of that argument unless the intent is to mislead people?

here is how it would work in vegas since you brought it up: the player would ABSOLUTELY be paid on any and all past-posted wager provided that he has a certified ticket that he did not obtain via illegal means. it doesn't matter if the wager was 10 min late, and the clerk/manager approved the ticket anyways unaware that the game has already started. or if the wager was 7 days late and the book forgot they left the game on from last week. as soon as the ticket is printed/approved/obtained, the book MUST HONOR the bet. so any attempt to draw the parallel between what ww did here and what vegas would do would just make you fall flat on your face..

now if the past post bet was balatant, there is a high likelihood that you would be booted from the book after they pay your winnings and blacklisted for life, which is the route imo ww should have taken w/ this dispute.. BUT there is NO WAY in hell the book can escape from honoring an official betting ticket no matter how balatant the past-posting was. if they resfused to, you can take them to the gaming commission be virtually guranteed to have them rule in your favour, as they have done numerous times before when precedences were set.. learn some vegas gaming laws before you sprout off geez..

[Dark Horse]

No problem. Provide an example--real or hypothetical--of a court case where:

1. There is no dispute about what the defendant did.
2. There is a dispute about whether what the defendant did is illegal.
3. The judge initially considers the disputed behavior legal, but then changes his mind and deems it illegal due to testimony that the defendant has engaged in this same behavior previously,

and then we can discuss whether that case is sufficiently analogous to the case at hand.

First of all, we haven't even gotten past the dispute on who the defendant is.

And to skip to your third point. Aside from the fact that it is unclear who your judge might be, you are apparently unfamiliar with a process of evaluation. As a situation unravels, just as in a chess game, the best decision at one point could be terrible after new information becomes available. If you think that is changing one's mind, you won't get an argument from me.

[Dark Horse]

Darkhorse

Good post

I was under the belief they DONT allow past posts.

In Justins previous threads he mentioned WW had it listed on their rules page Past Posted wagers would be cancelled.

Justin can check it but thats what i remember reading.

If the player accepted this rule and then opened the account knowing he was gonna break it... not much to stand on IMO...

We could also have a conflict between their rules and their policy. In that case I would say that actions speak louder than words.

[JimmyG]

no offense but you seem to have an unusual acute interest in this case while have little or no idea how "legal" vegas books truly work..

first of all, the player did NOT do anything ILLEGAL, whether it was done here or in vegas, there is NO WAY vegas casino would be able to charge him for any type of crime for past posting (lol, wtf are you kiddin' me or are you really that naive to believe this illegal spin?) now, it could be considered unethical or immoral, but last time i checked, they don't jail people based on morality court.. all that b.s about bribing employees to place backdated wagers is b.s, yes that's illegal there and that's illegal in vegas, but that has NOTHING to do w/ the subject at hand.. the player DID NOT ILLEGALLY bribe a book employee, so what is the pt of that argument unless the intent is to mislead people?

here is how it would work in vegas since you brought it up: the player would ABSOLUTELY be paid on any and all past-posted wager provided that he has a certified ticket that he did not obtain via illegal means. it doesn't matter if the wager was 10 min late, and the clerk/manager approved the ticket anyways unaware that the game has already started. or if the wager was 7 days late and the book forgot they left the game on from last week. as soon as the ticket is printed/approved/obtained, the book MUST HONOR the bet. so any attempt to draw the parallel between what ww did here and what vegas would do would just make you fall flat on your face..

now if the past post bet was balatant, there is a high likelihood that you would be booted from the book after they pay your winnings and blacklisted for life, which is the route imo ww should have taken w/ this dispute.. BUT there is NO WAY in hell the book can escape from honoring an official betting ticket no matter how balatant the past-posting was. if they resfused to, you can take them to the gaming commission be virtually guranteed to have them rule in your favour, as they have done numerous times before when precedences were set.. learn some vegas gaming laws before you sprout off geez..

LOL...here we go

Yes trixtrix i do have an acute interest in this thread as well as many others..

I also DO know how Vegas books work because I was a runner for many years working out them. I know many of the sportsbook managers as well as pit bosses. So please dont make stupid comments.

You obviously cannot read properly because my post contained a hypothetical situation. In that situation if a player did what I explained YES he would be prosecuted because it is illegal.

My post is my opinion and Im not trying to force down anyones throat.

If you have a different opinion then please post it. If you agree that 'Wagerweb Sucks' did nothing wrong then thats your opinion and I respect that.

However, dont attack me for no reason because you didnt read my post.

If your a 'Wagerweb Sucks' cheerleader and you want to support him then tell us all why.

The discussion to me has been very postive overall. Lots of different opinions which are all being respected.

No need to attack my post.

[TLD]

First of all, we haven't even gotten past the dispute on who the defendant is.

And to skip to your third point. Aside from the fact that it is unclear who your judge might be, you are apparently unfamiliar with a process of evaluation. As a situation unravels, just as in a chess game, the best decision at one point could be terrible after new information becomes available. If you think that is changing one's mind, you won't get an argument from me.

Completely evasive.

I'm not unfamiliar with a process of evaluation. I'm not unfamiliar with the phenomenon of a change in the available evidence changing the most justified conclusion to draw from that evidence. I'm not unfamiliar with the possibility of someone's prior conduct being relevant to an assessment of his later behavior.

I am not claiming that his behavior at other sportsbooks is irrelevant due to some absurd generality that new evidence is always irrelevant and can never justify changing one's position, regardless of how many times you pompously attribute that position to me.

What I am saying is that if someone is doing something that you do not deem wrong or cheating (e.g., card counting at a Las Vegas casino) and you later discover he also did it in the past (e.g., card counted at multiple other Las Vegas casinos), that in and of itself provides zero reason to alter your opinion.

I do understand that if your original position was "Oh sure, he's in the wrong. He cheated to win these bets. But after all, it was just with the one book, and he probably didn't even benefit that much. So let's let it go this time," then this new allegation could well be relevant to you. That's certainly not a position I've held at any point in this controversy, but perhaps there are posters who have, and for them I can see why their feelings would change if the new allegations are true.

[Dark Horse]

The past history is relevant. But, upon closer reflection, not enough to overrule the more important fact that a book can not retroactively cancel wagers or use a player's past in doing so. Going forward, the player's history would be very relevant. I don't know if the offshore industry blacklists players, but for cases like this they probably should.

WW has only itself to blame for its own stupidity. Instead they point the finger at someone who outsmarted them. Instead of accepting responsibility like a man, they whine and cry foul like a victim.

Signs of their duplicity (forked tongue in Native American):
1) accepting wagers, but retroactively canceling them.
2) having a clear policy of accepting late bets, but also a rule that this isn't allowed.
3) blaming others (the player) and circumstances (software) for their own inaptitude.
4) repeatedly assuring SBR they'll get back about this, but not doing so.

They want to have it both ways. It reflects an underlying problem with their mentality. These are not standup guys.

[acw]

What simply makes me laugh most is we are only talking $37,451 and that is what will make most gamblers go hmmm.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/130779.html

Anyhow it took some time, but I have been told that Harry finally got his 1m Pounds (US$2m) paid.

[trixtrix]

LOL...here we go

Yes trixtrix i do have an acute interest in this thread as well as many others..

I also DO know how Vegas books work because I was a runner for many years working out them. I know many of the sportsbook managers as well as pit bosses. So please dont make stupid comments.

You obviously cannot read properly because my post contained a hypothetical situation. In that situation if a player did what I explained YES he would be prosecuted because it is illegal.

My post is my opinion and Im not trying to force down anyones throat.

If you have a different opinion then please post it. If you agree that 'Wagerweb Sucks' did nothing wrong then thats your opinion and I respect that.

However, dont attack me for no reason because you didnt read my post.

If your a 'Wagerweb Sucks' cheerleader and you want to support him then tell us all why.

The discussion to me has been very postive overall. Lots of different opinions which are all being respected.

No need to attack my post.

*shrug*, i don't really have a dog in this fight.. i just find it appalling (especially w/ your stated background) that you would use an absurd hypothetical that had NOTHING to do w/ the case on hand to defend an indefensible position that ww has acted in the same fashion as a vegas book would in this matter..

had this been a vegas book they would knee-deep in lawsuits

[pavyracer]

The past history is relevant. But, upon closer reflection, not enough to overrule the more important fact that a book can not retroactively cancel wagers or use a player's past in doing so. Going forward, the player's history would be very relevant. I don't know if the offshore industry blacklists players, but for cases like this they probably should.

WW has only itself to blame for its own stupidity. Instead they point the finger at someone who outsmarted them. Instead of accepting responsibility like a man, they whine and cry foul like a victim.

Signs of their duplicity (forked tongue in Native American):
1) accepting wagers, but retroactively canceling them.
2) having a clear policy of accepting late bets, but also a rule that this isn't allowed.
3) blaming others (the player) and circumstances (software) for their own inaptitude.
4) repeatedly assuring SBR they'll get back about this, but not doing so.

They want to have it both ways. It reflects an underlying problem with their mentality. These are not standup guys.

Couldn't have said it better. When you have monkeys running your business you deserve to be outsmarted by a 3rd class crook.

[robmpink]

I'm starting to get sick of this thread already. Actually, it started on page 9.

[Rand790]

Just an update.....................I have sent WagerWeb management two (2) emails over the past two (2) days asking if we can come to a mutually agreeable fair settlement on my account. Obviously, they think I am a bad guy and I think they are a bad sportbook - we are not going to agree. However, I feel as though there should be some middle ground that we both could agree upon and resolve this issue. Unfortunately, WagerWeb management hasl not even replied to my emails.

It is difficult to understand how an organization's management can not have the common courtesy and professionalism to respond to a very non-confrontational email.

Just want to share a status with everyone.

[robmpink]

Just an update.....................I have sent WagerWeb management two (2) emails over the past two (2) days asking if we can come to a mutually agreeable fair settlement on my account. Obviously, they think I am a bad guy and I think they are a bad sportbook - we are not going to agree. However, I feel as though there should be some middle ground that we both could agree upon and resolve this issue. Unfortunately, WagerWeb management hasl not even replied to my emails.

It is difficult to understand how an organization's management can not have the common courtesy and professionalism to respond to a very non-confrontational email.

Just want to share a status with everyone.

He's back! I wonder why they won't respond? HHMMMMM ?

[Shack]

500k stolen in a few years now

These crooks have stolen over 500k now over the past few years. Will anyone ever learn that they are a con book.

[Rand790]

Avoid Wagerweb

As we get close to March Madness, I want to give my advice to anyone out there looking for a sportsbook.

I strongly recommend keeping away from WAGERWEB! In addition, and more importantly, SBR also recommends avoiding WAGERWEB.

Hope this helps you!

SPORTSBOOK: Wagerweb
Website: www.wagerweb.com
SBR Rating: "C"
SBR Comments: Average to below average cust. service with some risk to players funds.

[tacomax]

Didn't know that WWS is employed by SBR and speaking on behalf of them. Congratulations on the job.

BTW - I love the book. One of the best out there. Thanks for the reminder about March Madness - I'll load up there for sure.

[The HG]

come on, how bad could they be, really.

[20Four7]

His last effort under a different name didn't work so he's back to his old tactics. He took a shot and lost, get over it dude.

[jjgold]

wagerweb has always been a bad book

[Rand790]

Hope this helps anyone looking for a sportsbook - of course, why would you choose a "C" rated SBR sportsbook, when there are many A and B options available.

[Rand790]

Does anyone want to question, JJ Gold - this guy has 13,000 posts on this website - get the feeling he knows what he is talking about....................

Where is ROBMPINK - can't wait for his biased opinion - since he is employed by WagerWeb.

[tacomax]

Does anyone want to question, JJ Gold - this guy has 13,000 posts on this website - get the feeling he knows what he is talking about....................

Your mistake is the assumption that quantity is a predictor of quality. However utilising that hypothesis and, judging by your lack of posts, you must be talking crap.

[Finpro]

Whatever, but he is right..not a safe book at the moment.
Why play there with at least 20 better books to pick from.

[The HG]

Hope this helps anyone looking for a sportsbook - of course, why would you choose a "C" rated SBR sportsbook, when there are many A and B options available.

I guess I would choose it because, yeah I mean C is not as good as A or B of course, but still C isn't that bad. If they're a C, how bad can they be?

[robmpink]

Does anyone want to question, JJ Gold - this guy has 13,000 posts on this website - get the feeling he knows what he is talking about....................

Where is ROBMPINK - can't wait for his biased opinion - since he is employed by WagerWeb.

I'm really happy there. Cashed out three times in Feb. To each his own. Now if you didn't scam them would we be having this conversation? If they are as bad as you say wouldn't the all powerful gambling watchdog site SBR have them rated much lower? Why don't you go back to Majorwager.com so they could laugh at you some more.

[Rand790]

ROBMPINK, why don't you have the courage to admit that you work for WAGERWEB? Come on.......

You're pathetic and so is your sportsbook......