I am a reader of SBR and covers.com posts. I just read over there about an SBR poster named Chambers99 that was banned from posting here because Bodog wanted to cover up a story about not paying this guy? Is that what SBR does?? Conceal true stories by players if a book asks them to cover it up?? I saw from the link on Covers that this Chambers guy posted a true story that seemed like a horror. Yes, I've seen his many posts here and he went on and on and was annoying but wasn't he simply angry about shoddy treatment from Bodog? Shouldn't he be simply warned about excessive posts or should a book be able to tell SBR to ban a player to cover a story up? Shouldn't SBR have helped this guy bring the truth out instead of banning him?
-
-
I can't take this post as legitimateComment -
oh boy... the covers crew of retards are invading SBR. This should be good.Comment -
This is your very first post at this website and this is what you post? Seems like someone is digging up a ghost to stay involved on SBR.Comment -
I think SBR was more than tolerant in his case. He falsely swore Bodog would be seized and the thread stayed. When the prediction failed the poster showed that his only agenda at SBR was to bash Bodog. If he(or his ghost...hint, hint) want to be a part of SBR then great! Post away. But if you have an agenda of bashing a certain book and spreading false, homemade rumors then you(and all alter egos) will be shown the door.Comment -
Hahaha he finally managed to get himself banned, i think ive only heard 1 story of someone getting banned from here. Now he has this ghost account to try and get things started again. Im sure OP read all Chambers threads here before starting his first thread and first post. But OP u believe this guy and believe Covers and go with there recommended books. SBR(wont lie) is no comparison to Covers(blatantly lies).Comment -
I'm a bit puzzled by this. I looked at his profile. He was active this morning, and only has 1 expired infraction point. If it was a banning, it was not an ordinary banning that I can see.
Who said he was banned?Comment -
He started a thread at Covers saying he was banned. '
Chambers was a bit of a funny guy because he seemed to let a few facts get in the way of telling a good story ie not disclosing that he had already started to receive payment until Lou mentioned it; not disclosing that 30% of the money he had to pay of the 50% "fees" was because his relative demanded it for eventual tax payment that wouldn't have eventuated anyway since his relative wasn't the person who earned the money, etc... And he seemed to completely miss those posts that brought these issues up while responding to ones that agreed with him.
Anyway, I wish him all the best with his endeavours.Comment -
Oh and while I think your first post is quite sly, please review John's response to you in this thread. If you wish to discuss your Chambers99 account with an Administrator of the forum, please email forum@sbrforum.com. Creating new accounts isn't the best way to go about things - if anything, it only weakens the case you're trying to make.Comment -
Is it fair to ask why he had to pay such high fees to get his money? and why a relative from out of state had to get involved? Is this something that Bodog should be letteing customers know about in certain states where they take deposits no problem and have withdrawal issues in those same states?
Would love to hear your take on these aspects.Comment -
My best advice would be to read the Bubba thread as I believe all of the answers are in there. From what I understand, he had a choice of certain processors and that was the one that he determined was most suitable to him for whatever reason. But it's really better to read it in his own words and also to read the input from Bodog and SBR as I'd merely be paraphrasing and don't want to run the risk of misinforming you.
That being said, a couple of other books are also having issues with NY and NJ as I'm sure you're aware. I do think ideally that if it's now been determined that if certain options will be limited for the foreseeable future that a book should pro-actively advise a customer that their preferred deposit method may not be a viable withdrawal option. I just think that'll save everyone unnecessary hassle in the future. For all I know Bodog's already done this but I haven't investigated myself yet.
Comment -
This is something SBR should actively be looking into for a book to be rated B+ or above.I do think ideally that if it's now been determined that if certain options will be limited for the foreseeable future that a book should pro-actively advise a customer that their preferred deposit method may not be a viable withdrawal option. I just think that'll save everyone unnecessary hassle in the future. For all I know Bodog's already done this but I haven't investigated myself yet.Comment -
who would waste their time at covers anyway?Comment -
It seems like you have an agenda against this Chambers poster. Why would that be? I looked through the entire "Bodog seized in 2 weeks blah blah blah" thread (which wasn't started by him) and he stated an opinion (not rumor) that they would be shutdown by the end of July because of his example of how he felt like he was taken advantage of. What's wrong with stating an opinion like that? OP said they WOULD be seized in 2 weeks and his posts are ok? Why would you say that Chambers is wrong when it isn't even July yet? And even if he is wrong, who cares? It's just his opinion. He isn't spreading rumors based on inside information that he claimed to have.
All I am saying is that there are annoying posters, informative posters, dumb posters, insightful posters, etc. I would think that they should all be welcome and given a fair chance within the SBR community if that is the type of forum that allows people to share their ideas and thoughts with each other.
I, personally, don't think this individual was treated properly and that SBR John's post is filled with items to slander this poster. What "false, homemade rumors" did he post? Why the holier than thou "he will be shown the door" comment also? Unecessary.
As for Shari's post, isn't it logical that he wasn't presented any alternative methods that were better options? Why would he select such a crazy withdrawal option if he had better ones. It just makes no logical sense.
Perhaps this Chambers poster was guilty of flooding the forum with the same story and I was annoyed by it too. But the other points made by SBR don't seem to hold water.
Just my 2 cents.Comment -
Ugh, not again with this Chambers guy.[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]Comment -
Covers or SBR - I'm going to say this as nicely as I can although after watching you dodge posts when they suit you and see you blatantly disrespect my bosses by accusing them of banning you when you had merely received an infraction a few weeks ago, and yet you didn't go in the thread to retract the statement, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You are Chambers99. We know you're Chambers99. There are so many security measures in place to determine when people are multi accounting and trust me, you are failing them all. Please stop this nonsense now. I was severely tempted to ban this account when I saw it but because John decided to give you the "hint hint", I didn't. However now it's time for this account to go and I apologise to any Admins who feel differently. There are many people here who are anti SBR advertisers. They are not only welcome to post here but some are even going to CR to attend the Bash, partially on SBR's dime. You on the other hand are not being 100% forthright and you are crossing the line between engaging in decent conversation and just being agenda driven. This is simply unacceptable and isn't helping anyone. If anything, it's helping to turn what used to be a quite decent subforum into an offshoot of Players Talk gibberish.Comment -
Shari, you have been misinformed. Chambers99 was banned from posting. No if's ands or buts about it. You are not researching this properly.Comment -
No, I haven't been misinformed. Chambers99 was now banned from posting because his posts turned from rational discussion to an all out assault on a book, with many of his posts not being factual. What I was referring to was when you... oops sorry Chambers received an infraction a few weeks ago - I believe for insulting another poster - and you.... ooops sorry Chambers started a thread blasting Lou. But of course you'd know that. As you are him. I appreciate the referencing Chambers in the 3rd person. I sometimes do that to myself as well. The difference is that I do it under the same account.
The Sportsbook and Industry forum has been slightly tainted lately by the all out agenda driven assaults that a few posters - yourself... ooops sorry Chambers - have been orchestrating. And that's disappointing to me because I've learned a hell of a lot in here over the past 2 years. You have a problem with a book? Start a thread and go to town. But spamming every bloody thread under the sun isn't going to win you any fans at all. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge certain truths about your case.Comment -
Can we also ban lemart5 and all the other buffoons who clutter the forum with false stories?
Hint: His grandma died in front of him at dinner table, he had a stroke, he traded 11 billion worth of Apple stock, he bought a Ferrari, etc..Comment -
Oh and just to keep this thread completely factual - Chambers99 isn't even bloody banned from SBR. But his ghost is. My fault for assuming that one of the damn threads he started was based in fact before checking the facts myself. However I have banned the Covers and SBR account.
And for those who may have seen the thread at Covers where Chambers references how SBR's standard policy is 10 infraction pts and then you're gone, please ask lemart for clarification. I'm sure he'll gladly let you know a 10 day restriction is the result of the loss of 3 infraction points. In case you want the truth, that is.
Comment -
Comment -
100% agree. That's why a few of us were confused by Chambers being banned considering there's a thread right now claiming that a fellow poster has died. Turns out - Chambers isn't banned. But instead of posting under his normal username, he chose to make a ghost to talk about his supposed belief in why Chambers was a hero. So now I'm done. Guy had me as a supporter until a few things happened ie not acknowledging the pymts; the 30% tax biz which he keeps ignoring and the calling Lou out in a thread and then not even apologising.
Done with the guy as a poster but I can't be as a Mod. So as a Mod again, all I can say Chambers is that making secondary accounts to boost your perceived case doesn't help you at all. In fact, you should probably step back from the computer and ask yourself why you'd feel the need to try to bolster yourself in such a way. If you have a legit complaint, you don't need shitty tactics to try to further your causeComment -
Many people in this thread have way too much time on their hands
This aint real life
Covers is a scam
Owners stole millions from players by covering up bankrupt booksComment -
Never even heard of this chambers guy, want be a big loss if he was bannedComment -
Paver I do not ban People
Covers run by fraudsComment -
I really hate chambers and the covers gang...but I think shari is just as bad.
Banned me and my roommate because we posted on the same computer...... maybe you should message someone for an explanation before u ban someone.
Thank god for people like Justin and Lou...if it was up to shari, this place would be the new covers.Comment -
Hello Chambers, hows it going.Comment -
Somehow this guy still manages to have some kind of thread, i don't get it.Comment -
only on the fukking Internet 
Comment -
Feel like I just read a 400 page novel on this threadComment
are gravitating quickly towards the floor.
