[beeps220]

My question is wouldn't a red flag go up at 5 Dimes if someone is turning $50 into 32k in a few hours? You'd think when he reached 10k they should of pulled the plug but give him his money. God knows how much money they've taken from players on rigged online casino games.

Kind of off topic but one comment on a bad line. This is going back 20+ years ago playing with my local bookie but protocol was let's say a line was Cincy +7 and is should be Cincy -2, you would bet the +7 but inform the bookie right after about the off line. Your bet would still be honored, now I'm not sure if this is how things always were but just in my local bookie's pizza shop.

[LVHerbie]

Of course I read all threads concerning 5Pennies with great amusement. It is impossible to not understand that SBR has protected Tony's operation for many years. Several years ago, SBR purported that 5Pennies was a "pro" book. I signed up to post and, along with several others, kept hammering them abt this laughable shill tactic. Eventually they relented (think it took about 6 months) and listed them correctly as recreational. Their is nothing about Tony's operation (except getting paid quick) that is professional. He is his own worst enemy. Having said all of that, I think Dozer got it mostly right, even if some of his logic was flawed, as usual. The guy took a reasonable shot (make no mistake it was a shot) and probably deserved more in compensation than he was offered. No way did he deserve the whole bundle.

While it has become impossible to read everything about this debatcle, so far I think this post is the closet to hitting the mark... 5dimes is much closer to a freakish sideshow to cris and pinnacle then a peer and it shame they continue to share the same rating...

[andywend]

SBR's decision is not only accurate, but it protects the player(s).

Tackleberry played for a couple of hours and turned 50 bucks into 32K. Had he played for another two hours at that same ratio he would have turned his original 50 into 20 million

That could very well have broken 5D. And anybody playing there could have kissed their money goodbye.

I understand the 'need' of players to side with players. But you're really not siding with players in this case. You're siding with one shot taker, at the cost of every single honest player at 5D.

Dark Horse is 100% right on target with his analysis.

It would be a TRAGEDY if Tackleberry was rewarded for his shot-taking and its no surprise to hear about the 5 past-posted bets either.

It is so obvious that SBR made the correct decision in this case and all the posters that feel TackleBerry should be paid are ABSOLUTE IDIOTS. I would bet 99% of them are disgruntled losing gamblers who have dropped a boatload at 5Dimes.

I do agree that 5 Dimes does NOT deserve anywhere near an A rating as they will severely limit any customer who knows what they are doing. "A" ratings should be reserved for books like Pinnacle, Greek and Bookmaker that process withdrawals quickly and do NOT limit winning players.

[Rollins08]

This is total BS. Almost everygame has a house advantage, we're not even sure how big in most cases. The fact is if you play those games long enough you will lose and the longer you play the more you lose. Should players get a refund for all these games because they really had no long term chance of winning? 5Dimes made the error, they set up the game, and they should pay. Can i claim I made a mistake in my playing strategy and that resulted in much better odds for the book so I want my money back? I can't believe this decison.

[firedawg]

I think Easystreet deserves an upgrade now.

[cyberinvestor]

I would bet 99% of them are disgruntled losing gamblers who have dropped a boatload at 5Dimes.

I have never seen so much anger for a sportsbook than I have seen for 5Dimes cases.

I said it before and will say it again. Show me where a clean player (no chargebacks, no past posting, no BS) has placed a sports wager (on time and a fair line) and not gotten paid by 5Dimes. Because 98% of the players on here are good players who pay their debts and bet fairly. They are not out to take shots or circumvent the rules. They want to bet an 8 teamer for $100 and win $10,000 and be paid. To me, 95% of an A+ rating is to know the books I can bet at where if I play fair they will pay fair!

I agree that past posting or cory1111's chargebacks should not come into play for their specific case and a court would say it is inadmissable. Fortunately we are not in court and I am glad to get this information as it shows these players are not like the majority here. Do I feel bad for tackleberry or cory1111? No, they have tried to get one over on the books (in cory's case he succeeded with various chargebacks but TB didn't with his horse bets) and now the casino is getting one over on them. They have no problem trying to cheat the casino and hope to get away with it but when the tables are turned then it isn't fair?

[lt56]

I still don't understand how people act like a normal casino game is "fair" and no one takes advantage, the game is never fair and the casino is the one taking advantage! The house is always set at a percentage to destroy the player long term with the exception of an error like this. The game is never set at 100% payout and sometimes it just so happens people go on bad runs and lose and sometimes people go on good streaks and win, that is not the way it works. People play these stupid games for hours every day knowing by looking at payout charts they WILL lose a fortune if they play long term yet for whatever reason they choose to play anyways, TB looked at the payout chart and saw he could hammer them and chose to play. The entire point of the payout chart is to let the player know expected return and how the game will pay. It is not the players job to regulate the operators game, merely to view the game offered and decide whether or not to choose if he wishes to play at the odds being offered. To Tony aka landmark the player here is not the one that would end up on a milk carton in most places its the person who OWED the money, as 5D does and always will if they don't pay out. Funny that your perception of the world is the one who gets robbed of winnings is also the one who should have harm done to them. I guess you are one of those sick fcks who thinks after someone holds up a liquor store they should shoot the clerk on the way out even after they have committed the robbery and could walk away clean. Pathetic and disturbing.

Topgame; all casino players are idiots for playing casinos. Read what you wrote because you're second sentence says it all; "The house is always set at a percentage to destroy the player long term with the exception of an error like this." The house destroys the player. So the solution is not to play. The solution isn't to search the web for a site that f**ks up and makes an error. Only losing gamblers would even think to play on line casinos. Online casinos are a 100% loss. And my guess is that most of the idiots who think 5 Dimes and SBR are wrong probably lose a lot of money on moronic online casino games.

[Foosball Champ]

Wow, I don't know even were to start. Equating bad line with getting beat in the casino? WTF really? SBR/5dimes must think that we are all retards.

[kero214]

It is absurd to believe that 5dimes is the same grade and on the same level as the Greek.

[nosniboR11]

horrible

[lukahh]

My question is wouldn't a red flag go up at 5 Dimes if someone is turning $50 into 32k in a few hours? You'd think when he reached 10k they should of pulled the plug but give him his money. God knows how much money they've taken from players on rigged online casino games.

Kind of off topic but one comment on a bad line. This is going back 20+ years ago playing with my local bookie but protocol was let's say a line was Cincy +7 and is should be Cincy -2, you would bet the +7 but inform the bookie right after about the off line. Your bet would still be honored, now I'm not sure if this is how things always were but just in my local bookie's pizza shop.

this used to be true, but the juices were like 20% as opposed to today's3%.

[trixtrix]

i disagree w/ sbr's conclusion reached in this dispute, based on

1.) the player had demonstrated that he entered into mediation in full good-faith, he has not shown any dishonesty during the whole process.

2.) 5 dimes demonstrated repeated offense of simple incompetence.

3.) 5 dimes argument that the specific violation of their T&C allowed their justification of confiscation in the bot-player case. then imo they're being hypocritical here, in that there was no on-point outright T&C violation of their stated policy. you can't have it both ways, you can't argue in one case that you're justified in taking a player's money b/c he violated specific T&C, then argue in another case that the player DID NOT violate specific T&C but you're taking his money anyways.

imo tackleberry is in a strong position here and deserves his balance.

[soxwin1917]

i disagree w/ sbr's conclusion reached in this dispute, based on 1.) the player had demonstrated that he entered into mediation in full good-faith, he has not shown any dishonesty during the whole process. 2.) 5 dimes demonstrated repeated offense of simple incompetence. 3.) 5 dimes argument that the specific violation of their T&C allowed their justification of confiscation in the bot-player case. then imo they're being hypocritical here, in that there was no on-point outright T&C violation of their stated policy. you can't have it both ways, you can't argue in one case that you're justified in taking a player's money b/c he violated specific T&C, then argue in another case that the player DID NOT violate specific T&C but you're taking his money anyways. imo tackleberry is in a strong position here and deserves his balance.

5 Dimes was running a game that players COULD NOT lose on. Therefore 5 Dimes COULD NOT win on that game. If there was a game the player couldn't win on, the player would rightfully have a claim that they should get their money back. 5 Dimes has that same right in this case.

[trixtrix]

5 Dimes was running a game that players COULD NOT lose on. Therefore 5 Dimes COULD NOT win on that game. If there was a game the player couldn't win on, the player would rightfully have a claim that they should get their money back. 5 Dimes has that same right in this case.

any casino game w/ less than 100% payout is a game that players are expected lose on and the casino/house is expected to win on, i don't think any player can reasonably reclaim his casino losses based on the claim that he did not anticipate losing long term in the casino.

the assertion "could not" lose is objectively unclear, the casino offers 99%+ payout blackjack and 80% payout slots. one has a much better expectation than the other game for the player, but there's no argument that a slot game is any less valid than a blackjack game, despite demonstrating a significant more +ev expectation for the house.

[lottethedog]

Dark Horse is 100% right on target with his analysis.

It would be a TRAGEDY if Tackleberry was rewarded for his shot-taking and its no surprise to hear about the 5 past-posted bets either.

It is so obvious that SBR made the correct decision in this case and all the posters that feel TackleBerry should be paid are ABSOLUTE IDIOTS. I would bet 99% of them are disgruntled losing gamblers who have dropped a boatload at 5Dimes.

I do agree that 5 Dimes does NOT deserve anywhere near an A rating as they will severely limit any customer who knows what they are doing. "A" ratings should be reserved for books like Pinnacle, Greek and Bookmaker that process withdrawals quickly and do NOT limit winning players.

sadly no differnce here between jazzette (?) not paying correlated parlays and 5d not paying poor VP odds.....but dealt with differently, system errors!

For the record i play with neither