BetEd player makes $6,931 mistake

[RumpledForeskin]

dude, you definately got jobbed. No doubt about it. I'm gunna sound like a broken record here, but don't play at SHITT BOOKS. No reason not to play at Greek/5 Dimes, etc.; this stuff doesn't happen there...

[tomcowley]

Did beted demonstrate any history of refunding losing wagers when this happened?

[Sinister Cat]

The rules are in place for a reason. To avoid fraud. Since there was no fraud, the book is using the rules in a way that they were never intended to.

Was there really no fraud though? Obviously in hindsight, the father would say he authorized it, but why was this kid using his father's account? If he had lost, would his father still say that he authorized it?

[wtf]

pavy's last point is spot on

justin you are defending these vile dogs really makes me question your intentions

this kid was not trying to do anything underhanded, which i guess why that stupid rule was put in place by the book, or just another out for them i guess

[Dark Horse]

It's a disgrace that this book has a B- rating. This is not the first time they hide behind a convenient rule that saves them thousands of dollars.

I'm reminded that there are two types of lawyers. Those who don't rock the boat, and those who fight -tooth and nail, if necessary- for what is right.

[Dark Horse]

Was there really no fraud though? Obviously in hindsight, the father would say he authorized it, but why was this kid using his father's account? If he had lost, would his father still say that he authorized it?

In which case BetEd would have been out of 50 bucks.

I understand what you're saying, and that is a problem, but it is of an entirely different proportion than the problem that is a corrupt book. This book is positioned to prey on anybody that makes the slightest signup mistake, according to their rules.

[SSLP]

It's a disgrace that this book has a B- rating. This is not the first time they hide behind a convenient rule that saves them thousands of dollars.

I'm reminded that there are two types of lawyers. Those who don't rock the boat, and those who fight -tooth and nail, if necessary- for what is right.

Very true , Sbr must be able to do something

[The General]

I thougt we hired The General to help players resolve book thievery?

This is a perfect case to make a name for himself on his first week on the job.

Unless procedure changes, then I will be updating my cases on my blog. I have been involved in about 5 complaints and/or issues since Tuesday. I'll make reports on the blog as I deal with disputes unless we change protocol. I posted in another thread my 1st thought. I immediately seen the difficulty with the possibility of dad saying yes if we win and no if we lose. John brought up a good point and the counter was just as good. These things are not nearly as cut and dry as they seem at times.

[Sinister Cat]

In which case BetEd would have been out of 50 bucks.

I understand what you're saying, and that is a problem, but it is of an entirely different proportion than the problem that is a corrupt book. This book is positioned to prey on anybody that makes the slightest signup mistake, according to their rules.

Using someone else's bank account isn't really a "signup mistake" though. The guy didn't have his own bank account?

[Sinister Cat]

I'm reminded that there are two types of lawyers. Those who don't rock the boat, and those who fight -tooth and nail, if necessary- for what is right.

I don't know if this is generally true or not (I think lawyer's should fight tooth & nail for their client's interests, whether it's "right" or not), but remember that Justin is not this player's lawyer. He is mediating a dispute between two parties.

[pavyracer]

Unless procedure changes, then I will be updating my cases on my blog. I have been involved in about 5 complaints and/or issues since Tuesday. I'll make reports on the blog as I deal with disputes unless we change protocol. I posted in another thread my 1st thought. I immediately seen the difficulty with the possibility of dad saying yes if we win and no if we lose. John brought up a good point and the counter was just as good. These things are not nearly as cut and dry as they seem at times.

The issue here is the book took a shot at the player for 10 days. If the player lost, no documents would have to be provided and the book keeps the money. If a player wins then the book has the authority to void winning bets that were made the prior 10 days.

This case is so clear I don't understand why SBR is defending these crooks.

[SSLP]

True . SBR needs to step up and overcome this challenge

[Dark Horse]

Using someone else's bank account isn't really a "signup mistake" though. The guy didn't have his own bank account?

If this was an isolated case, I might be inclined to follow that line of reasoning. But it is not. There is a precedent (the pink thread), and it would be extremely coincidental if Beted had limited its fraudulent activities to just two players. This book will use any type of fine print it can find to retroactively cancel wagers.

It is the book's responsibility to inform the players, in a timely manner, that a mistake was made. And I would not qualify 'timely' as the time of a payout request. If they don't have a system in place to inform the player of this, then they should pay out and shut the f*ck up.

Why is this the second time that Beted has come up here refusing to pay for similar reasons? The total amount not paid in just the two cases we know of is about 25K.

[SSLP]

One can only wonder how many players have gone through this that dont know about this site

[ringemup]

I think what these books and casinos really hate is somebody buying in for a small amount and cashing out big. (except in the case of certain slots lets say) They think you're some broke low life who they don't respect. If you buy in for 10k bet big and cash out 30K that does not bother them as much. I'm guessing that has something to do with this case.

it reminds me i deposited in betjamaica 90 dollars, and turned it into 23,000 in a month with all straight wagers. yea they were prob. wishing id stop making any more off them. theyll look for any way to screw u so u cant make profit.

[VBOMBER]

Vbomber makes some good points. The more variables involved in the deposit the less chance it stands to be good. The policy itself makes sense. SBR has verified that BetEd had the rule up for months prior.

On the other hand a good check is a good check and this scenario doesn't change a scammer's options if he loses electronic money. It wouldn't be hard for BetEd to auto-fill the name in the eCheck screen so the player can't submit a check from someone else, or cross check for info match the way that credit cards do. We spoke to some A rated books about this who said they would pay the player if they didn't see signs that the deposit may have been bad.

I remember a long-time small player bounced an eCheck at TheGreek because of a bank transfer fee on his end. Before he found out the check didn't clear he went on the roll of a lifetime winning big 5 figures. We told the player not to be optimistic because it's his responsibility to be sure the eCheck clears. The Greek saw what happened and that he was a not a scammer and gave him all of his winnings. A book can't give the benefit of the doubt like that in all cases but a good book does look at each case and applies the written rules when needed.

A fact we need to clarify in the final report is if the check did indeed clear well before the audit on winnings.

My original post was just some thoughts not knowing the rules, procedures or safeguards on echecks. But if Beted can put this simple safeguard in to PROTECT THEMSELVES without endangering the effectiveness of the deposit method, then the question is why haven't they done this???? This would protect them from fraud, this makes no sense to me unless the deopsit method would be in jeopardy with this simple change. Would love to hear an answer on this because this seems WRONG.

And if books really want to take the time to look at such cases on a case by case basis I applaud them. More regulation and remedies for the player in the industry would be fantastic. And it would keep SBR busy long into the night.

In the end it's a business decision. And if "A" books feel that by bending the rules in certain circumstances even though inviting future possible fraud attempts creates better goodwill and promotes better business for them, then they will rule in favor of the player.

Let's be honest though, the greek and beted have very different business models. I imagine that beted does not have nearly as sophisticated people working for them, and target a different type of player. But they would be wise to sitdown and look at the backlash this decision will create and seriously consider this may be a bad decision on their part if others in the industry would pay under the same scenario.

[Dark Horse]

I don't know if this is generally true or not (I think lawyer's should fight tooth & nail for their client's interests, whether it's "right" or not), but remember that Justin is not this player's lawyer. He is mediating a dispute between two parties.

I'm talking about cases where a wrong is being done, and everybody knows it, yet, for some reason, nothing can be done because it's 'the way the system is'.

I don't really have enough insight into SBR to know if this is true or not, but my impression is that Bill Dozer would go to war for you and Justin will not. Different personalities.

[tomcowley]

This is justified if and only if beted has a history of refunding "problem" echecks after the player loses. If they did, i'm sure it would have been mentioned already, because the odds of the only player who ever did this being one who goes on a big heater are really really small.

[Sinister Cat]

This is justified if and only if beted has a history of refunding "problem" echecks after the player loses. If they did, i'm sure it would have been mentioned already, because the odds of the only player who ever did this being one who goes on a big heater are really really small.

Yeah, I guess they say they will-- but given the way this one played out (only found out after player provided addt'l info?) I would think they would not discover the mismatch upon a loss of the deposit.

[big joe 1212]

One thing that you have to take into consideration, is that BETED, or any other book, would not know if a losing player used someone elses bank account if they only send in documents after winning. So the only way they would know a loser had used someone elses account, if the bank account holder were to claim fraud.
BETJM, makes you send in everything BEFORE they process a deposit, this eliminates this type of situation, and should be the industry standard!

[Dark Horse]

BETJM, makes you send in everything BEFORE they process a deposit, this eliminates this type of situation, and should be the industry standard!

Bingo.

Which places the responsibility for the oversight square on the shoulders of Beted.

[bigboydan]

I looked closely at his betting pattern. He was just a gambler who got lucky - he was NOT taking a "$50 freeroll".

One minor clarification. BetED had no way of knowing that the names didn't match until the player provided ID documents for the banking account. Once he did that, BetED recognized the problem and closed the account.

By any chance was the sons name on that checking account in any type of fashion. If so their is no doubt they owe this gentlemen his money.

[pavyracer]

One thing that you have to take into consideration, is that BETED, or any other book, would not know if a losing player used someone elses bank account if they only send in documents after winning. So the only way they would know a loser had used someone elses account, if the bank account holder were to claim fraud.
BETJM, makes you send in everything BEFORE they process a deposit, this eliminates this type of situation, and should be the industry standard!

Bada Bing Bada Boom!

This eliminates book taking shots at player and vice versa.

[themajormt]

Even if the sons name was NOT on the account the payment should NOT have been processed, if it WAS then he deserves to get paid! It is ridiculous that this book tries to find ways to NOT pay the player. They took his deposit, allowed him to bet, he won. He was not circumventing bonus rules (to my knowledge) he was not in Costa Rica, he bet and won. The guy deserves to be paid and BETED needs to be downgraded!!!

[tomcowley]

Freeroll by negligent policy would still be a freeroll. If beted systematically fails to get documents on losing deposits, so that losers have no chance of being refunded, then they were freerolling him, and this decision lets them get away with it. A book running a successful freeroll on a player is NEVER the right outcome, and especially not when the player isn't trying anything funny.

[Justin7]

Big Joe,

Good points. I'll ask them about that.

[Bill Dozer]

The last two points are strong, especially if the debit to the account was well before the audit on the winnings. We are still waiting for the details on that date.

I'm talking about cases where a wrong is being done, and everybody knows it, yet, for some reason, nothing can be done because it's 'the way the system is'.

I don't really have enough insight into SBR to know if this is true or not, but my impression is that Bill Dozer would go to war for you and Justin will not. Different personalities.

Everyone working player disputes is because they want to help players get what they deserve. Justin could do many things for SBR but works OT on disputes every week. It's rare that someone can get as involved in so many cases and not be mentally fatigued. If the book is cheating you, you are lucky to have him on your case.

[Climate]

According to BetED, they void all bets, regardless of whether the player won or lost. In the case of a losing player, he would still receive his entire deposit back.

[purecarnagge]

so whats to stop him from getting added to his fathers account then sending in a fax showing him on the account. Account's don't have all authorized people on them at all times. That's all he has to do. If he can prove he's authorized on the account then it wouldn't matter. for 7k I think his dad would let him do this even if its after the fact.

Eitherway beted is looking for a way to save themselves from paying out. Beted is a trash book and should be downgraded immediately. I don't care if its in the rules. Just cuz I said I'm god doesn't mean I'm right

[no chance in hell]

BetEd is clearly a joke.

They will get no more business from me either

They do debit your checking account 1 business after you make the deposit, so if you make it on a Fri, Sat or Sun, it's debited on the Monday at your bank.

[frostno98]

BetED should be rated the same as Betus. A Garbage book run by crooks

[Climate]

It's obviously a cheap shot taken by a bunch of crooks and liars. If you accept the bet, you got action.

If the kid attempted fraud or something illegal or unethical, I could understand it, but this is thievery. They should have procedures in place to prevent these types of things.

There is no way they would refund $6,000 if the guy had lost it, regardless of how he deposited the money, and everyone knows it, including Beted. You think if the guy's daddy calls in and said his son violated the rules and he should get a refund, he would get it?

It's a technicality they got him on, but any respectable book would pay on this one, then get the accounts straight.

What's funny is, the kid would probably turn around and give all the money right back to them, since he sounds like he's just a gambler that got lucky.

[SSLP]

but any respectable book would pay on this one, then get the accounts straight.

You said it any respectable book , something www.beted.com is not.

PEOPLE dont let this thread die , the more we push this the more people will fnd it when they google www.beted.com sports , I dont usually get involved but we should all for once take a stance in unison and help this player out.

If a B rated can get away with this whats to say some other wont do it next.

Beted SUCKS!

[wtf]

they are going to lose a lot more biz than 7k as a result of this!

mission accomplished - almost

[THEGREAT30]

He would have been out of $50 if the kid had of lost. They would not have just voided the transaction if he lost the $50. Thanks for the info. This ads another book to my personal blacklist.