betislands, are they same company with EZ street now??

[darkhat]

I wouldn't be concerned in the least about BI buying out the EZ brand. I played at EZ when the Cory shit happened. As I recall, EZ had a free p2p payout once a week-- on Tuesdays. They paid me everytime, same day and w/o charge. In fact, Cory was the only problem this Book had.

IMO you should trust BI even more because of this purchase. Think about it, if BI is willing to pay a known scamster his 46k in disputed winnings, then odds are greatly enhanced that a honest joe like you is going to collect too--and quickly. This is actually a good thing. Hat's off to Jon and BI.

Ya you make a good point.

[PharaohUB]

Yea and both sides adamantly denied it.

doesnt bother me. it was a business decision. betislands was working on building trust in the community and easystreet had a black eye. i've had no problem with either book. maybe as a team they can become a fourth competitor to the bookmaker/5dimes/heritage oligopoly. competition at the top is good for everybody.

[RogueScholar]

I read this move the same way PharoahUB does, as a positive for both shops and for the industry.

EZStreet had the superior infrastructure and bookmaking staff, including being on-screen and having a more robust wagering platform; their liability was the scummy way in which the Cory theft was handled. However, everyone I know in the industry consistently trusted their ability to pay on the sportsbook side of things, even at the height of the scandal. It seems that they've weathered the aftermath of that well, which indicates their credit side does enough volume to keep them running when post-up goes south, and that's a great sign for any book. Furthermore, I think they were done a huge disservice by then-TheRxForum manager Wilheim, who proved himself too stupid and dishonest to be managing such matters.

BetIslands has the sterling reputation that has followed Jon ever since the SSLP days, which is literally something you can't put a price on. His liabilities were in infrastructure, namely reliable avenues of contact, staff turnover and acquiring enough wagering volume to be able to take on the types of clients who want to bet into openers and smaller markets. The fact that the guy has been able to run a sterling shop from the offices of the likes of BetPhoenix and Jazz (both with large payout backlogs) proves he has the backbone to make the hard decisions that keep a bettor's money safe even when surrounded by greed and intemperance. The move to pay Cory even after so much time had passed is nothing short of incredible and strong evidence that Jon enhances the character of every outfit he's associated with.

In short, kudos to both sides for realizing they were stronger together than apart. I hope we'll be able to use this series of events in years to come as an example of the cream rising to the top.

[DudleyDawson]

Jon's a class-act both on and off the forum...any GM that will email me and ask if I could give any pointers on what would make BI a better shop is pretty dam good....the guy genuinely cares. I'm pretty hard on these books from time to time but BetIslands is currently the best all-around book out there for Americans.....

[darkhat]

I support jon(since WC) and what betislands does.

I trust him until I see evidence otherwise.

I am still playing there.

[penstothecup]

The book shouldn't knowingly profit from these situations but players who commit fraud put themselves in potentially no-win situation if they are caught. To win is to not get caught. I think in the Heritage case, after the player got all his losses back the difference between what he won and what he was refunded wasn't all that much.

Bill. you of course didnt answer my question so I'll ask it again because Im just curious... if a book 100% knows that a player were controlling multiple accounts and accepted his deposits anyway in hopes he would lose, but then when the player got lucky and won on say his 10th deposit after losing his previous 9 deposits, would your decision would be that the book should void all action and refund deposits and close the account or pay the player the winnings and close the account?? What is your stance in order to keep the book from being able to free roll the player???

[cloverfield]

So if a book knows that a player were controlling multiple accounts and accepted his deposits anyway in hopes he would lose, but then when the player got lucky and won on a deposit, your decision would be that the book should void all action and refund deposits instead of paying the player the winnings in order to keep the book from being able to free roll the player??? Is this correct???

You forgot one caveat.. THE PLAYER WAS ALREADY BANNED FROM THE BOOK. Using a fraudulent account should not allow you to get around this.

I wouldn't be concerned in the least about BI buying out the EZ brand. I played at EZ when the Cory shit happened. As I recall, EZ had a free p2p payout once a week-- on Tuesdays. They paid me everytime, same day and w/o charge. In fact, Cory was the only problem this Book had.

IMO you should trust BI even more because of this purchase. Think about it, if BI is willing to pay a known scamster his 46k in disputed winnings, then odds are greatly enhanced that a honest joe like you is going to collect too--and quickly. This is actually a good thing. Hat's off to Jon and BI.

I stated in another thread a week or so ago I was going to give BI a try...but if they paid this scammer off I'm staying far far away.

[SBR_John]

What is your stance in order to keep the book from being able to free roll the player???

Have the player follow the rules.

If a banned player sneaks back in he risks being free rolled. In order to prevent this he needs to not break the rules and simply not return. If he does anyway he has weighed the risks that if he is caught he will at a minimum lose any winnings.

[penstothecup]

Cloverfield and SBRjohn. Hypothetically speaking, would your opinion be different in player was never banned and just played out of multiple accounts to try to go under the radar? I know this isnt the case but Im just curious as to your opinions...

[wrongturn]

Paying corey for the EZ issue is definitely a huge plus on book safety. Don't understand why it would scare some players away. Scammer or not, corey did have support from many sites except RX, so I would think he had a strong case there. His case at Heritage looks pretty weak unless he can summon additional support from other sites. Not saying BI will be able to buy Heritage, but so far by the way of Jon handling things, if they do buy, I am sure he will pay corey's Mom just to move on.

[kmarinouofm]

Honestly i really dont care what the URL is... its the guys behind it that matter to me... I will throw something down at www.7redsports.com and give you guys my honest two cents in a few..

[kmarinouofm]

I support jon(since WC) and what betislands does.

I trust him until I see evidence otherwise.

I am still playing there.

well said partner..

[mtneer1212]

Have the player follow the rules.

If a banned player sneaks back in he risks being free rolled. In order to prevent this he needs to not break the rules and simply not return. If he does anyway he has weighed the risks that if he is caught he will at a minimum lose any winnings.

Otherwise, the player is taking a shot for free at the book. It works both ways. Banned means banned.

[Smoke]

Will be posting up at 7red very soon

Jon Cheers!

[SBR_John]

Cloverfield and SBRjohn. Hypothetically speaking, would your opinion be different in player was never banned and just played out of multiple accounts to try to go under the radar? I know this isnt the case but Im just curious as to your opinions...

Under the radar for no reason or benefit just has a fetish with multiple accounts? I don't see a problem with that.

If he has multiple accounts to steal a bonus or circumvent limits or something similar then he has a similar problem.

We have had cases where a guy opens an account, plays and becomes inactive for a long period. He goes back, can't remember his pw and just opens a new account. We then tell the sportsbook that in our opinion the player was not trying to abuse a promotion he just made an honest mistake. Usually the second new account bonus is removed and the dispute is over. But when you're talking about intentionally breaking a rule with the intent to defraud or circumvent risk management its handled more closely to what we talked about before.

[penstothecup]

Under the radar for no reason or benefit just has a fetish with multiple accounts? I don't see a problem with that.

If he has multiple accounts to steal a bonus or circumvent limits or something similar then he has a similar problem.

We have had cases where a guy opens an account, plays and becomes inactive for a long period. He goes back, can't remember his pw and just opens a new account. We then tell the sportsbook that in our opinion the player was not trying to abuse a promotion he just made an honest mistake. Usually the second new account bonus is removed and the dispute is over. But when you're talking about intentionally breaking a rule with the intent to defraud or circumvent risk management its handled more closely to what we talked about before.

Agree with everything you said but if the sportsbook 100% knows that a player is controlling more than one account (even for bonus abuse or to circumvent limits) and still accpets his deposits and only raises this issue at the time player tries to cashout, is this a foul by the book (book knowingly free rolling player) and if so, does player only get deposits back (like in Cory-Heritage case) or is the player entitled to cashout/profits because the book gladly accepted multiple deposits/took wagers?

[looneytunes]

Agree with everything you said but if the sportsbook 100% knows that a player is controlling more than one account (even for bonus abuse or to circumvent limits) and still accpets his deposits and only raises this issue at the time player tries to cashout, is this a foul by the book (book knowingly free rolling player) and if so, does player only get deposits back (like in Cory-Heritage case) or is the player entitled to cashout/profits because the book gladly accepted multiple deposits/took wagers?

Seems the question has been answered a few times. Either you have info that the rest of us havent read on this forum, or your trying to change the facts, so you can then use these "new facts" as a basis for your arguement?

[Bill Dozer]

Agree with everything you said but if the sportsbook 100% knows that a player is controlling more than one account (even for bonus abuse or to circumvent limits) and still accpets his deposits and only raises this issue at the time player tries to cashout, is this a foul by the book (book knowingly free rolling player) and if so, does player only get deposits back (like in Cory-Heritage case) or is the player entitled to cashout/profits because the book gladly accepted multiple deposits/took wagers?

A lot of books want to punish players so there are some consequence to getting busted. That doesn't work for a lot of reasons including creative incentive for having fraudsters come in. We endorse the idea of charging the players for the actual amount in covered deposit fees when the book has to undue the mess.

Audits generally happen on the way out with winnings. Ideally there would be an instant audit on the way it but even when USA licensed casinos go online, that won't be the case. There is no way to know if a book knows who player #2 is right out of the gate or shortly after. That's all a guess. Like John said, by trying to scam the book, the player puts himself in a situation where if caught, either early or later on when he wins, he is not going to win anything but can lose. The scammer wins by making it in and out without getting caught. Usually these players are circumventing because they have an angle...either a bigger bonus to work with or a +ev bet type they get greedy on.

There are many unique situations. An example is two winning brothers playing from the same house. They aren't hiding anything but didn't follow the rules. Sometimes there is a case that player #1 acct should be valid.

[sharpcat]

A lot of books want to punish players so there are some consequence to getting busted. That doesn't work for a lot of reasons including creative incentive for having fraudsters come in. We endorse the idea of charging the players for the actual amount in covered deposit fees when the book has to undue the mess.

Audits generally happen on the way out with winnings. Ideally there would be an instant audit on the way it but even when USA licensed casinos go online, that won't be the case. There is no way to know if a book knows who player #2 is right out of the gate or shortly after. That's all a guess. Like John said, by trying to scam the book, the player puts himself in a situation where if caught, either early or later on when he wins, he is not going to win anything but can lose. The scammer wins by making it in and out without getting caught. Usually these players are circumventing because they have an angle...either a bigger bonus to work with or a +ev bet type they get greedy on.

There are many unique situations. An example is two winning brothers playing from the same house. They aren't hiding anything but didn't follow the rules. Sometimes there is a case that player #1 acct should be valid.

Do you think an online casino regulated in the US would be allowed to stiff a players mother out of her winnings because they suspect that her son controlled the account despite a huge lack of evidence to prove their suspicion?

Would a US regulated casino be required to prove beyond doubt that the player controlled the account? or do you think that a legit gaming commission would go against standard procedure and require the "accused" to prove their innocence?

[CollegePro]

Jon, bring the 20% monthly cash back!! Why did they got rid of it??

[CollegePro]

betislands down yday?? ezstreet was down yday as well...

[ProfaneReality]

Since 7redsports has more deposit/payout options, will bet islands players be afforded those payout options ?

[darkhat]

Since 7redsports has more deposit/payout options, will bet islands players be afforded those payout options ?

It looks like at the time 7red has removed those options, and is only doing P2P like betislands

As far as i was told, but i know it shows the other methods on 7red site still

guess not updated

[Bill Dozer]

Do you think an online casino regulated in the US would be allowed to stiff a players mother out of her winnings because they suspect that her son controlled the account despite a huge lack of evidence to prove their suspicion?

I imagine you could look at IBAS to see what example the US could follow. IBAS has endorsed some terrible bookmaker dispute conclusions over the years. Your Momma Corey inference is silly and not for this thread.

[raydog]

The opinion was bull shit as was regulation of that thread.

yeah, opinion based on obvious evidence and lie after lie being told by the player/s involved is pure bullshit ..

prop, you are fukking moron with a shitty attitude because you were wrong...100% wrong...instead acting like a clueless bitter asshole and bashing them for being right about the case, do yourself a favor and just say you were wrong this time and move on... you keep spreading stupid shit with no merit around the forums and are making a name for yourself as being a complete retard...you are obsessed