Not very fair to say onthewhat. Justin said he has been involved in over a 1000 disputes and has disagreed with SBR's decision only twice. That does not warrant leaving a job. He made a recommendation and his bosses went against it. Happens in the real world.
-
Comment -
Thanks Justin
Agreed.
I want to thank Justin for his involvement. He looked at this situation objectively and attempted to get me some resolution. Unfortunately, the guys holding my money aren't interested in fair play or their reputation. Now it's up to SBR to man-up and lower BOLs rating.Comment -
Fantastic writeup Justin and quite insightful.....I see from Dozer's post that the limits were raised somewhat, but personally I don't see how anyone who reads this thread can put their money into this sportbook. There's far worse of course, but there are also some that are vastly superior and would never pull this stunt, despite the fact that BOL inexplicably continues to have a similar rating to these upper echelon books in the Grading category (Pinnacle,Greek,Jamaica, etc.). Regardless, nice job.....Comment -
Very nice writeup Justin. It is a shame that money is doing the talking here. Betonline will certainly not receive my business again and hopefully others will withdraw their money(if they even can of course) in protest and make sure betonline knows why they are doing the withdrawal. Will there be a downgrade of this book? Will protection continue to be given to 'highly rated' books.. I would remind SBR again that many people who come here take the reviews seriously and deposit accordingly. It is highly unethical to rate a book A+ or anything close to that when there are legitimate complaints or attempts to screw over players. Please do the right thing.Comment -
Thank you Justin!!
For calling a spade a spade. Or should i say, calling a Lenny a Lenny.
As I said earlier--many players are in the exact position as the OP. This is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for BOL.
I want to repeat this for anyone thinking of depositing here--this is what they do as a matter of practice. SBR is aware of this. This is not some isolated incident.
SBRJohn, give them the C- they deserve and see if your check shows up next month?Comment -
...justin that was a great write up ....thx for the infoComment -
I don't think that a book that steals players money, should get anything better than a D.
I beleive all players should move their money out .
As far as SBR at least they haven't deleated these threads, but for them to continue to rate this book as
an A-.. its a joke.Comment -
Betsportsweb (ex betsuperior) and wagerweb do that (deposit+freeplay or freeplay winnings)*rollover thing too. Not exactly the type of company an A rated book should be keeping.
Betonline itself is the only A book I don't use, and threads like this are the reason why. Probably there are a large number of others following the same line of thinking.
ps should say despite Betsportsweb's past history, they've paid me $6k no problems over the last couple of months. Max payout of $1k/week is a little annoying, but it's not like it's a hidden condition so can't complain.Comment -
I really love this part of Bill's argument. Logically, the 60 second time delay is how you overcome a players "jumping your line"! If this doesn't keep him off of you, then you need to fire the lineskeeper (or get better software or attract more liquidity with decent customer service, etc) BUT you don't deal with it by lowering the guys max bet and then raising it up some to 1k.
It further points out that what they are doing is taking a free shot at players with SBR's blessing.
Bill, if you are really buying the "line move" or steam argument they are handing out--I have to ask this question.
Do you wager?
BOL has only one chance out of this hole. Rewrite their t&c with Justin's help. Admit they over-reached and give everyone caught up in this some reasonable limits to overcome the WR and then hope threads like this gradually fade away.Comment -
I hate to keep posting because I very rarely post and am not a "pro" like some of the other guys like Katstale or JJ. But I have been around long enough to know that there is a cover up here.
SBR doesnt say any where on this board that IT WAS WRONG FOR BETONLINE TO LOWER THE PLAYERS LIMIT AFTER HE WON THE MONEY. They just address the "well the bonus plus the freeplay is too high"
So whats the deal other than SBR allows a book to steal the players money and still gives them an A rating?
If thats the case than they have no right gradeing books and as far as I am concened I will looking for another site.Comment -
If a book wants to cut limits, then it should cut unmet rollover by the same amount. If I have 50k rollover left to meet, and my limits get cut in half, then I should have 25k left to meet. And, obviously, reduced by the sharpest limit cut. Leaving my 6th division indian handball props at a full $5 doesn't make up for cutting NFL by a factor of 20. By SBR's logic, the book has every right to cut limits to a point where it would take me a year of betting every game on the board to clear rollover, and that's acceptable. Nonsense.
Furthermore, as a penalty for withdrawing early, BoL wanted to confiscate the freeplay winnings PLUS the freeplay value itself. This is omfglol ridiculous. Get $500 freeplay, win $1000 with it, and they want to take back $1500. No reasonable person could put the value of the used freeplay (or the freeplay's cost to the book) at over $1000, and there's absolutely zero logical justification for that position. BoL has crossed the line into showing that they think like scammers, not like people trying to run a fair shop. Avoid at all costs.Comment -
Good post Justin.Comment -
I agree. BetOnLine is not even close to A-.
No offense to SBR, they cant be right in everything. SBR is great.
I feel good with betway(ranked D-). I got money with betway and sleep well now.(No swettings for my money anymore)Comment -
Excellent repsonse Justin. To bad those huge affiliates checks got your CORRECT opinion over ruled. Betonline should be rated the same as Betus, CROOKSComment -
Thought I would start my day with a bump here. Hoping that SBR will take another look at this issue. Plus, I don't want any new players unfamiliar with this clip joint to get fleeced.Comment -
I am little less militant in my stance than the majority here. If I am reading between the lines correctly, there is a steam play consideration here. I understand why books react to that.
There is also something to be said for reading and understanding terms and conditions before you deposit. Justin kind of shrugs off the concept of reading the fine print about bonuses. I'm afraid I don't accept that. By simply reading the rules, the player would have known he could end up in this exact situation, rollover-wise.
If I was to go back to BOL, I would make a lower deposit and use a different freeplay strategy specifically to avoid this kind of scenario. The rules are there. What more can BOL do than publish them? If you don't like them, you don't have to play there.
Now the drastic reduction in limits is another matter. But again, if there is steam play involved, the player brought it on himself to some extent. There is some debate to what extent books have to accept steam play - I don't want to get into that can of worms right now - but I understand how books want to put certain players on wager delay.
And the new 1000 limits on some bets seems much better. And there was a reference in there to reduced juice? Not sure the details there but I think things are getting more reasonable.
(If I am totally wrong about the steam play, sorry. But in any case the situation seems to have become more workable.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying an "A" rating is justifiable for BOL. From what I am reading here - and in several other cases - BOL is not an "A" book. There are some big issues there.
But I'm not quite ready to take a scorched earth stance about it.Comment -
It doesn't matter what kind of play he's giving the book. The book can't cut limits to $1 and demand that you complete full rollover- and for the same reason, it can't cut limits to any other amount and demand that you complete full rollover either. It's fine for the book to cut limits, but if it wants to change that part of the agreement, then it also needs to change the rollover accordingly. "Steam play" isn't some magical excuse to screw players.Comment -
Good point Tom, and a good way to think about this problem. Levels the playing field a bit......It's fine for the book to cut limits, but if it wants to change that part of the agreement, then it also needs to change the rollover accordingly.Comment -
Exactly Tom. If you want to say a "contract" was formed when the bonus was accepted then Mud's reasoning about the "rules" being published is absolutely correct. Everyone should have to follow--even obscure rules, BUT your logic would also hold true. That players wagers should be accepted just like they were the first day the contract was formed--until the contract is finished. Or in this case, the WR is completed or the player goes bust.
At this point, the book has every right to pay the player and then to kick the player out. But many books, including BOL want to have it both ways. Offer the big bonus to attract players, then when they get beat up a bit--take a free shot at the player who has no recourse.
Justin's view is well thought out and reasoned. BOL has no leg to stand on here.Comment -
bill is definitely turning his cheek on these very valid complaints.
If a book is able to reduce bets to a lousy 250-1k then they should let him cashout in full and give him the boot. A true quality book would not do this to a client
Stick with Matchbook, betblackdog, and Betjm or olympicComment -
I'd agree about steamplay - books have to deal with that. Probably they should put a more explicit condition in their terms saying it will result in heavy limiting.
However, with the terms I'm more with Justin's view: if you say a rollover of X times, you can't bury in the fineprint something entirely different. Rollover of freeplay/freeplay winnings is entirely different, eg for deposit of $5k the rollover will be $58k, but if the freeplay wins at +700 that's $166k instead.Comment -
Hmm. I have put myself in a position of having to defend BOL - which I don't like. I don't defend them for several things I have seen. But as for the specific rollover rules, what they are doing seems just fine to me.
Looking at the site right now, what has happened here is spelled out for everyone to see. It took me about 8 seconds to find BONUS RULE #1. Based on this thread, I expected it to be much harder to find and in much smaller print but it is right there.
BONUS RULES
1. The deposit, fees, and free play (or earnings from free play) must be rolled over the required amount of times before requesting a payout.
If someone uses a freeplay for a big longshot like a parlay, they should be aware of the implications. I would be anyway. It's right there.
Does BOL need to have their site programmed to re-explain all the implications of your bet when you go to place it?
Justin's post here looks very good and official and all that, but there is also a certain absurdity to it. He is acting like he is presenting a legal argument and then he uses as a lynchpin point that it isn't reasonable to expect people to actually read contracts they agree to.
Maybe I have been watching too much Law and Order but that doesn't seem like a viable legal argument to me.
"But your Honor, I couldn't be bothered reading the whole agreement. I preferred to just read the starting bit and then make assumptions based on some experience I had at a few other businesses that aren't connected to this one in any way - and I would like those assumptions to apply."
I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Any book can have any set of rules they want. If you want to say it is a crappy rule and therefore you won't play there, I say that makes sense. But if you want to start squawking because they do exactly what they say they are going to do, I say no, you screwed up - blame yourself.
Now the drastic limit reduction is another question. And so is BOL's difficulty with payouts to Europeans. And so is the fact their website was saying they had Neteller payouts available when they didn't.
They have plenty of transgressions. Just not the rollover thing.Comment -
Newsflash: it isn't reasonable, as a point of law. If SBR's T&C had it buried in there that if you ever posted, you'd owe them 100k, would you expect that to be enforceable? Did you actually read the T&C when you signed up?Justin's post here looks very good and official and all that, but there is also a certain absurdity to it. He is acting like he is presenting a legal argument and then he uses as a lynchpin point that it isn't reasonable to expect people to actually read contracts they agree to.Comment -
I've recently been cut to $10 by an SBR B+ book (that happens to be owned by an A+ book with a banner on this page). They refuse to remove my remaining rollover. It's sufficiently small enough that it's not a huge issue -- but the principle is exactly the same.
I think tom's solution sounds the best. Cut the limits in half, cut the rollover in half. Cut them by 95%, cut the rollover by 95%/
I'm sitting on a pile of dynamite at betonline as well. Not looking forward to it.Comment -
.Comment -
It is fair however to come here and squawk so that other players know the treatment they will get BEYOND the high rollover - cutting your limit, and giving you the 60 second delay. "We reserve the right to limit action" and all that BS, but where are the players' rights in all of this?
I think that is the beef players are having with SBR over this - not calling BOL out on the carpet for the absurdity of making a huge WR on $100 collars.Comment -
Seems to me we had a formula for rollovers and limit cuts. This used to happen all the time in the heyday of the industry when there were a lot of big bonuses. Keep in mind big bonuses=big trouble for you guys cutting up numbers. I know a few names in this thread and I don't need to explain that.
As far as BOL's rating keep up the feedback. Keep in mind A- is not A+. Its several notches down and its several notches down for a reason. There were a lot of threads a while back that CRIS/Bookmaker should not be an A+. Heres a current thread http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbook...e-you-sbr.html
BOL and 5Dimes have always handled sharp action for bonuses heavy handed. CRIS too but that was a long time ago. Also, ask yourself is BOL an A- book for the 95% of the players who are taking the bonus and playing vanila numbers on their home team? Because SBR does indicate this is not a book for sharp action and this thread is full of sharps. So what I'm saying is we dont recommend you taking your Jaguar in to this Ford dealer. Its the kind of book that will give you guys these kind of troubles.
Express yourself but keep in mind if we downgraded books everytime they slipped or were heavy handed we seriously wouldnt have any A or B books. As it is there are now only a few from B+ to A-.Comment -
99% of books want to attract the whales and the fish and repel the sharks. That's common sense 101. With the sole exception of Bookmaker (and exchanges), every US-facing book will ban/cut/limit/delay you pretty quickly once you demonstrate a clue (I've seen outright bans in 3 bets and a crapton of limits after 1 day). You survive longer if you're betting into widely available numbers and winning, but, seriously, nobody's who's popping a book for any amount it cares about is relying on that plan. "Everybody" boots the sharks. Not everybody cheats them on the way out the door. Getting some sharp action is a cost of doing business, but acting like Betway and cheating players isn't the answer. Plenty of other B- and better books have taken countermeasures against me, and none of them have tried to screw me on the way out.
As far as being "A- for recreational players", they're not any better than a lot of B- and better books in that respect, and they're way worse dealing with sharps. Any reasonable book can behave while dealing with small-betting recreational players, and most of them will find a way to accomodate large-betting whales. Processing aside, only the real garbage books manage to mess those clients up or screw them when they get lucky and score. Ethics and trustworthiness aren't measured by how well a book treats its VIPs, but by how well it treats the players it doesn't want. BoL will screw them with no shame.Comment -
John i was gonna address your post, but Tom did it well. You need to have a talk with Justin and formulate some way to either get BOL to back down off this practice or seriously begin to downgrade them. When tony gives you the brush off--he doesn't hold your money hostage ala BOL. he kicks you out, cusses you and pays you off. i can live with that.Comment -
John,
Why don't they instead just start taking everyone's deposits? That seems a reasonable idea since they don't want "Sharps" who will win anyway and they'll just have to use some convoluted series of rules to take their money (Perhaps they should add in something on the banking page: "Only withdrawals via Check/Wire are allowed at our discretion. And our discretion applies if you win.") and the fish will lose there money anyway. It'd save a ton of time. Just boom, deposit you money and call it a day.Comment -
Probably better to say if you win and you have a rollover, than just forfit the win because we wont let you keep it.
But dont worry because we are an A- book according to SBR.
"Betonline earned its position on the SBR Recommended List through hard work, innovation and experience"BetOnline treats players with respect and aims to gain a player's loyalty by providing VIP level service"Comment -
Is there any book (that allows US players) that can be trusted with large sums of money? I commonly hear "The Greek," but it's hard to have 5 to 6 figures with them when their deposit limits are low.Comment -
This industry is shitty as ****. I called The Greek just to scope things out, and I was told that everything at high levels is up to management discretion. If you have $75k in your account and you want to withdraw $25k, they can choose to send you multiple checks at one time via FedEx, or they can say that they'll only send you one FedEx check for $9,990 and limit you to one per week.
I understand risk management, but these A rated books make so much money. If you have a customer that's cleaning your clock, just incrementally decrease wager and withdrawal limits. I can understand a book saying we're going to lower your NBA and NFL sides from $5k to $2k, and I can understand a book saying that you're only allowed to withdraw $10k a week. I can't rationalize how these books feel it's OK to lower one's wager limits to 5% of what they were over night.
SBR, is there any book out there we Americans can trust?Comment
