BetEd player makes $6,931 mistake

[SBR Lou]

The facts I concluded were:
In this dispute, the player deposited with a checking account that was not in his name. The rules don't allow that. If Beted takes these deposits, they will loss their processor. Beted always refunds an echeck deposit if it is in the wrong name (and voids winnings). SBR contacted other sportsbooks, and verified that this procedure is common among books, and that a book could lose a processor for taking these kind of deposits.

You can argue over the facts. Feel free to do your own investigation. However, with these facts, I cannot say that Beted fouled. I tried to get the player something for "goodwill", and BetEd declined. BetED (and all sportsbooks) need a way to avoid this issue in the future. But regarding this ONE dispute, my logic says BetED played fair, no matter how crushing it is to my heart. When logic and emotion clash, I will follow logic in every dispute.

That's a pretty eloquent way of putting it (the 2nd paragraph). This rule seems fair to me, it's one most of us would be cognizant of even if we didn't sit and analyze their terms- you don't deposit with someone elses checking account for an account in your name.

That being said, everyone makes mistakes, players and sportsbooks alike, which is why using logic and being objective is the only way to analyze situations like these. It'd certainly be "goodwill" if BetED decided to toss the player a $1k free-play or something like that, but they're certainly not obligated to. I'd think with the attention this case has received, their marketing department might consider that a good idea.

I do "feel bad" for the player here and echo that sentiment many of you have, it's always easy to root for the little guy in situations like these, but as Justin said above it's hard to say BetED "fouled" here.

[pavyracer]

Let me gave you a synopsis so far and make your own judgement:

BetEd is wrong: 20+ members that do not know each other and some with 5,000 plus posts at SBR.

BetEd is right: 3 members with a pair working for SBR and one being a BetEd employee.

This is becoming quickly the biggest farce in the history of SBR!

[SBR Lou]

pavy,

BetED's fault here is allowing this kind of situation to occur, not their handling of the situation. They need to implement a system where e-check deposit information is verified prior to making the deposit, not prior to making the withdrawal. If the account name is not the account holders, the deposit should not be processed.

[pavyracer]

I agree CrazyLou. Pay the kid since he won fair and square and then fix the system. You can't fix the system retroactively once a bet is accepted. This is a golden rule that every honest book obeys like the Bible.

Taking 10 days to verify is not acceptable. The customer made the picks in good faith. It's like paying for car payments at your bank and then you get a letter from the car dealer that the bank didn't process them and the dealer repossesses your car.

[Dark Horse]

When I started interacting with SBR, I had a goal: come up with a uniform way to adjudicate player-sportsbook disputes. I have never "represented" SBR. In every dispute, my first goal is to find the right answer. Once I have the answer, I try to get the book to accept the logic. If my logic makes me believe the player is not entitled to money, I follow my logic and not my heart. SBR and I agree in over 99% of the cases, but not all.

This case is perhaps the biggest clash I have ever had between logic and heart. I feel for the player - he is just a gambler that got on a streak (not to be confused with all the other people who claim the same thing, but in actuality just took a free roll with a few bets at long odds). I have gone to bat for many players, and helped them recover roughly $1 million from books that they would not have without SBR's involvement. But before I start squeezing a book to do the right thing, my logic must show that the book is in the wrong.

The facts I concluded were:
In this dispute, the player deposited with a checking account that was not in his name. The rules don't allow that. If Beted takes these deposits, they will loss their processor. Beted always refunds an echeck deposit if it is in the wrong name (and voids winnings). SBR contacted other sportsbooks, and verified that this procedure is common among books, and that a book could lose a processor for taking these kind of deposits.

You can argue over the facts. Feel free to do your own investigation. However, with these facts, I cannot say that Beted fouled. I tried to get the player something for "goodwill", and BetEd declined. BetED (and all sportsbooks) need a way to avoid this issue in the future. But regarding this ONE dispute, my logic says BetED played fair, no matter how crushing it is to my heart. When logic and emotion clash, I will follow logic in every dispute.

I'm not questioning your logic, but I don't see it as a case of logic versus heart. There is a bigger question. Why is Beted involved in these borderline issues? And by allowing them to get away with this, what impact will that have on future players?

This is why I asked for SBR's mission statement. Is it to help books become better, by holding them accountable, and thereby create a better betting environment for all? Or is it to assist players on a case-by-case basis with no regards for the consequences beyond each case?

SBR in the past seemed more than logic. There was a drive there, an incentive to clean up the shady parts of an unregulated or poorly regulated industry. I'm not sure if that drive is gone, or if I'm seeing things wrong.

It seems to me that Beted has a flaw in its operation. If they want to fix it, great. Downgrade them until they do. This is the second time on this forum that a little problem with paperwork has resulted in a loss for a Beted player (total about 25K). If you don't hold them accountable, you're rewarding them. When people make a ten dollar mistake, you can't charge them 25K. That's not just too easy. That's criminal.

[Justin7]

I'm not questioning your logic, but I don't see it as a case of logic versus heart. There is a bigger question. Why is Beted involved in these borderline issues? And by allowing them to get away with this, what impact will that have on future players?

This is why I asked for SBR's mission statement. Is it to help books become better, by holding them accountable, and thereby create a better betting environment for all? Or is it to assist players on a case-by-case basis with no regards for the consequences beyond each case?

I don't speak for SBR. My goal is to create a consistent framework. If there are two disputes with two different books, but identical facts, the outcome should be the same. Handling disputes consistently will (hopefully) make the outcomes of future disputes predictable, thereby avoiding them. It's the same goal as uniform contract law - if people know what the legal outcome will be, the dispute will usually be resolved without a court.

[headgames]

Yes, the guy breached rule 14 which looks like a rule set out to protect the book from fraudulant activity? I think of fraud as the intentional deception of a person/company to gain wealth at the other's expense.

The player looks to not be a scammer and have simply made an honest (if silly) mistake.

"If you lose your account privileges with betED, due to misrepresentation, fraud or purchase disputes, betED reserves the right to terminate your account and all transactions from the account in question may be immediately reversed at the sole discretion of betED."

Does that not read as though it would be possible and within their own rules to pay out?

Like many others reading this case, I feel for the guy and think that books should take a bit more of a proactive approach to such issues. Is it too hard to implement a system to stop this in the first place? Why not state clearly on any page regarding deposits that the name must be the same rather than tucking it at the end of a sentence which is rule 14?

All that said, I can also understand the need to do things right and take responsibility for your own actions when signing up, depositing and playing. I also think it's easy to be negative towards people like Justin when they come to a reasonable conclusion in their eyes on a case where people will naturally want the player to be paid out.

If I was the book, though, I wouldn't be proud of this whole escapade and it leaves bad taste in the mouth to know how someone who has seemingly played with good intentions has literally ended up losing his winnings like an ill-intentioned scammer.

[tomcowley]

Has beted ever refunded losing wagers for this problem? Yes or no?

Also, losing processors is irrelevant at this point in the dispute (and yet another argument for forcing the name to match or for explicitly telling players.. if it's a big deal, make sure they f'ing know, don't bury it in fine print). They've already taken a "bad" deposit- whatever they do with winnings after that point is completely irrelevant to the echeck processor.

[Justin7]

Has beted ever refunded losing wagers for this problem? Yes or no?

Beted says they have many times, and that is their standard practice. I accepted this as a true statement.

[tomcowley]

I would have asked for half a dozen examples since they have every reason to lie. If it is their practice, then so be it.

[robmpink]

misremebered

[HedgeHog]

You would think a BetEd rep would respond to this thread. Their silence is deafening. If the bets are legit--then pay out by the same method received. Send the funds to the bank account on record and let the father and son fight over the winnings.

[bigboydan]

Pay the kid since he won fair and square and then fix the system.

Even though I feel BetEd was perfectly within the rules to do what they did (I can't dispute the rule). I will agree with your comments above Mr.Pavy, because that would be the fairest thing to do to make all parties involved happy when it's all said and done. The should pay the gentlemen and revise the rule accordingly.

The one question I'd like to throw out there is this. Lets say this was this gentleman's wife's bank account he wrote the check on, would it be in violation or still within the rules? Their is a reason I bring this up actually, however I would like to get everyone's thought about it before mentioning it.

[big joe 1212]

To avoid this problem in the future, they should have the player send them a voided check to make sure it matches, BEFORE depositing the funds in the players account! Is this so hard? BetJM does this procedure! Then the player can make future deposits with this bank account in the future, hassle free!

My question would be, how does BETED refund losing players when they had used someone elses bank account, when BETED would be unaware it was someone elses account? They would not know because the documentation would only be sent in had the player tried to cash out. Do you have proof that they had done this to losing players Justin?

[Justin7]

I would have asked for half a dozen examples since they have every reason to lie. If it is their practice, then so be it.

In my dealings with sportsbooks, I have never had a book rated above D- lie to me. If someone has information suggesting they are lying, I would certainly try to confirm it. As with all disputes, I assume both parties (player and book) are telling the truth until proof or inference to the contrary.

[Justin7]

Funny, I opened and funded a bet ed account about 3 years ago using the e-check thing w/ my then girlfriends checking account in error. We had checking accounts at the same bank and I used her checking account # in error, really. Anyway, I made about 3 or so deposits. Once I found out the error I told them. My g-friend had to fill out the paperwork. If I remember I say I deposit maybe $500 or a bit more. I cashed out for say $300, which is a $200 loss. They processed everything like it is ok, were aware that the checking account # wasn't mine, and kept the $200 in losses after my $300 payout request. I could be wrong about the exact amounts but I'm sure you get the point of my story.


Based on this, they pick and choose what route they want to take. From what they say, all of the deposits should have been reimbursed in my case. Instead they processed everything and came out ahead $200 or so.

Please email me with your details. If they lied to me about their past on this issue, I will bury them.

[pavyracer]

[quote=big joe 1212;1446631]
My question would be, how does BETED refund losing players when they had used someone elses bank account, when BETED would be unaware it was someone elses account?[/quote]

Justin,

You haven't answered this question which I believe is very important. Assuming I used my father's bank account without his knowledge and open up an account with BetEd and lose how is the money I lost the same day gets refunded to my father's account since the names don't match? It is my understanding that to send an e-check back to the bank account's holder you have to know the name. Since the person opening the account never used the bank account holder's name how is the money get refunded?

I think BetEd has opened another can of worms by claiming they are refunding unsuspected bank account holder's monies without having their actual name.

[Santo]

I believe you can reverse a transaction (or decline to accept an incoming one, with the same net result) without knowing the name etc.

Would be interesting to see what happened in robmpink's case however.

[Hoja Verdes]

I RARELY side with a book in these dispute threads, and i'm normally a lurker on this board (although i read it daily), but I've just got to put my 2 cents in here and say that I absolutely side with the book.

i feel really bad for the guy, but in the present offshore environment, you absolutely positively have to comply with the rules to the letter, and this type of shady behavior is the type of stuff they (the books) get burned on all the time.

For every one guy like this, I'd guess there's ten players that use teh same tactic deviously, and then use it against the book to reverse the transaction after losing the initial deposit amount.

I really really hate it for the guy, but what he did is simply unacceptable. There's no justifiable excuse why he didn't use his own checking account to make a measley $50 deposit, and if he was going to use his dad's account, he should have gotten a manager on the phone at the time of deposit, recorded the call (or left a paper trail via email),and gotten EXPLICIT approval from management that everything was cool. I imagine BetEd would have either a) said "absolutely not" and disallowed the deposit from the beginning, or b) gotten his father to fax over all of his own proof of identification with a letter stating it was ok to use his bank account.

This is a very unfortunate situation for the player, as that type of incredible run only happens once in a lifetime, but you can't 'bend the rules' like this and expect to get away with it. Books are already at an inherent disadvantage given the current legislation and are very limited as far as their ability to protect themselves against scammers, and thus they make the rules very clear that you must comply with their requirements to the letter of the law.

The player broke the rules, and like I said at the beginning of my post, the book normally gets burned in a situation like this.

It totally sucks, but I absolutely side with the book here.

[innovator]

Justin can you at least ask they implement verification before betting..i play at beted sometimes.

[purecarnagge]

Bottom line SBR is an organization who I feel is trying to better the industry. In some way they are doing so. In other ways they are lining there own pockets. Bottom line...isn't fixing a problem before you have complaints on it a better solution...

Just because you have framework doesn't mean its good solid or couldn't be improved on. This rule needs to be reviewed, and changed. Its that simple. Verification needs to be done before funds post to the players account.

Again whats to stop the kid from just putting his name on the bank account... There is nothing to say he can't send them a new statement after being added to the account... Then WHAT WOULD BETED do?

Also, here is the part that really bothers me... The player made an error...but so did the book, they accepted the funds and allowed money to be placed posted into his account. They then allowed bets to be made with that money. The logic is 2 errors don't make a right. They make 2 errors. So far Justin from everything you've said, beted isn't addressing there error.

[themajormt]

Also, here is the part that really bothers me... The player made an error...but so did the book, they accepted the funds and allowed money to be placed posted into his account. They then allowed bets to be made with that money. The logic is 2 errors don't make a right. They make 2 errors. So far Justin from everything you've said, beted isn't addressing there error

I think is a very important point that you are not addressing Justin. The book needs to be PROACTIVE! Not REACTIVE when they find out someone won money and they need to find a reason not to pay. BOTH parties are liable, the kid hasnt been deemed a shot taker or a player that was warned about being a pro, etc. He bet FAIR AND SQUARE! Beted took the deposit, and took the action. They cannot continue to operate like this, they are the only one that benefits!!!

[big joe 1212]

[quote=pavyracer;1447285]

My question would be, how does BETED refund losing players when they had used someone elses bank account, when BETED would be unaware it was someone elses account?[/quote]

Justin,

You haven't answered this question which I believe is very important. Assuming I used my father's bank account without his knowledge and open up an account with BetEd and lose how is the money I lost the same day gets refunded to my father's account since the names don't match? It is my understanding that to send an e-check back to the bank account's holder you have to know the name. Since the person opening the account never used the bank account holder's name how is the money get refunded?

I think BetEd has opened another can of worms by claiming they are refunding unsuspected bank account holder's monies without having their actual name.

My point was, lets say I use my fathers bank account to load up. I lose it in 2 days. I never play there again. BETED then has my money and no one will know its not my bank account cause I never sent the documents, cause I lost.
So my question is, how can they be sure that they refund the losing customers who never send in the voided check, cause they never win?
I never meant that they are lying about refunding the losers also, I just think that they would be unaware, therefore they wouldn't refund!

[andywend]

If I had a funded BetEd account, I would close it immediately and ask for a full withdrawal of my account balance.

If this kid lost the $50, then BetED would have simply wound up keeping his money.

If anyone decides to close their BetEd account over this, its real important to let them know exactly why you're doing it.

Hoja Verdes, your post was disgusting from start to finish. How anyone can say they totally side with the book and practically praise them over their actions in this case makes me believe that Hoja Verdes must be affiliated with BetEd in some form.

[tomcowley]

Wait.. when does beted even ask for paperwork? I don't understand the 10-day delay.

[pavyracer]

There is a history of very bad business practices with this book:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/6138-i-got-cheated-beted-com.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/19150-beted-not-pay-winnings.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/42818-beted-just-f-ked-me-here-my-story-need-help.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/46002-beted-owes-me-19k-says-they-will-pay-1k.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/126110-doubt-youve-heard-one-before-beted-crooks-please-help.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/65028-warning-beted-shittiest-bookie-net.html?slf=68

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/82878-beted-com-withdrawals-very-poor-imo.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/52122-beted-scam.html

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/Player+Reviews/BetEd/default.aspx

[wtf]

i agree Hoja is for sure getting paid by beted or is their lackey

[bettilimbroke999]

I just deposited 2 dimes to BetEd with my mom's checking account, I trust them

[wtf]

I just deposited 2 dimes to BetEd with my mom's checking account, I trust them

[purecarnagge]

Justin you said you were looking for logic... As a sportsbook how can you post funds allow them to bet and rolled over multiple times, then tell the person you had no action on those bets. This is after the funds were deposited and the person was told there was no problem.

This system can only hurt the player and not hurt the book. As a players advocate, can you please address this issue for me. With something other than rule 14. So far the book is hiding behind rule 14.

Rule 14 . If any eCash deposit is uncollectible for any reason, funds generated from the deposit may be cancelled or reversed at the sole discretion of betED. Please note: For security purposes, your bank account information must match the information supplied during your initial registration.

Nowhere in rule 14 does it say this will only be reviewed upon payouts. This should be reviewed when the funds are placed into the account. This rule is very bad. So to me I think Beted made a few mistakes. They cashed or attempted to cash this echeck? They placed the funds into said players accounts. They allowed action and funds were rolled over no problem. Only at payout was there a "problem".


Is it just me or is this rule very poorly written/explained? Its also a rule that takes advantage of the player. Its not a rule to make the player safe. Its a rule for the book to take a shot at a player.

[bettilimbroke999]

I know that kid had a prob but that was usin his dad's checkin account, classic scam move to deposit 50 by your dad and run it into 7k thats why I chose my mom's account, thats why I never have payout probs always thinkin ahead

[wtf]

absolutely, part of scam 101

[Karla]

Ouch...unreal. Unfortunate to waste such a good run...of course they wouldn't have noticed this if he had lost it all.

I agree with u Diogee, they will ingnore this when our brother had lost it all.. But because he got the luck and won a lot of penny, then they'd noticed it.. watta shoddy was that!

[pat venditto]

[ ] good choice of a sportsbook to play at

[unknown Gambler]

rule 14 is nothing more then an alibi rule, if you lose no ones the wiser, if you make a score they give you this alibi, which seems to completely protect them.

a little like an old carnival trick, where if you pass the line and the ball bounces out all is good, but if you pass the line and it stays in, they use the rule that you passed the line not to pay you.