SBR POSTERS: Your open letter to BOS

**bigboydan** · 06-14-06, 06:04 PM

lets be honest here john, what good would it do. if there not going to pay then why bother.

all we can do from a players standpoint is to tell players to steer clear of this book.

**SBR_John** · 06-14-06, 06:07 PM

I like Big M's

Here's my open letter:

------------------------------------------

Dear BOS,

STOP FUCKING CALLING ME EVERY GODDAMN HOUR YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKERS.

Love,

Big M

--------------------------------------------

**Willie Bee** · 06-14-06, 08:19 PM

Dear BOS,

STOP FUCKING CALLING ME EVERY GODDAMN HOUR YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKERS.

Love,

Big M

Yeah, but how does he really feel?

**tacomax** · 06-14-06, 08:31 PM

It's just a mess.

RX take the side of the player but wash their hands of it but keep the banners. TOW keep the "10" rating for BoS and keep the banners. EoG take the side of the player, pay him what he's due but keep the banners. RX then have a pop at EoG for paying the player but having the nerve to keep the banners up. And that's without mentioning a notable mention to raiders who's had to shill for his life the last couple of days - at least the scammer has earnt his dirty cash from BoS.

The most important question in all of this should be:

Are the "watchdogs" worse than BoS for continuing to promote books who will cheat players at their discretion?

**my hero** · 06-14-06, 11:41 PM

Agree with John...if they want to curtail business with the player then do so...but never never steal funds! that is a criminal act in a U.S. court of law...BOS is simply low class!

**Chuck Sims** · 06-15-06, 12:32 AM

Dear BOS Crime Family:

You may think we americans are a bunch of sheep and will believe your lies, look the other way when you steal from fellow posters, or will forget about it when football starts.

You may even think that paying off so called watchdog sites with stolen funds from us posters is genius on your part. I am here to tell you that the beginning of the end for your scamming family of sportsbooks has started with word of your criminal behavior spreading faster than the bird flu.

JC · 06-15-06, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Lesson

I think if SBR had presented all the facts on both BoS cases that many people would have changed their minds.

For some reason it was ommitted that the player was a professional. Also forgotten was the fact that BoS has openly admitted that they do not want sharp, Syndicate or steam action.

They warned the player twice not to play steam and he did it again. The player also lied about not knowing that BoS and BetMill are sister books.

He posted that he didn't realize that but later said he did know that they were sister books.

I wish that all the facts could have been presented. It's the same as hearing the prosecutions side of the story but not hearing the defendant. Then you are required to make judgment.

It shouldn't matter if he was a "professional."

If he was warned, when was he warned and when was he offered the reload bonuses? If you don't want someone's action, fine. But offering aggressive reload bonuses says, "We like your action."

**mad** · 06-15-06, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by JC

It shouldn't matter if he was a "professional."

If he was warned, when was he warned and when was he offered the reload bonuses? If you don't want someone's action, fine. But offering aggressive reload bonuses says, "We like your action."

Yep, particularly when the individual in question was dropping 20K every few days. What's not to like...

Then he won.

**Fishhead** · 06-15-06, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by SBR_John

Mine is simple:
You book the g-d dam bet, you pay the g-d dam bet. Once the game is a final and you lost, you can no longer confiscate a players money referencing some obscure irrelevant rule.

No way a book should be allowed to cancel a wager after the results are in.

**Patrick McIrish** · 06-16-06, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by tacomax

Are the "watchdogs" worse than BoS for continuing to promote books who will cheat players at their discretion?

Good question. My answer is they go hand in hand, they work together. Sites who take these big monthly advertising fees don't really care what happens. If a player gets stiffed we just saw what the watchdogs sites are going to do - nothing. If a book goes under then you will hear the usual "geez guys how could we have known"? Or my favorite, "don't send more out there than you want to lose". Meanwhile they have long since cashed out all those ad checks, they are not out anything. Let the players be all up in arms for a week or so then it's back to business as usual.

Clearly the watchdog site industry is at an all-time low. I mean they used to at least do a better job of pretending to look after their posters, now it couldn't be more blatant than it is. They aren't looking out for the players, they are looking out after their money. 'Nuff said.

**isetcap** · 06-16-06, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Patrick McIrish

Good question. My answer is they go hand in hand, they work together. Sites who take these big monthly advertising fees don't really care what happens. If a player gets stiffed we just saw what the watchdogs sites are going to do - nothing. If a book goes under then you will hear the usual "geez guys how could we have known"? Or my favorite, "don't send more out there than you want to lose". Meanwhile they have long since cashed out all those ad checks, they are not out anything. Let the players be all up in arms for a week or so then it's back to business as usual.

Clearly the watchdog site industry is at an all-time low. I mean they used to at least do a better job of pretending to look after their posters, now it couldn't be more blatant than it is. They aren't looking out for the players, they are looking out after their money. 'Nuff said.

Disagree wholeheartedly. I shiver to think what kind of situation Immaculate Art would be in if he didn't have the watchdogs to take his case to. Last I checked, Art was additionally renumerated by one of the "all-time low" watchdog sites even when they had no direct affiliation to him. He should be very happy with the result of the game he played.

**SBR_John** · 06-16-06, 05:46 AM

BOS thought they had a whale when ole Art was losing over $20,000. The minute he wins he is a syndicate.

I have no problem with BOS looking at Art and saying we dont want your action...but thats not what they did. What they did was to wait until he won and then said we dont want your action and oh by the way, we will just keep your winnings.

Players have to unite against that...or you could be next.

**isetcap** · 06-16-06, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by SBR_John

BOS thought they had a whale when ole Art was losing over $20,000. The minute he wins he is a syndicate.

I have no problem with BOS looking at Art and saying we dont want your action...but thats not what they did. What they did was to wait until he won and then said we dont want your action and oh by the way, we will just keep your winnings.

Players have to unite against that...or you could be next.

That's true. They did want to sting him a bit. Lose 10K on one side and only win 6K on the other. That's a speedbump to say the least.