Betonline is no A- book, not even close

bigboydan · 12-17-08, 05:45 PM

First off, Welcome to the SBR Forum

If your limits were cut to like $1.00 I could completely understand and even take your position based on your rollover amount because I feel you would have a very legitimate as well as strong arguement. However, even despite the huge R.O. your facing, the $250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable for "recreational books", which BetOnline truly is. I mean BetGuardian (SBR rated B+) limits are only $250 max.

Peep · 12-17-08, 05:47 PM

cutting a player's limits from 5K to $250 when he is facing a huge rollover is not reasonable.

Twoniner · 12-17-08, 05:49 PM

They let me do a transfer in from Greek (Yes, there were book to book transfers excepted in the past). Completely lock my account down after winning about 4-5 times my deposit, but will not let me do a book transfer out. Instead, I get to experience the payout fun everyone else has...with the fees associated with each payout.

katstale · 12-17-08, 05:52 PM

Welcome to the club. Not only the SBR club, but the victims of BetOnline club. They have done (and worse) to many, exactly what they did to you. Yet, SBR has not been willing to come on here and WARN players of BOL's tactics. In other forums I have read the email exchanges between BOL, player and SBR and it is amazing reading. BOL is continually caught in lies and SBR turns a blind eye.

No question their rating is bought. In my time on here as lurker and poster, i have seen only one other instance of this deferential treatment--Cascade.

In most cases SBR is on the side of right--not the player or the book, but right.

All I can say to you now is be thankful of the limits they slapped you with, because some guys are trying to get out of the BOL abyss $100 at a whack.

REMEMBER: BOL counts your free play given if you lose x WR. If you win--they count your free play won x the WR.

If you ever get your money out try the Phoenix bunch.

By the way, did you forget to mention the 60 second time delay?

Calsport · 12-17-08, 06:31 PM

No question their rating is bought. In my time on here as lurker and poster, i have seen only one other instance of this deferential treatment--Cascade.

Thanks for the responses. Don't get me started on Cascade. Since you mentioned them I checked and you can STILL login to Betcascade.com. Are you kidding me? I can still look at my 7k post up balance that I'll never get and I'm owed money from a credit acct. there as well. Didn't know SBR was involved there.

I used to pay attention to SBR but after Roberto at the OnlineWire helped me out of the Betpanam fiasco I stayed with his site for a while. Only checked in here every month or so. His site seems to be dying so I'm back here a little more often.

$250 is OK for a Rec. book like Betguardian and BOL can go there too but not for someone they inform has to meet a 400k rollover.

What about proration? Why do they think they can confiscate everything if I've already met half the rollover? A highly rated book priding itself on customer service wouldn't treat anyone that way.

Calsport · 12-17-08, 06:32 PM

My first paragraph above is a quote from Katstale. I messed up the quotation copy.

Immortality · 12-17-08, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

$250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable for "recreational books", which BetOnline truly is. I mean BetGuardian (SBR rated B+) limits are only $250 max.

Come on Dan you cannot honestly believe betting $250 a pop is reasonable when trying to rollover 300K. This is just a ridiculous requirement. SBR needs to try to get BetOnline to do the right thing here which is to get his limits raised back up or else lower his rollover requirement.

As it currently stands if he made 4 plays a day at the max it would take 300 days to get to the rollover

Far from reasonable.

Stumpage · 12-17-08, 06:53 PM

I have to jump in on the anti-Betonline bandwagon. I've had accounts at literally dozens of sites over the last decade+, and BOL continue to be the only sportsbook that I have ever been involved with that froze my account until I explained my betting patterns. In this case, I had to give an "acceptable explanation" as to why a majority of my bets were placed on halftime lines rather than the actual game itself, and why was I betting larger amounts at halftime.

Can you imagine Pinnacle or the Greek suspending your account until you made a "Verbal Agreement" to limit the amount of Halftime wagers you're making? Completely mickey mouse, so I can't say I'm at all surprised by what the original poster has detailed here.

Mudcat · 12-17-08, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

If your limits were cut to like $1.00 I could completely understand and even take your position based on your rollover amount because I feel you would have a very legitimate as well as strong arguement. However, even despite the huge R.O. your facing, the $250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable for "recreational books", which BetOnline truly is. I mean BetGuardian (SBR rated B+) limits are only $250 max.

I'm sure BOL appreciates someone trying to shovel that heap of fertilizer for them but I think I can speak on behalf of players when I say, no sale.

They want to have things both ways. If they want to peddle a "We are a recreational book," argument then they need to be a recreational book. Don't have a 5K limit. That is not recreational book stuff.

Don't offer a 45% bonus when you are not prepared to deal with what that entails.

They are schizophrenic. They are either professional or recreational depending on what is most convenient at any given moment. Except they aren't really schizophrenic - they're just scammish. They have these two personalities and two sets of rules - but they always end up being what is best for the book.

Peep is absolutely right. It is not reasonable to reduce limits in the middle of a rollover by that amount. I would go further and call it grossly unethical.

If you reduce someone from $500 to $250, that's one thing. But enticing a deposit based on 5K limits and then, as soon as things start going against them, they simply create a different book with near impossible conditions - it is shady. It is bait-and-switch. It is a scam.

THE_LOCKSMITH · 12-17-08, 07:12 PM

Seems like several of the SBR, Recomended books are coming under fire. BOL, Bookmaker, seems like Tony from 5Dimes is a dick according to some. Pinnicale and BetJam might be the only books that follow the rules

Mudcat · 12-17-08, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by THE_LOCKSMITH

Seems like several of the SBR, Recomended books are coming under fire. BOL, Bookmaker, seems like Tony from 5Dimes is a dick according to some. Pinnicale and BetJam might be the only books that follow the rules

Personally I dislike this comparison. I believe it detracts from the seriousness of what is going on at BetOnline.

Sure, there are complaints about every single book including Pinnacle. I just don't think there is anything going on with any of the main advertisers that compares to the downward turn which Betonline has taken. To me, they stick out like a sore thumb from that group.

They are becoming WagerWeb. And that ain't good.

frostno98 · 12-17-08, 07:31 PM

This books is Garbage if they are taking shots like this. Future reference all other post gambler don't take any bonuses, too much strings attached to it.

JELLYBEAN · 12-17-08, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

First off, Welcome to the SBR Forum

If your limits were cut to like $1.00 I could completely understand and even take your position based on your rollover amount because I feel you would have a very legitimate as well as strong arguement. However, even despite the huge R.O. your facing, the $250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable for "recreational books", which BetOnline truly is. I mean BetGuardian (SBR rated B+) limits are only $250 max.

Your joking, Correct?

BOL is a total joke book. I know the HUGE affiliate money SBR makes from them and it pays your salary, but PLEASE don't treat us in here like we are stupid.

Stumpage · 12-17-08, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

However, even despite the huge R.O. your facing, the $250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable

Dan, like Mudcat, Jellybean and others have noted, I also have to disagree with your opinion here. You have to be commended for the help you've given countless times to complete strangers here at SBR, but to be honest I find this statement to be quite disturbing.....

JoeVig · 12-17-08, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Calsport

they want to confiscate more than I won on FP!

I have to ask this - how commonplace is it for a book to rate your WR on both the free plays awarded PLUS the free plays won? That is not my experience with any place else.

If you get a $500 free play and have 5x on it, its $2500 WR, not whatever you happened to win. I know for sure Bookmaker does it purely on the free play awarded and I would imagine all the other "A" books do too.

It is also very dubious to change limits in the middle of some kind of offer. If they don't like your action, they could show you the door with ALL your money as long as you played by the rules. Otherwise, let the player continue until the rquirement is done, AT THE ADVERTISED LIMITS.

Fact of the matter is they hold your money, so they hold all the cards. It certainy seems like these guys are slimy in dealing with players. Customer service and player treatment have to be part of an "A" rating, and these folks sure don't have it.

It seems most of the time, the big players/posters and SBR mods are on the same page when it comes to these kind of disputes. Most of the players here are saying the limit cut is wrong during a requirement. SBR's opinions on this one do not pass the smell test, and neither does the "A" class rating.

Peep · 12-17-08, 09:40 PM

I have to ask this - how commonplace is it for a book to rate your WR on both the free plays awarded PLUS the free plays won? That is not my experience with any place else.

Bet Superior (or whatever their new name is) pulled that crap on me. TG I went broke before I had to play it out. Gave me a 20X from what was supposed to be and 8X......

THE_LOCKSMITH · 12-17-08, 09:41 PM

Speaking of downgrading books, what other books are there that have been dropped from the recomended list?

BetCascade
Bet365
BoDog
VIP Sports

picantel · 12-17-08, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

First off, Welcome to the SBR Forum

If your limits were cut to like $1.00 I could completely understand and even take your position based on your rollover amount because I feel you would have a very legitimate as well as strong arguement. However, even despite the huge R.O. your facing, the $250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable for "recreational books", which BetOnline truly is. I mean BetGuardian (SBR rated B+) limits are only $250 max.

Sorry Dan I like you but that was ridiculous what you posted. There is no way in hell to catch a rollver at $250 a pop. Once again SBR needs to stop protecting books that pay them a load of dough. That would be like me helping people with credit problems yet getting paid on the side from collection agencies and taking their side on problems. You cannot protect consumers while taking tons of cash from those who are running the scam.

Immortality · 12-18-08, 12:36 AM

I would fill out a complaint form again. This is crap and SBR needs to help out.

onthewhat · 12-18-08, 01:50 AM

LOL. Gotta love SBR getting paid and taking the books side here.

eyeball · 12-18-08, 09:41 AM

Sorry I don't think its right for SBR to say its ok to cut a bettor's limit but enforce the rollover requirement?

Yet they can put down books like BETUS, Wagerweb?

Something smells here

" your limits were cut to like $1.00 I could completely understand and even take your position based on your rollover amount because I feel you would have a very legitimate as well as strong arguement. However, even despite the huge R.O. your facing, the $250 max limits are reasonable/acceptable for "recreational books", which BetOnline truly is. I mean BetGuardian (SBR rated B+) limits are only $250 max."

Mudcat · 12-18-08, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Calsport

I asked for help from SBR and I didn't get much. After a few weeks I've been told they would give me a dime on NBA and NFL but not budge on anything else. This has not happened as yet and it's clear SBR isn't interested in standing up for the player against any book that's paying to have it's banner across the screen. You've got to question whether this site is objective enough to trust placing money with highly rated books if those rating are for sale.

Can we revisit this point? How did you ask SBR for help? Was it a formal complaint? If so, what exactly has SBR told you?

Anyone from SBR have anything official to say here?

eyeball · 12-18-08, 10:35 AM

Yes I hink before we all jump to conclusions Mudcat is right.. what is SBR's position? and is this posters complaint legit?

katstale · 12-18-08, 11:27 AM

Mud, et all I don't want to speak for the OP, but his complaint is legit and Dozer's stance on the matter is exactly as the OP portrayed it. I was shocked that the money had tainted BBD.

As I stated above, I have seen copies of the emails, complaints, etc of numerous of these BOL issues in private forums.

In fact, their treatment of the OP is, as I indicated, better than any I have seen. So what they are doing with SBR's approval is worse in most cases than what they did to the OP.

If this is all just made up stuff against BOL--let Bill, or SBR John, etc come in and say it. They won't and they can't.

JELLYBEAN · 12-18-08, 11:45 AM

The sad part is that BBD has not even come back in this thread to defend his ludicrous post. Neither has any SBR mod, which speaks volumes in itself. Next they will be censoring posts like the rx does. I guess with the economy the way it is they have to keep there cash cows happy.

Sickening and disgusting if you asked me

ericmangin · 12-18-08, 12:20 PM

i've asked this question many times, but nobody has answered. how often does sbe change their rating scale, or update them?

Immortality · 12-18-08, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by JELLYBEAN

The sad part is that BBD has not even come back in this thread to defend his ludicrous post. Neither has any SBR mod, which speaks volumes in itself. Next they will be censoring posts like the rx does. I guess with the economy the way it is they have to keep there cash cows happy.

Sickening and disgusting if you asked me

Yes does look very "suspicious" how an SBR employee has yet to come back to this thread since Dan's comment.

Kaps · 12-18-08, 12:31 PM

...thank god i read this tread because i was just about to send funds to BOL and now im absolutely not
please keep us updated on this manner ...probably just saved myself 8 dimes

THEGREAT30 · 12-18-08, 12:41 PM

BetJamaica A+
Greek A- bad customer service at times IMO.
Carib B
The rest BS

I just sign up for them when Im contest whoring and hope they dont call me a hundred times or sell my info to someone trying to commit some type of fraud.

Bill Dozer · 12-18-08, 01:06 PM

Calsport,

Your limit on NBA and NFL should be $1000 now.

I understand the sticker shock of hearing about your rollover. It's tough to swallow if you you aren't taking it into account when using your free play. Even if the player read the rules, after he does the math he sees what it really means.The bigger the dog bet is, the higher rollover amount the player is looking at. It's not a player-friendly bonus rule and doesn't seem good for business. A big free-play winner is left with a bad taste in his mouth instead of enjoying his score. But, that's the condition of this bonus.

If rolling winnings is a long term plan I hope BeOnline will make it so players can't bet a dog over a certain price.

What we usually suggest the book do when they want to part ways with a player is to prorate the bonus. They offered to do that but with the roll amount being so high the player is going to want to to keep playing. Betonline doesn't want to take bets on numbers they are about to change. The compromise they came up with is raising his limits to $1,000 on NBA and NFL. BetOnline also says the player is getting reduced juice as well as the bonus which should make it a bit easier to find attractive wagers.

Justin7 · 12-18-08, 01:13 PM

Justin’s Dissent in Player versus Betonline

On August 18th, 2008 a player deposited $10,000 and collected a $4500 freeplay balance. He lost his entire balance except some pending NFL Futures. On September 18, 2008 the player reloaded with another $12,000 and collected a $5000 freeplay bonus.

When the player signed up for a Betonline account, the website clearly stated that the player “Must roll over the entire deposit 8 times”. There was also a link to the terms and conditions. If you click on the link, and read it (it is long), it says something entirely different. Instead of 8x rollover on the deposit (which would be $96,000), it defines the rollover base as the deposit + the greater of the freeplay, or winnings from the freeplay. In this case, the player won about $23,600 in freeplay bonuses. This means that the fine print in the terms and conditions (which directly contradicted the clear explanation during sign up) increased his rollover by $188,800, to $284,800 for that reload. This portion of the sign up may be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62I0DmW7iuc

In addition to the increased rollover requirement, Betonline lowered the player’s $250 per event. Betonline’s posted limits are $5000 for NFL, NCAAF, NBA and MLB Sides. This reduction meant he had to make 20 times as many bets to meet rollover. Instead of 19 wagers of $5000 as the player expected, he needed to make over 1100 wagers of $250 to meet the increased rollover.

I cannot speak for SBR. In this dispute there was no relief from the rollover (although his limits might be increased to $1,000). I have been involved in over 1000 disputes, and have disagreed with SBR only twice. I respectfully dissent from SBR’s position that the player is not entitled to relief on this dispute. The following summarizes my analysis of this dispute.

Issue #1:

What is the rollover requirement when the clearly posted explanation of the rollover requirement is contradicted by the non-visible terms and conditions?

During the signup, a player sees that he is required to “Rollover the deposit x times”, where x depends on the deposit and bonus. For anyone depositing at least $5000, it is 8 x rollover with a 45% bonus. This explanation is clear, and most players (including professionals) would not bother reading the fine print.

If you read the fine print, you discover an irregular requirement that no other book has ever used. It changes the definition of the base amount (which was the deposit amount on the sign-up page) to “The deposit, fees, and free play (or winnings from free play).”

As in all disputes, I try to resolve them in a manner similar to what a U.S. Court would do if gambling were legal there. How does a U.S. Court interpret this contract, where it says two drastically different things internally? In general, whoever wrote the contract gets the worst terms. In this case, Betonline would only be allowed to ask for 8 x the deposit for rollover, or just $96,000. There are several factors that weigh in favor of the player. First, the clear terms which favor the player are seen automatically. The contradictory terms are buried in the “terms and conditions”, which most players never see, let alone read. Professional players look at the fine print (terms and conditions) when there is a dispute or an ambiguity. While they have a duty to understand what deal they entered, they do not have to “search for problems that do not exist” when the deal is clear, as was here. Under these facts, it would be unconscionable to enforce the fine print.

If there were a contract between the player and Betonline according to Betonline’s fine print, Betonline has committed fraud. The requirements for fraud are 1. a materially false statement, 2. that Betonline knew were false, 3. that the player relied on the statement, and 4. the player suffered harm because of that reliance. Betonline’s account creation page tells new players that they have to roll over the “Entire deposit”. New players including the one in this dispute rely on this when deciding whether to make a deposit. The player is obviously harmed when the hidden terms are enforced, as he was blind sided by the increased rollover requirement. With these facts, Betonline’s conduct is clearly fraudulent.

As an additional note, Betonline’s unique rollover policy may not be enforceable even if it did not contradict other parts of the agreement. When a contract includes a non-standard term in the fine print, it is typically enforceable if it is fair and “the industry standard”. If a Sportsbook puts in the fine print “Winnings on wagers are only paid if they were placed on a Monday”, this term unfair and non-standard, and is simply not enforceable. No one expects this, and it is unfair. In the same way, a hidden term that more than triples rollover and is unique to Betonline would not be enforceable.

Issue #2:

Does Betonline’s contract allow it to drastically reduce limits when a player has a rollover pending?

We have faced this issue before. Sportingbet (rated C-), Bet365 (rated B+), Betway (rated D-) and Wagerweb (Rated C) have used a similar pattern of behavior. If a player wins on his freeplay against these books, they have made it difficult or impossible to meet rollover. Of note, Wagerweb and Bet365 reversed their decisions and treated players fairly when confronted. In the past, we concluded that good books simply do not interfere with players meeting rollover to keep freeplay winnings. When players contemplate taking a freeplay bonus, they are aware of the limits that allow them to meet the rollover. Lowering the limits fundamentally changes the deal the player entered by increasing the number of different plays a winning player must find, as well as the time he must spend to “chase the bonus”. When a book changes this unilaterally, it is materially changing the deal to where a player would not enter the deal if he knew of the alteration. These kinds of changes are unenforceable. Lowering limits to prevent players from meeting rollover is bush league. Only books rated C- or lower have tried this and not backed down. These books are graded accordingly.

If a book reduced a player’s limits to prevent a player from meeting rollover, how would a U.S. Court judge this conduct? The ability and willingness to prevent a player from keeping any bonus by interfering with meeting rollover is comparable to saying “We will pay you your bonus winnings if we feel like it”. This promise is illusory, as the player would only get the benefit of the bonus at the discretion of the book. If a Sportsbook includes a rule allowing it to cut limits, any bonus offering is illusory. In that scenario, it is unfair (and not allowed) for a book to cut limits – the cutting of limits is a breach of contract on the book’s part. This could only be done if the possibility were clearly communicated to the player (and not buried in terms and conditions that are rarely read) before the agreement was entered. Curiously though, Betonline’s rules do not even mention limiting a player’s maximum wager, let alone try to alert the player of this risk.

Under these facts, the contract between Betonline and the player do not allow Betonline to reduce the player’s limits on all events and require rollover as was done here.

Conclusion:

Betonline treated this player unfairly on several angles. First, the sign up page it made it appear that the player’s rollover was 8x his deposit. Its fine print was completely different from what was displayed to the player. In this case, only the terms favorable to the player apply – only an 8x rollover on the deposit. If it seeks to enforce additional rollover, Betonline is committing fraud.

The second issue concerning limits is moot against this player, since he already met the fair rollover. As an advisory opinion to Betonline, it should note that it has no rule on point. If Betonline writes a rule to address drastic limit reductions (or wishes to maintain its non-standard rollover rule), it is not sufficient to bury it in several paragraphs of fine print. Betonline must make an effort to show that a player is aware of its unique player-hostile rules. As Betonline has not attempted any of these, Betonline cannot lower the player’s limits and still require the rollover.

My recommendation to Betonline was to acknowledge that the player has met rollover, and allow him to withdraw his balance. SBR did not accept this recommendation as its official position.

onthewhat · 12-18-08, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

My recommendation to Betonline was to acknowledge that the player has met rollover, and allow him to withdraw his balance. SBR did not accept this recommendation as its official position.

Keep collecting that huge monthly check from BetOnline SBR and say "fukk the players"!

Immortality · 12-18-08, 01:24 PM

Nice write-up Justin. Glad to see someone at SBR sees what BetOnline did as ridiculous.

eyeball · 12-18-08, 01:25 PM

I think this is very simple the clause of requiring the player to add their freeplay to their winnings is ok. BUT

For them to lower the players lmits to $250 and for SBR to get it raised to $1000 is a scam.THE PLAYER SHOULD HAVE THE SAME $5000 LIMITS AS WHEN HE SIGNED UP,
NOW THIS BOOK IS A SCAM AND FOR SBR TO BE OK WITH THIS IS NOT RIGHT..
SECONDLY THEIR RATING SHOULD BE F now