BetEd player makes $6,931 mistake

[The General]

Just an honest opinion and a little different from my other post in this thread.

The sports book may have good reason for their stance here. Bill and Justin can consider my thoughts in finalizing this complaint and decide to share what I sent them after being involved. It is a he/said she/said ordeal. Tough case for certain.

[robmpink]

.

[pavyracer]

It seems to me that not only BetEd is losing credibility and business but SBR will soon for not standing up for the small guy. I don't fukking care where the $50 came from. Checking, echeck, credit card, stolen! When a player takes $50 and with succesful hard earning bets that took hours of capping he makes it to $7,000 you pay up and shut up!

[poker_dummy101]

It seems to me that not only BetEd is losing credibility and business but SBR will soon for not standing up for the small guy. I don't fukking care where the $50 came from. Checking, echeck, credit card, stolen! When a player takes $50 and with succesful hard earning bets that took hours of capping he makes it to $7,000 you pay up and shut up!

1. I think the main point is the $50 CLEARED and was still allowed to bet.

2. As you said above, SBR is losing credibility with some of these "grades" they give out. Overall though, I do appreciate them working for the players for the most part.

3. If this guy does get his money, I hope he learns proper bankroll management

[reno cool]

It seems pretty transparent all along, I was surprised it took SBR so long to see the book simply doesn't want to pay this guy for some totally bogus reason.

However, Sbr has to tread lightly, because the books have to feel sbr is sympathetic to their wants. It seems that only the A books are relatively free from this bs. I mean if you give Ed a D-, which they deserve, what books deserve a c+?

[SBR_John]

Just an honest opinion and a little different from my other post in this thread.

The sports book may have good reason for their stance here. Bill and Justin can consider my thoughts in finalizing this complaint and decide to share what I sent them after being involved. It is a he/said she/said ordeal. Tough case for certain.

What is SBR's official opinion?? The downgrade would indicate either Justin or Bill have sided with the player. It would appear this is headed for a bit of a split decission.

As I said earlier I would reserve my opinion if I was on the case to what this player has done in the past. Was there really any intent to defraud now or at any time in the past? My guess is NO. My guess is you dont fund an account with JUST $50 if you are running a scam.

Plus, the deposit was not made in Aunt Mary's name or some fabircated name it was the players' father correct?

The book should A) amend the rule. It is too broad. It should read all wagers will be cancelled and the deposit returned in cases of attempted fraud. And B) The player should be paid in full assuming he has no past history of fraud.

[Peep]

Good post John, well thought out.

We agree that the book should pay. Unfortunately, not much can be done if they don't.

[pavyracer]

SBR John great post.

[purecarnagge]

Just an honest opinion and a little different from my other post in this thread.

The sports book may have good reason for their stance here. Bill and Justin can consider my thoughts in finalizing this complaint and decide to share what I sent them after being involved. It is a he/said she/said ordeal. Tough case for certain.

Explain how the book is not taking a shot at the player by this rule? Explain how the book should be in the right on this one...

they took the deposit
they didn't verify the funds
they placed unverified funds into an account
they cleared the account (no more processor problems if they cleared it)
They then got beat
they then cry foul because they lost money

when they win they do nothing... Its that simple.

[Dark Horse]

-

[SoCalFisher]

pretty simple

Explain how the book is not taking a shot at the player by this rule? Explain how the book should be in the right on this one...

they took the deposit
they didn't verify the funds
they placed unverified funds into an account
they cleared the account (no more processor problems if they cleared it)
They then got beat
they then cry foul because they lost money

when they win they do nothing... Its that simple.

This seems to sum it all up.

[themajormt]

Great post PC....

[Santo]

SBR has a problem, in that they in general ask books to follow their written rules. If you are suddenly going to declare certain rules invalid, it weakens your argument in other cases.

This rule was in writing, and in my opinion, would be judged reasonable (for all the aforementioned fraud reasons) if it was put before a court. The problem is that it differs from the "book the bet, pay the bet" ethos of gambling; but that ethos itself has never been tested in a court. Even in the UK, where gambling is legal, that ethos is *not* legally enforceable.

[Justin7]

I should have a posted opinion stating SBR's position by the day's end.

[tomcowley]

SBR's "problem" is that they don't have a uniform code of conduct- a book's rights and a player's rights- in writing and agreed to by all (decent) books.. which is something of a pipe dream in the current environment. Books can write absolutely unfair garbage freeroll rules, and they shouldn't be enforceable, and quite possibly wouldn't be in a court of law. Books also write rules that are more to the benefit of the player than what they (claim they) intended to write, but are still reasonable, and when the player makes a claim based on those rules, he should be paid 100%.

If books would write fair rules and go by them, there would be almost no legitimate problems. The problem is that it's obvious that a lot of T&C are written by especially retarded downies with no concept of logic, consistency, or fairness, not to mention the first hint of skill with technical language. On top of that, you have books who flat out design rules and policies to take freerolls at players, like what we have here. For the most part, SBR does a good job at expecting books to honor reasonable rules in favor of the player and get unreasonable rules in favor of the book ignored. The recent BetOnline decision, as well as a freeplay decision awhile back (betjoint I think) were abortions, but other than those, I can't recall a SBR opinion I've disagreed with.

[purecarnagge]

rules are meant to be fair and just, not a loophole to take shots at players. They cry when people take shots at them.

I'm very interested in Justin's writeup due out later today.

[increasedodds]

I have question for SBR - has Beted gone through all their accounts and looked at deposits that have lost where the deposit was from a checking account in a different name than the player? If yes, they should not pay this guy. Otherwise, if the $50 cleared they should pay him.

Much more likely a dad said use my checking account, go bet $50 than a guy decides to use his dad's account to take $50 shot.

I have a DBA bank account in a name that is not mine. Maybe I'll go send Beted $50 and play till I lose it... Think Beted will call me and send the $50 back? Anyone want to place a line on the likelihood of that?

[Dark Horse]

This rule was in writing, and in my opinion, would be judged reasonable (for all the aforementioned fraud reasons) if it was put before a court. The problem is that it differs from the "book the bet, pay the bet" ethos of gambling; but that ethos itself has never been tested in a court. Even in the UK, where gambling is legal, that ethos is *not* legally enforceable.

That is not the problem. The problem is that, unlike in a court of law, the book writes its own rules. And then acts as judge as well. Beted understands that it is in its best interest to be vague in this area, because that lack of clarity can always be explained in its favor.

They also say that it works both ways, and that they will refund deposits every time a problem such as this arises. And yet, in this very thread, a SBR poster has related of his experience where this (refunding) never happened. If that should prove to be accurate, Beted is clearly lying.

Their security should come at the start of the funding process. Not when a player requests a payout. More broadly, a book should not be allowed to create grey areas that it can always explain in its favor.

In my opinion Beted is engaging in dishonest business practices. If they were honest, they would have paid the player(s) and improved their security when the money is being funded. Instead, they act like they're being victimized by fraudulent players. What a joke.

[Santo]

I agree with that, but of course we've yet to see the proof. Hopefully Justin will advise in his follow-up.

[nbpatel2004]

Am I screwed

Beted.com Question for the Den.

I have just opened an account with Beted.com, and made a deposit using E-Check. Unfortunately, my bank has rejected the 2 transaction from beted.com.

So, what will happen?

Will they let me make a deposit using Western Union to settle the rejected transactions or what?

**I'm also up $3k in the account since making those deposits...

[purecarnagge]

Tell them your bank does not allow gambling transactions on echecks. Tell them you would like to settle by funding with **. Otherwise your screwed if your bouncing checks to them.

[Peep]

**I'm also up $3k in the account since making those deposits...

Your 3K is gonzo.

You write a bad check, you forfit your winnings. The book looks at it as if you have taken a free roll at them.

Better off depositing with ** to start with.

[sickler]

Beted.com Question for the Den.

I have just opened an account with Beted.com, and made a deposit using E-Check. Unfortunately, my bank has rejected the 2 transaction from beted.com.

So, what will happen?

Will they let me make a deposit using Western Union to settle the rejected transactions or what?

**I'm also up $3k in the account since making those deposits...

Like Peep says, no chance they'll credit your account for the 3 dimes in winnings.

There are better books out there. If beted was to be your only out, better to just leave them in the dust and sign up elsewhere.

[Bill Dozer]

Beted.com Question for the Den.

I have just opened an account with Beted.com, and made a deposit using E-Check. Unfortunately, my bank has rejected the 2 transaction from beted.com.

So, what will happen?

Will they let me make a deposit using Western Union to settle the rejected transactions or what?

**I'm also up $3k in the account since making those deposits...

Unfortunately you are almost certainly out the winnings. No sportsbook would pay a new player on bets where his funds were not technically at risk. We've seen quite a few players take a loss because of a mix-up on balances or banking action. Our advice is usually to verify the funds cleared before betting.

The issue with this player is BetEd made it so his funds were at risk and he had no chance of winning.

[purecarnagge]

Waiting for Justin's writeup...

[Bill Dozer]

SBR has a problem, in that they in general ask books to follow their written rules. If you are suddenly going to declare certain rules invalid, it weakens your argument in other cases.

This rule was in writing, and in my opinion, would be judged reasonable (for all the aforementioned fraud reasons) if it was put before a court. The problem is that it differs from the "book the bet, pay the bet" ethos of gambling; but that ethos itself has never been tested in a court. Even in the UK, where gambling is legal, that ethos is *not* legally enforceable.

A lot of books have rules that don't make sense or are incomplete. Many are nothing more than a deterrent, ie no sharp players and bonuses are for recreational only. They don't really say anything but please don't bet here and the player may not be here for long. Specific terms and conditions usually have more relevant stipulations

Someone mentioned the BetJoint wagering dispute. We sided with the player, who was eventually paid, because the rule, while existed, didn't address what happens on either side. That is the case here. A more extreme example was the sportsbook.com no-correlated-parlays. After the fact it doesn't matter. BetEd has not treated winning and losing bets from within CR consistently either.

We are now finding out directly from their processing mgr. that losing eCheck deposits are not necessarily refunded in this same situation. Robmpink's case also brings to light the fact that players have lost this way in the past. Justin has worked the case thoroughly and will have more details for us to discuss here.

[purecarnagge]

Justin said he would post something today, this hasn't happened yet...sure he still has some time left...about 2 hours...

Bottom line...SBR hasn't been open with the community or provided anything of any substance at this time. Sure they did the B- To C+ downgrade, but that was long overdue to begin with.

2.5 weeks to resolve an issue that happened around Xmas/new years. Time to produce for the player. Or at least be open about your attempts and provide some insight to the current decision. Your a community for the players. If you aren't open it will effect you. So far SBR hasn't said anything but committed to a deadline of this evening... your about to miss that deadline and that is the bottom line.

I'm beginning to think SBR is starting to lose its effectiveness and is now just a entertainment site.

[betED-DJackson]

betED Response

Response posted at:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry-68/player-vs-beted-opinion-6881-confiscation-143610-p2.html#post1508080

[casinojack]

Beted.com Question for the Den.

I have just opened an account with Beted.com, and made a deposit using E-Check. Unfortunately, my bank has rejected the 2 transaction from beted.com.

So, what will happen?

Will they let me make a deposit using Western Union to settle the rejected transactions or what?

**I'm also up $3k in the account since making those deposits...

1. Dont hijack another thread, not cool

2. Bounce checks, yes you loose. That is not cool.