Player vs. BetEd Opinion ($6881 confiscation)

[bigboydan]

This story is getting around. It got picked up by the auto bot we use at OGD.

I noticed that this morning when I was making the rounds, Peep.

Pretty soon BetEd could potentially be the next Goldvictory in the Google search engine. If that ends up happening, oh man... All I'll say is that it's something no book wants I can assure you of that.

[picantel]

I post on some other forums that have hundreds of thousands of viewers and posters. I will give them a week then start spreading their name around also if it helps. The word will get out fast.

[bitisorin]

I post on some other forums that have hundreds of thousands of viewers and posters. I will give them a week then start spreading their name around also if it helps. The word will get out fast.

Good thing to do.Same thing I will do with sister site-FiestaBet,who stole me 6.000 euro.Lets denigrate this 2 scumbags!

[sickler]

Good thing to do.Same thing I will do with sister site-FiestaBet,who stole me 6.000 euro.Lets denigrate this 2 scumbags!

You tell 'im, hoss.

Is your case documented?

[bitisorin]

You tell 'im, hoss.

Is your case documented?

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/141630-fiestabet-huge-problem.html

[godsfavoritedog]

I was thinking of posting up with them. No chance of that happening now.

[TLD]

I agree with the ruling. Very well-written and logically organized.

Yet another crooked book.

[cbhoemrbry]

I want to say thanks to Justin and Bill for staying persistent in the measures to fight the books. Thanks also to all the backers on here that spoke their peace. When then first happened to me I went on to wagerline to spread the word. And let me tell ya. They must pay the big bucks there. I went into every sports forum they have to get the word out to other players to not even think twice about deposting with BetEd. Sure enough it wasn't even minutes after I posted that they were deleted, non-existent. So, I gave it a couple days and did so again, and yep deleted within minutes. Wagerline/covers is completely covering BetEd's butts so they don't lose publicity or business.

[fiveteamer]

Pay the man you f'king scumbags.


unreal.

[purecarnagge]

Justin you mentioned phone tag with management, has anything new happened or expected to happen?

[reno cool]

Justin, next time you gain extra info from posters you should think about passing a simple thank you to them. I do regret speaking up because it just isn't worth it. I don't mean in a financial way either.

why?

[purecarnagge]

because now he's prob getting pm's and things of that nature and now has drawn unwanted attention to himself. Robmpink while thanks for speaking up. sorry for the unwanted attention

[MonkeyF0cker]

Sickening. This type of thing is exactly why I moved to Vegas. It's appalling to me how poorly managed some of these books are. Instead of paying a deserving player the money owed to them, they'd rather keep the $7k in exchange for horrible publicity and a namesake of questionable tactics. What goes through their heads, honestly? One flimsy excuse after the other. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Just plain stupid.

[betED-DJackson]

betED Response

We would like to thank the SBR community for their strong feedback on this regrettable issue, and would like to take this opportunity to explain why our fraud team declined this customer's deposit, and reversed his transactions. We thank Justin and Bill for their hard work in attempting to resolve this; however, we respectfully disagree with their conclusion, and would like to clarify our stance in this case.

We do not differentiate between a bounced e-check and a 3rd-party e-check deposit. Both are summarily rejected and transactions reversed to the point of deposit. The reasons for this are many, but the most important ones being:

1. Third party deposits are a major conduit of ACH fraud;
2. Third party transactions are not accepted by our processor

This is reflected both in our terms and conditions, and on our deposit forms, which clearly state that one's own personal checking account must be used.

We do not bury these rules. The rules and consequences are clear, and there is no question that the rules were broken in this case. We do not engage in selective application of our terms and conditions, whether to our benefit or the player's.

Justin's analysis of issue #2 places the supposition of guilt upon betED, assuming that we would freeroll a player given the opportunity. We do not engage in such a dishonest practices, nor has any such history been shown. If we did, the forums would likely be filled with such complaints.

Further to this, the reality is that an opportunity for freerolling exists on the player's side as well. Therefore, we must do our best to mitigate this risk with strong fraud management and strict rules, particularly for first-time ACH depositors.

Justin has raised the point that in February 2006 a player was allowed to deposit using his girlfriend's account as an example of inconsistent application of the rules. 3 years ago, the processing environment was much different, and such deposits were not prohibited. However, this rule was applied consistently -- we did not reject accounts based on this information either. This all changed 2 years ago with the introduction of the UEIGA, and we began strict enforcement of this rule as a direct result of processing changes. The present state of our terms and our deposit forms reflect these rules.

Of the 3 issues raised by Justin, issue #2 really is the crux of the matter. The other issues -- the fact that the player is in collections for previous gambling fraud, and has a admitted history of opening multiple accounts with us -- simply supports our position that accepting 3rd-party ACH deposits is dangerous, and may attract fraudulent depositors.

We understand that this has been a heated topic, and we don't expect our decision to be a popular one. However, I hope that our explanation can provide some context to this discussion, as it is not our intention to defraud anyone -- betED has a long history of fair play and quick payouts, and we would not risk our reputation and business by following marginal business practices. However, neither can we risk the integrity of our system by bending our rules, even in an unfortunate situation such as this.

We hope that by posting we can at least provide a counterpoint to some of the arguments which have been presented here, and to let SBR posters know we are aware of their concerns.

Again, we appreciate the hard work by SBR staff, and do not discount the value of this forum for problem resolution in future matters.

David Jackson
betED Security Manager

[MonkeyF0cker]

David,

If there is no intent to freeroll the player, then why is there no ACH procedure to verify whether or not it was a third party transaction until the moment of withdrawal? In how many documented instances have you reversed wagers and refunded deposits upon a player losing after depositing via a third party ACH transaction? My guess is zero. And if that is indeed the case, then you are by all means freerolling and there is no disputing that. With nearly $7k, BetED has just bought themselves a deplorable and hypocritical reputation. This is certainly a case where foul play was neither engaged in nor intended. Your unwillingness to budge on your decision shows BetED's true colors and I, for one, will be sure to inform everyone I know in the industry of your lack of good faith and your blatant underhandedness.

[Santo]

Do SBR have a log of BetEd's rules sufficient to show when this clause was added/changed?

[betED-DJackson]

David,

If there is no intent to freeroll the player, then why is there no ACH procedure to verify whether or not it was a third party transaction until the moment of withdrawal? In how many documented instances have you reversed wagers and refunded deposits upon a player losing after depositing via a third party ACH transaction? My guess is zero. And if that is indeed the case, then you are by all means freerolling and there is no disputing that. With nearly $7k, BetED has just bought themselves a deplorable and hypocritical reputation. This is certainly a case where foul play was neither engaged in nor intended. Your unwillingness to budge on your decision shows BetED's true colors and I, for one, will be sure to inform everyone I know in the industry of your lack of good faith and your blatant underhandedness.

Just to address your question, we attempt to verify the transaction as soon as the deposit is received by requesting identification forms. It is the player's responsibility to ensure these are submitted. In this player's case, we requested these forms immediately, and several times thereafter, but he chose not to submit the documents until a withdrawal request was made.

Update:
To answer your second question, we do refund transactions regardless of whether the account has won or lost. Our processing regulations dictate this -- we cannot accept a third party ACH deposit, it will be reversed.

[fiveteamer]

Hope the 7 large was worth it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Just to address your question, we attempt to verify the transaction as soon as the deposit is received by requesting identification forms. It is the player's responsibility to ensure these are submitted. In this player's case, we requested these forms immediately, and several times thereafter, but he chose not to submit the documents until a withdrawal request was made.

The question you chose to ignore is the more relevant and pressing concern. Has BetED ever reversed a third party ACH transaction and subsequent wagers under the circumstances that the player has lost funds?

[pavyracer]

BetED DJackson,

Pay up or shut up!

God Bless

[trixtrix]

willful ignorance is neither an excuse nor a justification of an indefensible position

[tomcowley]

We do not differentiate between a bounced e-check and a 3rd-party e-check deposit. Both are summarily rejected and transactions reversed to the point of deposit. The reasons for this are many, but the most important ones being:

1. Third party deposits are a major conduit of ACH fraud;

Irrelevant in this case as no fraud was attempted.

2. Third party transactions are not accepted by our processor

Obvious lie. The payment WAS accepted, and the funds cleared. If you actually gave a rat**** about this, you'd fix the name field on the e-check deposit screen.

We do not bury these rules. The rules and consequences are clear, and there is no question that the rules were broken in this case. We do not engage in selective application of our terms and conditions, whether to our benefit or the player's.

Another obvious lie. Not only have you acknowledged selective application in the past, WHILE THE POSTED RULES WERE THE SAME, but 1) you've demonstrated zero cases where this rule was applied to the player's benefit by refunding a deposit on an account that busted, and 2) you cannot claim to have a procedure that detects most mismatched deposits, so you're willfully ignorant- always to your own benefit- of the continued acceptance and loss of these deposits which you claim you don't accept.

Justin's analysis of issue #2 places the supposition of guilt upon betED, assuming that we would freeroll a player given the opportunity. We do not engage in such a dishonest practices, nor has any such history been shown. If we did, the forums would likely be filled with such complaints.

ROFL. When the player loses all his money, there's no way for him to know he wouldn't have gotten paid, and most players lose all their money. Unless they're psychic, they wouldn't know to complain. If you had a history of refunding mismatched deposits on losing accounts, somebody on the forums would have come forward, or you would have been able to provide an example of this. In the only other public case on point (robmpink), you accepted the deposit on a net losing, but not busted, account, because that was more profitable to you than refunding the entire deposit, as you claim you always do.

Further to this, the reality is that an opportunity for freerolling exists on the player's side as well. Therefore, we must do our best to mitigate this risk with strong fraud management and strict rules, particularly for first-time ACH depositors.

ACH deposits come with a freeroll risk, just like credit card transactions come with a risk of freerolls via reversals. That's the price you pay for accepting this kind of deposit, and it has nothing to do with this case. The policy you CLAIM to have in place- refunding any third-party deposit in full, even on losing accounts- actually opens you up to more freerolls than simply honoring the bets would, win or lose. Logic 101. Deposit, add as an authorized user if and only if you win, send in third-party forms and get a refund otherwise. Nobody in their right mind believes you have this policy in place to begin with, and only a complete imbecile would belive that you have this policy in place to PREVENT freerolls.

Justin has raised the point that in February 2006 a player was allowed to deposit using his girlfriend's account as an example of inconsistent application of the rules. 3 years ago, the processing environment was much different, and such deposits were not prohibited.

Your posted rule was the same. Selective application says what?

However, this rule was applied consistently -- we did not reject accounts based on this information either. This all changed 2 years ago with the introduction of the UEIGA, and we began strict enforcement of this rule as a direct result of processing changes. The present state of our terms and our deposit forms reflect these rules.

Are you taking lessons from the iraqi information minister? "We applied this rule one way in early 2006. We apply the exact same rule differently in 2008. We have applied the rule consistently." Are you choking on your foot, or is it all the way down to your stomach?

Of the 3 issues raised by Justin, issue #2 really is the crux of the matter. The other issues -- the fact that the player is in collections for previous gambling fraud, and has a admitted history of opening multiple accounts with us -- simply supports our position that accepting 3rd-party ACH deposits is dangerous, and may attract fraudulent depositors.

You have no substantiation of the claim that the player is in collections for previous gambling fraud (and for god's sake, even BETUS paid out more money to a player with questionable intentions), and the player had never attempted to use the other accounts, so it's not like he could have possibly been using them to defraud you. Accepting 3rd party ACH deposits probably is dangerous, which is why you should take trivial steps, like fixing the name field to the account holder's name to stop it. When you DO accept them, and the funds DO clear, that's your problem.

We understand that this has been a heated topic, and we don't expect our decision to be a popular one. However, I hope that our explanation can provide some context to this discussion, as it is not our intention to defraud anyone -- betED has a long history of fair play and quick payouts, and we would not risk our reputation and business by following marginal business practices. However, neither can we risk the integrity of our system by bending our rules, even in an unfortunate situation such as this.

It's unpopular because it's completely illogical. Your rules and procedures- accepting 3rd party ACH deposits, when it's trivial to prevent them, and only issuing refunds if they win, and confiscating the winnings- is a fraudulent practice that lets you freeroll players.

We hope that by posting we can at least provide a counterpoint to some of the arguments which have been presented here, and to let SBR posters know we are aware of their concerns.

Again, we appreciate the hard work by SBR staff, and do not discount the value of this forum for problem resolution in future matters.

David Jackson
betED Security Manager

Your counterpoint is well taken. Here, let me summarize it.

We do not apply rules consistenly, and we always take the course of action that's to our benefit. We continue to allow players to submit 3rd-party ACH deposits and continue to accept them for the sole purpose of freerolling players. We slander players with irrelevant and unsubstantiated accusations. We blatantly lie about our past history and our current business practices. When we justify our positions, we use logic that leads to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion, but refuse to acknowledge it.

Thanks for your honesty in the previous paragraph.

[purecarnagge]

I've already spoken to someone who runs independant forums of SBR. Beted advertises on his forums. He agree's the player should be paid. We aren't saying the player is 100% correct. Not saying the player isn't shady. But he should be paid.

Beted took the money, they put it into his account. They booked the bets.

xxxx(10:46:09 AM): Interesting story.
xxxx (10:46:16 AM): Can't say the guy is completely clean though.
xxxx (10:46:44 AM): It's certainly some BS rules in play here, but the player was definitely shady.
xxxx (10:49:44 AM): I think the guy should be paid too, but I wouldnt exactly call it stealing.
xxxx (10:51:08 AM): I bet he ends up getting paid.
xxxx(10:51:19 AM): I will e-mail my account manager and put some added pressure on.

[fiveteamer]

This isn't f'king UNICEF. They took his money and his action, pay him. I don't care if he raped Gandhi and ripped off Chemeical Bank.

PAY HIM.

[Dark Horse]

Further to this, the reality is that an opportunity for freerolling exists on the player's side as well.

David Jackson
betED Security Manager

Direct admission of guilt on your behalf.

You never addressed the question why your security steps in when a payout is requested, instead of when funds come in. Apparently, the current opportunity (your words) is not to your dislike.

Your setup is a one-way trap door. In your zeal to avoid fraud, you're ready to accuse everyone who doesn't read your fine print of fraud. A tiny oversight to you is more important, when it serves your purpose retroactively, than thousands of dollars of wagers accepted.

How do you even look in the mirror? Yes, you can justify your behavior. So can criminals. The fact is that you apply a totally different set of rules to yourself than to others. It's called hypocrisy.

SBR is not objective enough for you? Let me guess. SBR didn't serve your purpose. You want an objective third party? Why not let an objective third party go over your books to see how many robmpinks there really are?

[MonkeyF0cker]

What's even more telling, is that there seems to be zero support from the SBR community for the BetED decision. That rarely happens. Often times, there are quite a few posters who will side with the book in a dispute. The absolute lack of support for this decision clearly shows that BetED is in the wrong.

[donjuan]

The other issues -- the fact that the player is in collections for previous gambling fraud

You might want to look up the definition of the word "fact" next time before you use it in such a ridiculous manner.

[durito]

The reason most books will not require verification up front is they want to allow the player to start wagering right away.

You can sign up at BetEd right now do an echeck deposit and start gambling immediately. This can be with a bank account with a zero balance, your fathers account, or a completely made up #.

I understand the reasoning here. Many players will give up or not bother if they have to send in a bunch of forms first. However, the A rated books that still take e-checks have better systems in place. 5dimes won't allow a first time depositor to use e-check. I believe BetJM requires forms before wagering is allowed. This is a simple solution that will eliminate these problems in the future. This book of course won't do it, because it will cost them money.

[cbhoemrbry]

BetEd Jackson, your points are completely valid in only BETED's eyes and well beings. Everyone has stated what it takes to clearly validate third party ACH's. Is it our business or yours??? It clearly reflects we have a better idea to run a book versus you and the rest of your crooked comrades. You continue to freeroll a player until a withdrawal request is put forth and exceeds his losing by a large amount. Hint my $50 turning into $6,931. It's called a little luck and being smart with some plays along that run. Same thing happens in those bullshit casinos you guys run from the sportsbook sites. Throwing out names of people that hit this royal flush of $250,000, and that jackpot of $150,000 on Carribbean Stud. Hell the pictures you take of these people are the clowns that work for you guys sitting behind closed doors. It's all a scam to attract business or anticipate a sports bettor to drop in the casino.

Rules and regulations change over time but are consistent in measure where a player/book are protected but with pure sense. You're nonsense accussations of my being a fraud in collections is a bunch of garbage and is irrelevant in this case alone. The $50 e-check cleared on December 29th. I was still betting happily until the 6th or 7th of Jan. And for you to lie about repeatedly asking for verifications forms is a crock of shit. I wasn't worried about it apparently b/c I didn't think it was an issue. I've been betting at several books over the years trying to see who is who they claim to be. There hasn't been a damn one of you out there that pay consistently like you all say. It's one thing after another, claiming your payout department is swamped with payouts, or their not in to handle the case,etc. That is only a stall so the funds the player has intended to withdrawal , might get played and lose. So, verification forms at other sites hasn't been a problem as far as time frame. So kill that thought my man, and put that excuse to rest. The multiple accounts thing is a joke. Its totally irrelevant to the fact there was no money placed or wager placed. On the flip side, you can't claim fraud with same IP addresses/multiple accounts when the accounts are'nt even in place or any activity going on that same time. Which here in this matter, one account was used,played, wagered, etc with no other account in sight. You can't claim bonus fraud. I don't even jack with this b/c it's a way for you to sucker the player into having to play more before cashing out his/her winnings. That's a scam itself. But if I remember correctly that e-check deposit came with a 50% bonus. Fellas, believe me not by choice. IT CAME with the deposit. Which they can't refer to me not meeting my rollover, it hit that over and beyond.

Back to my e-check deposit. If I were a fraud, not everyone out there can vouch for this measure. How on earth would I have access to an account and be able to state information from it. Next topic, if anyone has used BetEd's e-check deposit method. Which I hope to God no one ever does. Well what they do is debit your account with a unique amount. That unique amount is to verify you have access to the account and so forth. Well that amound was (49.92). I sent an email to beted accounts to verify that. They completely ignore the true facts and documentations for winners. All you have to do Jackson was see everything was verified, proved, and legally documented and the story would save you and BetEd thousand, hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions over years to come. You make the bed you sleep in. You've made up a non-trustworthy,lying, scamming business and workforce, so you go home to a shitty,worthless, depressing life that will bite you in the ass in the end for wrongful doings. Are you trying to say us players have to have a 1000 credit score to even play anymore these days. Get a clue one time and realize that betting for us players is entertainment, a way to make a little extra to help out on bills,family life, or some even use gambling as their jobs. You're completely taking that out of the mix if you're requiring GRADE-A credit my friend. If I have my house note of 20 years, and only been in it for 2 years. Hell thats showing debt over my head along with car notes,etc. So don't come at us about being in collections or something that isn't even relevant in nature to the story at hand.

A business of the stature is supposed to be well represented, trusting, legitimate, and consistent. You have failed in every category. The best interests of the players is suppose to be an utmost and importance when dealing with real facts in place. Every piece of information needed was put in place with the legal documentation to support all angles. If you continue to take shots at players who come in and wreck shop like I did luckily, then kiss BetEd's business a DONE DEAL. Here at SBR, we as players, the staff here, all dedicate ourselves to finding the books that hold their word and building trusting relationships. Accountability is a huge aspect and you guy's have none,but to screw around players who get lucky and win some money. All BetEd cares about is a player who plays,plays, and plays. And in the end if the player request a payout, and BetEd sees its reasonable and the player is still really down over time, then you grant the payout. My case, first time EVER>>>>>EVER doing business with you guys. So, I'm expecting an enjoyable experience for my fun gambling hobby. I deposit the $50 to have fun and see how far it goes. Almost 7k later I think its now about that time to start taking a little out, to find out my account is under restriction, to my account being zeroed out, to eventually the damn thing was closed with no access. Yeah what a great experience that was from a bunch of scams who can't pay out hard-earned winnings. Ruling if " you book it, you pay it". My bets were all placed legally and were graded, accepted the whole works. So pay the money you owe. Then as we've all stated it will only help business in the long run when people look back and see that BetEd made the right decision. See there you earning CREDITIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Not so bad after all is it. Do what's right for myself and your future business of beted. You'll win more as we win.

[krs]

I'm a chronic lurker on these boards but this topic has drawn me out.

This is a real tough call because it comes down to intent, and we can't read minds. Is BetEd taking proper precautions against being defrauded or are they setting a trap for unsuspecting players? Only the BetEd folks can answer that question.

There are lots of legitimate rules and terms of service and you can't fault BetEd for not prominently highlighting every one of them. It just happened that this one came into play in this case.

I would fault the player for opening an account in someone else's name. Given the legal environment for US players, you have to know that everything needs to be squeaky clean.

So strictly speaking, I'll side with the book. However, from a PR point of view, they should make a good will offer to the player.

And finally, how the hell does someone turn $50 into $7K in a few weeks?

Ken

[pavyracer]

And finally, how the hell does someone turn $50 into $7K in a few weeks?

Ken

I turned a $50 free play to $1500 at an A+ book last year in 2 weeks. It doesn't suprise me at all.

[tomcowley]

They're taking the adequate precautions to make sure that somebody who uses a mismatched ACH can never WIN. However they fail to take the exact same precautions to make sure that somebody who uses a mismatched ACH can never LOSE. In simpler terms, they intentionally continue to accept mismatched ACH wagers and deposits, keep them if players lose, and steal the winnings if players win. That's horseshit. If the player cannot possibly win, then his funds should never be at risk, and if his funds are at risk, then he should be able to win. BetEd makes it so the player's funds are at risk, but he can't possibly win. It's 100% BetEd's fault (and not coincidentally 100% to their benefit) that they designed their policies this way. That's why this case is obviously a freeroll and fraudulent business practice, on top of the numerous lies they told SBR and posted here.

[Dark Horse]

Exactly.

It's all about them. They're the good guys. It doesn't matter that honest players aren't paid thousands of dollars, because Beted is trying to keep things pure. SBR is no longer neutral, because Beted is painted in a negative light. People can become very convinced of their delusions. Beted doesn't see or doesn't want to see how delusional they are. The whole world may not be able to convince them otherwise. In their delusion, they think that SBR is against them, and that they're doing nothing wrong. Players are not being paid because they could possibly, in a worst case scenario, have an intent to commit fraud, not because they actually did commit fraud. There is no difference to these delusional paranoids. The fact that they're the fraudulent party doesn't even register as a possibility with them. That Jackson character probably shows up here only because there is a possibility of a further downgrade.

[cbhoemrbry]

To make matters worse for them or better in my favor even though my name isn't on the account.....I do have direct deposits that go into that account and have proof to show it.

[SoCalFisher]

This Tom Cowley guy hits it all on the head, I mean to a tee. Tom, I could not have said any of it any better.This is fukkin DISGUSTING.

Eat a Dik Jackson. I hope you rot.

BETED=THIEVES