WagerWeb cheating sharp players

[bigboydan]

WagerWeb (SBR rating C) cheating sharp players

SBR has received multiple complaints from [iSBRFORUM]WagerWeb[/iSBRFORUM] players that the book is debiting user accounts for losing free-play bonuses after the book decides it no longer wants to service the client.

Player: I deposited with wagerweb and received $600 in freeplay. I played these funds and lost. I additionally placed two wagers with wagerweb before they cut my limits. After my initial wager my limits were lowered to $250, after the 2nd wager they were lowered to $1. I placed a withdraw with them and they seized $600 from my actual money citing that I had not completed the wagering requirement despite never giving me a chance and the fact I had not won anything. THEY ARE STEALERS!

This policy allows the book to take a shot at the player. A player who is forced to leave stands to be forced to pay the book in cash for as much as twice the free-play value. More unfair is that if the player won he would only receive a small fraction of the free-play winnings. If the player who is being shut down has won his free-play the book uses the larger amount of the risk-to-win to calculate the roll-over.

One player sums up the scam: "It's like a bank sending you a free toaster to open up a account and then chargin your bank account for two toasters if it decides they don't want your business!! The bank makes out!"

[20Four7]

That isn't good news. If the book limits you such that it's impossible to complete the roll over then something reasonable has to be done. A free play is a free play. It's not like they put $600 cash in your account. Even if the free play wins you never see the $600 only the "winnings".

I think wagerwebs C rating is being generous given this type of report.

[robmpink]

Did you get any word from the book as far as an explanation? There is always two sides to a story. Logically speaking why would WW do this? Maybe what they term bonus pyramid? Something happened for them to cut this guys limits after two bets. As far as them counting risk to win for rollover it makes perfect sense. Guys would be betting huge ML favs to meet the rollover quickly.

[jjgold]

This is one of the worst books out there, be careful playing there.

[bigboydan]

Did you get any word from the book as far as an explanation? There is always two sides to a story. Logically speaking why would WW do this? Maybe what they term bonus pyramid? Something happened for them to cut this guys limits after two bets. As far as them counting risk to win for rollover it makes perfect sense. Guys would be betting huge ML favs to meet the rollover quickly.

I didn't field this complaint originally Rob, so I don't know at this time.

[robmpink]

I didn't field this complaint originally Rob, so I don't know at this time.

No problem.

[gambleballs]

Something happened for them to cut this guys limits after two bets.

Yeah.. he won. They limited me to $50 across the board a while back. FAST. We're talking like less than 1 week of action.

They are giving the player no reasonable opportunity to complete the rollover so seizing funds is unacceptable

[Justin7]

I've fielded several complaints of this nature.

I don't like how Wager Web throws out players. By lowering limits, a player cannot meet his rollover. Without rollover, freeplays are canceled if won, or converted to cash if lost.

I've spoken with Wager Web about this practice. They insist that this is a fair measure against professional players. While I agree that they are free to restrict their clientele, I don't approve of this practice.

[20Four7]

Did you get any word from the book as far as an explanation? There is always two sides to a story. Logically speaking why would WW do this? Maybe what they term bonus pyramid? Something happened for them to cut this guys limits after two bets. As far as them counting risk to win for rollover it makes perfect sense. Guys would be betting huge ML favs to meet the rollover quickly.

Most books limit you to fav's at max -200. If they don't they usually use the lower of the risk/win amount. If you bet $3,200 on a -320 they would credit you with $1000 towards the roll over. I strongly suspect they bet the balance on their sportsbook, then bet the balance again on a slow moving line as an arb with another book. Not that it should be against the rules but just my guess if they got limited after 2 bets.

I"d be interested in hearing wager webs side to this and I'm sure wagerwebsucks will be in here like a fat kid on a ham sandwich saying "I told you so"

[20Four7]

I've fielded several complaints of this nature.

I don't like how Wager Web throws out players. By lowering limits, a player cannot meet his rollover. Without rollover, freeplays are canceled if won, or converted to cash if lost.

I've spoken with Wager Web about this practice. They insist that this is a fair measure against professional players. While I agree that they are free to restrict their clientele, I don't approve of this practice.

I agree 100% Justin. Giving a play no opportunity to complete a roll over after a bonus is given is wrong. Let the player roll it over, cash him out, show him the door. To take a losing free play out of a players "cash" is wrong.

[Rand790]

I have been warning you all for months that WagerWeb is an awful sportsbook - hopefully, people are starting to listen. You don't see complaints like this with the SBR "A" and "B" rated sportsbooks....................

[robmpink]

I have been warning you all for months that WagerWeb is an awful sportsbook - hopefully, people are starting to listen. You don't see complaints like this with the SBR "A" and "B" rated sportsbooks....................

They must be feeling the heat from your smear campaign. Oh sorry, I have to go back to work.

[tacomax]

I"d be interested in hearing wager webs side to this and I'm sure wagerwebsucks will be in here like a fat kid on a ham sandwich saying "I told you so"

I have been warning you all for months that WagerWeb is an awful sportsbook - hopefully, people are starting to listen. You don't see complaints like this with the SBR "A" and "B" rated sportsbooks....................

WWSucks - scammer and comedy genius.

[Ortho]

I've fielded several complaints of this nature.

I don't like how Wager Web throws out players. By lowering limits, a player cannot meet his rollover. Without rollover, freeplays are canceled if won, or converted to cash if lost.

I've spoken with Wager Web about this practice. They insist that this is a fair measure against professional players. While I agree that they are free to restrict their clientele, I don't approve of this practice.

As moderator of a watchdog site, "I don't approve" seems a little weak here, frankly. I don't have any money in this book, but limiting players to $0, forcing them to complete impossible rollovers, and confiscating the full amount of a freeplay bonus in cash is very close to out-and-out theft. Merely disapproving seems a drastic underreaction. If these are the facts, I hope that SBR's official reaction will be stronger than this.

[robmpink]

Each circumstance must be different. What I don't understand is the story posted today. He bet two bets and they cut his limits. Maybe Justin knows more or someone. Lets say the guy is betting 10 games and they see he beats them on the line moves every game it makes more sense. Listen, I'm not defending them in these cases. It is there own choice just like it is the players own choice to play there. The two bets and limits cut is what is an enigma at least to me. The only thing like I said earlier is the bonus pyramid thing they have in the rules.

[JBC77]

As moderator of a watchdog site, "I don't approve" seems a little weak here, frankly. I don't have any money in this book, but limiting players to $0, forcing them to complete impossible rollovers, and confiscating the full amount of a freeplay bonus in cash is very close to out-and-out theft. Merely disapproving seems a drastic underreaction. If these are the facts, I hope that SBR's official reaction will be stronger than this.

Unfortunately when you have unregulated gambling companies on an island somewhere this is what can happen. It's the nature of the beast.

[Justin7]

As moderator of a watchdog site, "I don't approve" seems a little weak here, frankly. I don't have any money in this book, but limiting players to $0, forcing them to complete impossible rollovers, and confiscating the full amount of a freeplay bonus in cash is very close to out-and-out theft. Merely disapproving seems a drastic underreaction. If these are the facts, I hope that SBR's official reaction will be stronger than this.

Ortho,

Wagerweb's rules are clear that they don't want professional players, and that they will screw you on your bonus if you are a professional. Despite the clarity of the rule, this practice is non-standard for the industry.

Wagerweb used to be rated B-. While there have been a myriad of unusual cases against them, this bonus issue stands out as the worst problem they have, and why they are unlikely to have a B rating reinstated.

On the scale of bad books, I don't rate this practice as bad as the kind of crap you see with D books. I think their rating of C is correct.

[The HG]

Ok I'm convinced now. WagerWeb does suck!

[treece]

Ortho,

Wagerweb's rules are clear that they don't want professional players, and that they will screw you on your bonus if you are a professional. Despite the clarity of the rule, this practice is non-standard for the industry.

How do they know if you're a pro after placing just 2 bets?

[Thremp]

Ortho,

This is out and out theft. Not close to it. I don't think that their terms have "If you place a freeplay wager and lose it, but are unable to complete the rollover we will then seize the full (non-prorated) value of the freeplay from your cash balance".

[Doug]

If they behave like a D book, rate them D.

They sound broke.

[MrX]

I don't like how Wager Web throws out players. By lowering limits, a player cannot meet his rollover. Without rollover, freeplays are canceled if won, or converted to cash if lost.

Am I understanding this correctly?

If you lose they take real cash? If you win, you don't get paid?

If that's true, how can it be called anything but theft? Unless they've developed a way to prove that someone is a professional after several bets and is, therefore, breaking the T&Cs, I don't see how this can't provoke a strong reaction from SBR.

[Ortho]

Ortho,

Wagerweb's rules are clear that they don't want professional players, and that they will screw you on your bonus if you are a professional. Despite the clarity of the rule, this practice is non-standard for the industry.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, because other books are stealing customer money in a more "standard" way, this book is going to get a pass?

Taking the bonus money AFTER you have made the free play isn't "screwing you on your bonus." It is just stealing your money. It isn't a bonus anymore, just like it wouldn't be a bonus anymore if the freeplay lost. What if I rolled if over 34 of a required 35 times? What are all these truisms about "well, that's the offshore environment?" Since when is that an argument?

I am very concerned about your attitude on this. I thought books were C for terrible customer service, the occasional misgraded wager, maybe even some shot-taking over bad lines or something. This, (if the facts are true) is indefensible behavior and I find it distressing that you are not only writing it off as merely "non-standard" but that this seems to be SBR's opinion.

I don't have a horse in this race--I haven't and won't play at this book because they had some non-us unfriendly rules, but this is really worrisome.

[pjesnik24]

What is the definition of a professional player?
Did they cut their phone limits as well?
How can they take cash from people even the bonus was only freeplay?
This is a complete scam!
I played with WW for short time when I started internet betting but after I discovered exchanges I do not do it anymore. I never had any problems but these kind of threads tell me that I was lucky I stopped playing there on time.

[jjgold]

wagerweb is the number one complaint book

[Doug]

Another case of SBR not downgrading fast enough. I used to trust SBR ratings, not anymore.

They are no longer needed anyway, since there are only two decent books left for Americans that have low vig ( a must).

5Dimes and Matchbook

and Betjamaica during baseball season. No other books needed.

[noyb]

On the scale of bad books, I don't rate this practice as bad as the kind of crap you see with D books. I think their rating of C is correct.

I agree with Doug's post this statement does not make any sense at all. This book has clearly stolen $600 from this guy, there's no defense for it, why is this kind of theft somehow perceived as less serious than other kinds? It makes them no better then other books who have selectively robbed customers in the past, like say sportsbook.com, who are a D-.

In general, I also agree ratings at SBR really make no sense at all right now. You have several lesser known books at D without any complaints (let alone, a theft) against them whatsoever for a long long period of time, yet books like Wagerweb are somehow a C.
I totally understand having to rate hundreds of books you can't keep an eye on all of them, but if it's too much work updating it, you should remove it from your website.

[Justin7]

Guys,

We appreciate your feedback. Bill and I are still reviewing the bonus issue.

[Justin7]

My apologies. I had several bonus disputes with Wager Web, and I thought there was a way to resolve them. I'm reading the newest dispute, and it is worse than the ones in the past.

Here's the scenario: Player deposits, makes a freeplay wager, and his account is closed.

If the bet wins, it is pro-rated at 0%, and he is not paid his winnings.

If the bet loses, WW debits it from his account.

In essense, WW is freerolling the player.

I'm going to discuss this with them... But this is much worse than prior bonus issues with them.

[MrX]

If the bet wins, it is pro-rated at 0%, and he is not paid his winnings.

If the bet loses, WW debits it from his account.

In essense, WW is freerolling the player.

I though that was exactly what you described in when you said this:

Without rollover, freeplays are canceled if won, or converted to cash if lost.

Anyway, I hope you are saying that this practice is worse than "C" behavior.

[Thremp]

Justin,

Cool. I'm glad everyone is on the same page. At first it seemed you were saying this was just kinda bad, which left me a little befuddled. (If I have mofome-esque emoticon skill I would use the head scratching one now.)

[Bill Dozer]

Another case of SBR not downgrading fast enough. I used to trust SBR ratings, not anymore.

They are no longer needed anyway, since there are only two decent books left for Americans that have low vig ( a must).

5Dimes and Matchbook

and Betjamaica during baseball season. No other books needed.

Doug, Where do you read all of the information about WagerWeb that let's you form your opinion on WagerWeb and its SBR rating?

[Justin7]

I spoke with Wagerweb. The player has been paid the amount in dispute (although the player hasn't confirmed this yet).

Wager Web said it was an accounting error, and apologized.

[katstale]

Is this the same bunch who partnered with Cascade briefly in January of 07? Actually took deposits for Cascade? Then bailed out leaving the clients to just look to Cascade for payment?

Just wondering, Bill? You were suppose to be looking into this?

Trying to keep the facts straight on these types of books--is difficult, indeed!!

[Bill Dozer]

I agree with Doug's post this statement does not make any sense at all. This book has clearly stolen $600 from this guy, there's no defense for it, why is this kind of theft somehow perceived as less serious than other kinds? It makes them no better then other books who have selectively robbed customers in the past, like say sportsbook.com, who are a D-.

In general, I also agree ratings at SBR really make no sense at all right now. You have several lesser known books at D without any complaints (let alone, a theft) against them whatsoever for a long long period of time, yet books like Wagerweb are somehow a C.
I totally understand having to rate hundreds of books you can't keep an eye on all of them, but if it's too much work updating it, you should remove it from your website.

A few months ago posters were making that case for LazerWager. They "hadn't stiffed anyone" yet. Now, they look like a small fly-by claiming the money that should have been in escrow is with the processor and posters are saying they should have been 'F'. The truth is, as we have said before, if is not an exact science which is why we are as transparent as a resource as you will find. If you would like to know more about a D rated book, please ask.

We do take this Wagerweb complaint seriously which is why you read it and are discussing it now. We hope we can help the player get his cash back and will discuss with you guys further after we discuss further with WW on the player's behalf. This is obviously worse than if he won funds from his FP that needed to be rolled over like most of the previous WW bonus complaints. This is his cash.