5dimes screw up at my expense attention sport bettors BEWARE!!

[rumnblack]

Justin's solution is fair. SBR doesn't seem to realize they're killing the goose. The golden eggs weren't enough. Now the players that made them what they are have become second class citizens. To regain credibility:

1) downgrade 5D to B+ for not paying
2) downgrade 5D to B- for threatening a player
3) downgrade 1 can be undone by paying the player, in accordance with Justin's rule. For making Tony (and all sponsoring books) believe he could get away with this, SBR agrees to pay half.
4) downgrade 2 can be undone through a public apology.

Everybody wins. The player gets his money, and 5D and SBR improve credibility.

I understand that SBR is in a place where they don't want anyone to rock their boat. But that's what they were about. Rocking the boat. And books went along with it, didn't they? So why stop? Players still have plenty of power to demand that SBR return to its roots. What if the players opened new accounts with all these books, unrelated to SBR?

Very very good post. This is it in a nutshell. Dan could be the straightest guy in the world and he could also be a serial shot-taker, but it shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog. SBR is meant to represent the forum players, not the other way round.

Investigate, come to a decision, publish and that's it.

Inactivity implies collusion, whether it's there or not.

[Santo]

SBR is meant to represent the forum players, not the other way round.

Investigate, come to a decision, publish and that's it.

I disagree slightly here. SBR is supposed to mediate disputes, but they're not the forum players attorney in them. You don't have a strong industry if SBR or whomever go around blackmailing books into doing what they want, whether justified or not. SBR's job (should be / is) to keep the industry strong by reaching fair decisions.

That's why I frequently disagree often with pro-player advocates on this forum, who would argue the sky is purple to get a player money over the 'evil book'. However, in this case the rules were written by the book, and when one party writes the rules uncertainty in the rules is supposed to favour the other party.

[MonkeyF0cker]

again, you have no clue kid...but thats okay...ive been doing my job very efficiently for quite some time...the only argument that dan or your stupid ass has is that its written in their rules...thats it. and im here to tell you that some rules need to be bent in order to cover every situation. i only started out to tell you why he wasnt going to get paid from tony, but i promise you that you have learned a thing or two from this thread...ill have to put your dumbass on ignore now as you are too fukking stupid to discuss any of this with.

Agreed. Rules need to be bent in order to steal effectively.

dan, you will never convince tony that you just happened to look at the odds of the pleaser and call to make sure they were right... do you do that for every bet you make? no... nobody calls to verify odds unless they know they are wrong

If you stole the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, would you walk around the hallways with it in your arms for a few weeks?

[MonkeyF0cker]

no, i explained earlier, when you take a shot at the book and get caught, unless they come out and say all the bets are voided, you typically will not get money back...and thats the way it should be....you cant take a shot and expect there to be no recoil... you lose, you lost...shot takers arent welcome..you take more than a few shots at the book with bad lines and you get tossed... i keep repeating myself in hopes of you clowns understanding why things are happening the way they are... when all else fails, listen to those who are experienced with this stuff...thanks

oh wait, am i a laughing stock because i have completely explained everything to you guys correctly and with done it while looking at all the aspects? unreal

raiders, yes....how on earth did it take you this long to figure it out

So, you are supporting yet another instance of a book freerolling players.

Put up bad lines and paytables all over the place due to "incompetence." Label the player a shot taker. Free money. Right?

[rumnblack]

I disagree slightly here. SBR is supposed to mediate disputes, but they're not the forum players attorney in them. You don't have a strong industry if SBR or whomever go around blackmailing books into doing what they want, whether justified or not. SBR's job (should be / is) to keep the industry strong by reaching fair decisions.

That's why I frequently disagree often with pro-player advocates on this forum, who would argue the sky is purple to get a player money over the 'evil book'. However, in this case the rules were written by the book, and when one party writes the rules uncertainty in the rules is supposed to favour the other party.

Fair point.

[raiders72001]

There's not one offshore book, including Pinny, that would pay this guy more than the $10k that he's already received. It doesn't matter what any arbitration board says. If he receives a prorated amount, then Dan has already received in excess of that amount.

[MonkeyF0cker]

There's not one offshore book, including Pinny, that would pay this guy more than the $10k that he's already received. It doesn't matter what any arbitration board says. If he receives a prorated amount, then Dan has already received in excess of that amount.

Incorrect.

[raiders72001]

Name one. You can't. This isn't Vegas. Go talk with some of the books. ray told you what would happen and he's the closest thing to an offshore book that has been vocal about it.

[raiders72001]

If Dan had a long track record with the book, they may not have cared. Dan was fairly new and I haven't heard one offshore book or local book stating that the player should be paid more than he has already been paid.

[raydog]

If you stole the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, would you walk around the hallways with it in your arms for a few weeks?

as far as what i remember from Dan, after betting quite a few pleasers, he didnt play anymore of them after hitting one... why would he stop betting the best odds(x1000) at the entire book? because he knew it was wrong 100% and now had a br to bet with...he thought it would get overlooked if he just hit one. (thats the way tony sees it anyways)

and mf, obviously you cant tell, but im not 100% siding with the book here either...if i were siding with the book completely, i would say that i agree that he should paying the 11k back to them... i think its very wrong for him to have taken payouts, but thats what it cost 5d for their incompetence...i simply dont agree they should pay him out more after the mistake is found...

freerolling him? exactly who is out of pocket 11k? did dan give them a penny out of his pocket since hitting the pleaser? unreal

his acct. never actually goes in the minus either...(if you want to get completely technical with the rule people keep bringing up)

[Alluvada143]

I totally agree with you,

The player took advantage of the wrong odds knowingly, so he should be happy with what he had as the payout for 11K.

5dimes CS is at fault for confirming the odds, but we all bettors/books including Dan knew that the odds were wrong!!!

[Optional]

as far as what i remember from Dan, after betting quite a few pleasers, he didnt play anymore of them after hitting one... why would he stop betting the best odds(x1000) at the entire book? because he knew it was wrong 100% and now had a br to bet with...he thought it would get overlooked if he just hit one. (thats the way tony sees it anyways)

and mf, obviously you cant tell, but im not 100% siding with the book here either...if i were siding with the book completely, i would say that i agree that he should paying the 11k back to them... i think its very wrong for him to have taken payouts, but thats what it cost 5d for their incompetence...i simply dont agree they should pay him out more after the mistake is found...

freerolling him? exactly who is out of pocket 11k? did dan give them a penny out of his pocket since hitting the pleaser? unreal

his acct. never actually goes in the minus either...(if you want to get completely technical with the rule people keep bringing up)

I understand your blind bias Raydog. It's difficult (impossible?) to remain objective about player disputes if you work at an online book. The culture almost always turns into an Us v Them attitude after seeing so many 'sharp types' find any angle they can to beat the book.

But you are just making shit up to support your opinion.

The guy himself says he can't recall what he played when when directly asked. We have seen no account history. So where do you come up with this line Raydog?? "after betting quite a few pleasers, he didnt play anymore of them after hitting one".

Pull that directly out of your ass or divine it in a dream?!


Or to put it to you another way. If it turns out the guy did continue betting that pleaser after winning one, do you then see that as conclusive evidence he should be paid? (considering you see the opposite as proof positive he was shit taking)

[Optional]

I totally agree with you,

The player took advantage of the wrong odds knowingly, so he should be happy with what he had as the payout for 11K.

5dimes CS is at fault for confirming the odds, but we all bettors/books including Dan knew that the odds were wrong!!!

How can you be so sure he "knew"? Although I think it's fair to say he obviously thought there was an error after seeing his payout, nothing we have heard so far supports the assumption he "knew" anything for certain.

If it was such an obvious line error why did it not stick out to 5D staff before they paid out what sounds like quite a few bets on the line.

If it was so obvious why did two CS people not notice the payout was obviously incorrect when asked directly about it?

Maybe it looks like it was in hindsight but the available facts strongly suggest is it was NOT an obvious error, despite the 100x over payment on it.

[raydog]

That comment was aimed at mf and his comment about walking around with the Mona Lisa (there were really 2, his cash and the bad pleaser)...dan talks of only making straight bets after hitting the pleaser...so although he didn't cash out everything he could have, he stayed away from the pleasers aka the other Mona Lisa besides the money in his acct.. I dunno why my phone cut off the other part of mf quote...you wouldn't have gone on an idiotic rant (maybe) if it had posted...thanks for the useless comment though...Fwiw, I really don't have any bias here...the guy was lucky enough to get something passed the book...I don't feel he should be rewarded for it
Phone has a mind of it's own, optional, you should have recognized what my post was about...if you are going to simply bring stupid to the table, don't bother showing up

[Alluvada143]

read below

[Alluvada143]

How can you be so sure he "knew"? Although I think it's fair to say he obviously thought there was an error after seeing his payout, nothing we have heard so far supports the assumption he "knew" anything for certain.

If it was such an obvious line error why did it not stick out to 5D staff before they paid out what sounds like quite a few bets on the line.

If it was so obvious why did two CS people not notice the payout was obviously incorrect when asked directly about it?

Maybe it looks like it was in hindsight but the available facts strongly suggest is it was NOT an obvious error, despite the 100x over payment on it.

Optional.... The only reason we assume that the player knowingly placed the bets, as he consulted the CS twice coordinating about the Odds for the teasers.

100X surplus odds is quite a large number to be missed by a regular/newbie bettor... He took the chance with the 5dimes incorrect odds and should eat the consequences...

I do not want to side on 5dimes nor the player regarding this issue it is what it is .... 5dimes and the player should have both sides of this pie!!!!!!!

[Optional]

That comment was aimed at mf and his comment about walking around with the Mona Lisa (there were really 2, his cash and the bad pleaser)...dan talks of only making straight bets after hitting the pleaser...so although he didn't cash out everything he could have, he stayed away from the pleasers aka the other Mona Lisa besides the money in his acct.. I dunno why my phone cut off the other part of mf quote...you wouldn't have gone on an idiotic rant (maybe) if it had posted...thanks for the useless comment though...Fwiw, I really don't have any bias here...the guy was lucky enough to get something passed the book...I don't feel he should be rewarded for it
Phone has a mind of it's own, optional, you should have recognized what my post was about...if you are going to simply bring stupid to the table, don't bother showing up

I still don't understand how you imagine your post is justifiable even after reading Monkeys post. You made stuff up, you have done it multiple times in this thread, and you just did it again now.

When asked directly Dan categorically said he does not recall the order he placed his bets. Or how many pleasers were played before and after hitting the win.

I've worked in the environment myself Raydog. If you don't know what I mean I doubt you really work for an online book. Or you are kidding yourself. I don't blame you one bit for the attitude, but if you can't see your own inherent bias you are the only one it's hurting.

[Optional]

Also RayDog, if Dan bet the exact way you are assuming he did, this thread would have ended, because all Bill Dozer would have to do is say "Tony said this is the betting pattern", and the thread would be over.

[Optional]

Optional.... The only reason we assume that the player knowingly placed the bets, as he consulted the CS twice coordinating about the Odds for the teasers.

100X surplus odds is quite a large number to be missed by a regular/newbie bettor... He took the chance with the 5dimes incorrect odds and should eat the consequences...

I do not want to side on 5dimes nor the player regarding this issue it is what it is .... 5dimes and the player should have both sides of this pie!!!!!!!

I agree Alluvada, him contacting CS and double questioning does show he thought there was an issue with the odds. But, if he genuinely pointed out clearly that he thought the payout was too high, and queried it a second time when told it was, how can wee be certain he didn't think "oh well, it must be correct".

Dan claims he didn't twig the payout was too high until it won.


I don't take everything Dan says as true, in fact he has raised my suspicions once or twice, but in the absense of ANY SHRED of evidence to dispute what he claims so far I think it's fair to give him the benefit of doubt still.

I know it's tough to believe a 100x payout error would not be obvious with hindsight. But from everything we know it just wasn't that obvious in reality.

[Scooter]

I remember who raydog is now.

He works in the sportsbook of a very large Vegas casino chain.

They are so backward that they don't have a phone app for betting within Nevada, although 3 other chains do have that.
They don't even have the pager system for betting there, which has been around for years and pre-dated smart phones, and one casino chain has. They don't have betting kiosks for remote locations.
Bets have to be physically placed within the sportsbook.
Very up to date tech, raydog, great job. Let's keep things the way they were in 1970.

Primitive technology, primitive sportsbook, primitive management.
All the talent is on the other side of the counter.
So a couple of fat guys huddle in a back room watching games on tube tv's, denying bets, 86'ing winning bettors, and excusing their failure at being bookmakers by telling their corporate bosses that the world is scamming us.

[raydog]

Nice post opt...sorry for me being an ass earlier...my point the whole time was that dan never told them he thought it was wrong...he simply asked if the odds were correct and went from there...he knew they were wrong, that much is obvious...

I don't I know what you think I made up... If i recall , dan said numerous times that after hitting the pleaser, he only played normal bets... Staying away from the pleasers...Now, why do that???(I'm on phone and too hard to go back and check if that is accurate, so don't crucify if it's wrong yet...Lolz) ...

And you are correct,I don't and have never worked offshore...nor have I ever said I did...do I use a large book for my business, yes...but I'm not offshore

[Optional]

Nice post opt...sorry for me being an ass earlier...my point the whole time was that dan never told them he thought it was wrong...he simply asked if the odds were correct and went from there...he knew they were wrong, that much is obvious...

I don't I know what you think I made up... If i recall , dan said numerous times that after hitting the pleaser, he only played normal bets... Staying away from the pleasers...Now, why do that???(I'm on phone and too hard to go back and check if that is accurate, so don't crucify if it's wrong yet...Lolz) ...

And you are correct,I don't and have never worked offshore...nor have I ever said I did...do I use a large book for my business, yes...but I'm not offshore

Dan hasn't kept his story 100% straight, or complete on every forum he has posted on, so understandable.

[Dan bouton]

Ray

You are making up a lot of things and ur also twisting around everything I say! I'm going off my memor, but I now located some documents. I placed the wager in question that I hit on 10-9. I opened the acct around 10-3. I did continue placing these wagers thru at least 10/16 though it could of been longer. Your details about my call to 5d is all wrong as well. When I called I stated that I was a new bettor and I think u may have a bad line! I then said I placed a few and I had some pending wagers on the particular line I was speaking of. I gave them the type of bet and the payout and he looked them up. I then gave him my exact ticket numbers and wagers for him to check out as well. After the first person checked everything and confirmed that it was correct and no error was made, they then transferred me to the specific department in charge of these issues just to be sure. I then received conformation from another person after they did the same review. This was all in one single call where I spoke with two seperate people.

Opt I only put this on two forums. I'm doing my best to put out facts on the case. I think I've done a good job on that. This can all be resolved if sbr just did a full report on this!

[Optional]

Wasn't meaning to criticize or judge you over that. You haven't posted any chat logs in this thread so only people who read the other forum know what they say. You did make it sound like you only bet straight bets after winning, until directly asked twice to confirm that.

But it's only natural for you to focus on any point that helps your case.


For what it's worth here is where I think you might be up to.

1) Tony doesn't have a history of acting like a thief. He won't keep your balance unless he truly believes it's the 'correct' thing to do. (under 'Gods law')

2) Last official word from SBR was that they were still discussing this internally.

3) If say 20 people exploited this line over the time it was available, Tony will be able to see from his own data if you are the one and only person who acted differently to the others.


So, if he has that evidence in front of him, along with his friends at SBR suggesting he should reassess the issue, I personally think he will come around and make some sort of deal with you, if you deserve it.

[raiders72001]

ray brought up the account not being negative. This means that we throw that rule out and now we are just back to the " incorrect application of funds".

[raydog]

Ray

You are making up a lot of things and ur also twisting around everything I say! I'm going off my memor, but I now located some documents. I placed the wager in question that I hit on 10-9. I opened the acct around 10-3. I did continue placing these wagers thru at least 10/16 though it could of been longer. Your details about my call to 5d is all wrong as well. When I called I stated that I was a new bettor and I think u may have a bad line! I then said I placed a few and I had some pending wagers on the particular line I was speaking of. I gave them the type of bet and the payout and he looked them up. I then gave him my exact ticket numbers and wagers for him to check out as well. After the first person checked everything and confirmed that it was correct and no error was made, they then transferred me to the specific department in charge of these issues just to be sure. I then received conformation from another person after they did the same review. This was all in one single call where I spoke with two seperate people.

Opt I only put this on two forums. I'm doing my best to put out facts on the case. I think I've done a good job on that. This can all be resolved if sbr just did a full report on this!

this post has quite a bit of new/different info than what you posted to start this thread... first ive seen of you telling a clerk that you think you have a bad line...its always been that you had them check on the line...regardless, good luck on retrieving the remaining balance...its not going to happen when tony thinks he has been robbed...i do wish this was cleared up a long time ago so that you could have been playing at another book...nice run you have been on.

[Dan bouton]

Opt
What do u do if u don't mind me asking. Are u involved in this industry a lot whether it's mod or just a respected bettor. Where did u hear about sbr discussing this internally?

As for them viewing my case against others, that's all I'm really asking for! I think if u compare my acct and actions against that of a shot taker, I think u would see a big difference.that being said I feel my acct should then be reviewed fairly without the impression of me being a shot taker right out the gate and giving a biased opinion.

In my brief experience with the industry i would think a shot taker would have done things a lot diferent if he came up on a situation like this! Basically exploiting this bad line for the full two months and never trying to point out the possible error.

[Dan bouton]

Ray

That is why I think the call is so important! If tony actually listened to my call and thinks I wasn't being genuine about not breaking his rules or my actions unethical in any way with my acct then I would really be surprised. At the same time it's hard to admit ur own people and company is to blame. I could have easily saved him a lot of money if things were done right. He not only wouldn't of had my issue but he would have been able to prevent others from exploiting the payout intentionally. They said most of this money was paid from October til November. My call was made in early October. If it had been handled correctly I wonder how many thousands I would have saved tony! He should be able to see that I was unsure of the pay table and was trying to help by doing the right thing!. For example if tony took my call instead of the other two people, how much money would I have saved him?

[Optional]

Opt
What do u do if u don't mind me asking. Are u involved in this industry a lot whether it's mod or just a respected bettor. Where did u hear about sbr discussing this internally?

As for them viewing my case against others, that's all I'm really asking for! I think if u compare my acct and actions against that of a shot taker, I think u would see a big difference.that being said I feel my acct should then be reviewed fairly without the impression of me being a shot taker right out the gate and giving a biased opinion.

In my brief experience with the industry i would think a shot taker would have done things a lot diferent if he came up on a situation like this! Basically exploiting this bad line for the full two months and never trying to point out the possible error.

I'm no one. Just a 5D customer, and seen a lot of disputes on SBR.

I can't be bothered finding it, but if you go back page by page to the last post by Bill or Lou you will see they say it's still being discussed internally. or words to that effect. ie: they hadn't concluded you are an obvious fraud. ;-)

[Trident]

As for them viewing my case against others, that's all I'm really asking for! I think if u compare my acct and actions against that of a shot taker, I think u would see a big difference.that being said I feel my acct should then be reviewed fairly without the impression of me being a shot taker right out the gate and giving a biased opinion.

In my brief experience with the industry i would think a shot taker would have done things a lot diferent if he came up on a situation like this! Basically exploiting this bad line for the full two months and never trying to point out the possible error.

When I filed a dispute against 5Crimes I was branded a shot taker from the get go as well, this is how my first email discussing my case started.

"What was the “mistake” you say you did not intentionally take advantage of?"

He made sure to put that sentence in bold I guess to make a point.

I knew right then that I would never get a fair and unbiased look at my case and closed it in my reply to the email.

[raydog]

When I filed a dispute against 5Crimes I was branded a shot taker from the get go as well, this is how my first email discussing my case started.

"What was the “mistake” you say you did not intentionally take advantage of?"

He made sure to put that sentence in bold I guess to make a point.

I knew right then that I would never get a fair and unbiased look at my case and closed it in my reply to the email.

was there a thread about it, trident? was it a similar circumstance to this one?

[Trident]

was there a thread about it, trident? was it a similar circumstance to this one?

No had nothing to do with this or this type of bet.

It had to do with runline bet and incorrect pitcher which they decided not to refund, was called shot taker by Tony because I noticed incorrect pitcher and that's why I bet it, I never asked for refund they informed me it would be but later decided not to.

[raydog]

guy is a fukkin hard head for sure...i dunno if ive ever heard of a case where he totally changed his mind on something...

[raiders72001]

No had nothing to do with this or this type of bet.

It had to do with runline bet and incorrect pitcher which they decided not to refund, was called shot taker by Tony because I noticed incorrect pitcher and that's why I bet it, I never asked for refund they informed me it would be but later decided not to.

can you post a link? thanks

[raiders72001]

Scooter also thought that a player should be able to screw a book on a bad line. The player made a baseball bet at +140 when the line should have been -140. Scooter agreed with the player.