In the grand scheme of things, no, since neither provision would be enforced by a court. Just because something's in the rules doesn't mean it can legally be enforced.
-
Comment -
tomcowley on that i do agree in fact in the UK unless it has been changed gambling debts are not enforceable by law and are still considered debts of honour.
My point is that some rules are quite clear and using someone elses funding is surely one of them.
I do feel sorry for this lad if it is genuine, i have no way of knowing but to castigate BetEd non stop over this and saying just pay up and abusing them just lets this lad of the hook.
I have already stated that BetEd dont come out of this smelling of roses but they are only enforcing their rules.
Now in my opinion there is room for movement by both parties, this is not and should not be all one way aimed at the bookies.Comment -
It doesn't matter how "clear" the rule is. My rule in post 139 is perfectly clear, yet it obviously wouldn't be enforced by a court. It matters if the rule (and the procedure implementing it) is a legitimate deviation from the basic rule of "you book it, you pay it", and for about 5 different reasons that have been beaten to death in this thread (read Justin's first post and my first two posts after DJackson's abomination), it isn't.
That's the issue with gambling in this environment- lying scumbags like DJackson run dishonest businesses and look for excuses to take shots at winning players, and there's basically no binding recourse when they do. SBR serves a purpose in bringing abuses to light, and it takes a book a crapload of real advertising dollars to make up for the revenue lost from the free negative publicity SBR provides when a book lies, cheats, and steals. In most cases, for books intending to have a legitimate future, it's strongly in their best interest to run an honest business and gain the reputation of running an honest business, even if the principals involved would otherwise steal at every opportunity. Some books are just too stupid to realize that there are benefits to behaving well.Comment -
Well we have to disagree, if a rule is clear then its clear, if one chooses to disregard this what can anyone do.
The book it you pay it principle does not hold water and never has done, bets are accepted for a whole variety of reasons in error and the bookies have a right to protect themselves against this, thus the need for terms and conditions that are accepted when an account is open.
I have no idea what reputation BetEd have or what their past is etc, i am commenting only on this one particular case and if it was BetEd, BetCris, Betfair or whoever none of them will allow you to use someone elses card to place a bet, that is common sense.
I am not blinded by predjudice on BetEd and so look at this black and white of this and wheteher you think its clear or not and whether the play was booked or not is irrelevant, you simply cannot use someone elses funding to place a bet and rightfully so.
The can of worms this would open up if someone could just use their wives, dads, mums aunts or pet poodles card to place a bet is mind boggling.
I like the statement earlier, you cant walk into a shop and buy goods with someone elses card so why should you be able to do it online at a sportsbook.
And if the shop took the money you can be sure i would return to the shop and ask what the hell they were doing allowing someone else to use my card.Comment -
Not really, there is no legal precedent for that. The criteria is whether the rule is reasonable to enforce and equitable. I agree yours wouldn't be. BetEd's probably would be, IF there was no evidence of them breaking it for losing customers.It matters if the rule (and the procedure implementing it) is a legitimate deviation from the basic rule of "you book it, you pay it"Comment -
Haha, u sure kno how to give a speech, can of worms?? look lets be honest no1 really does this n this player(the victim) didnt really mean to defraud anyone, he was just using his fathers checking account with permission from him to use it. mi ass can of worms.... the intention of the rule is to prevent frauds from invading others checking accounts like hackers n so forth... ur tellin me its ok to take wagers before uve even verified sumones deposit in their name n then after uve accepted the action, come back n say no this cannot be paid out, yea we all kno wut ud say if he lost the deposit u wouldnt say anything n would prob. have kept the money urselves. bottom line, if u wanna make the rule, enforce it properly in timely manner so this kind of BS doesnt annoy the shit outta players n make u look like the scum.Comment -
And you sure know how to give a speech also, i should maybe use words like shit, ass, scum etc, may help me get my point across, on the other hand i think i prefer to stick to the fundamental fact of this matter.
He used someones else funding means, no one knows if he did this with permission, of course his father will says yes with $6k plus won.
But thats irrelevant, what is relevant is that it was not his card and the rules state this is not allowed.
Whats the point of rules if they can be broken at will.
And people calling this particular book disgusting, rogue, scum and a whole host of other names will never change that fact.
Sorry if my view is contrary to yours and i am sure there will be responses reminding me of the general opinion of this book but however i read this i just cannot see how the lad has proven his case when such a fundemental and justified rule is clearly broken.Comment -
Arguing that enforcing any written rule is acceptable is probably the stupidest thing posted on this entire forum, and you have a lot of competition. You have zero basis in law for that position. And calling beted's rule "fundamental" (ROFL ROFL) and "justified" (ROFL) is a close second. Crawl back in your shillhole.
And arguing that failing to pay out on obviously bad lines is somehow a counterpoint to what I actually wrote, that a rule needs to be a LEGITIMATE deviation from "you book it, you pay it" is ridiculous. You're actually making my point for me.
And as for what the purpose of rules is.. seriously.. I don't even know where to begin with you. The strength of your opinions on a subject should be in inverse proportion to your ignorance, not in direct proportion.Comment -
betpartners have you read all the posts on this forum about this, or just this thread?
If not, please do so now.
If so, your prolly a shill.Comment -
That is not a correct representation of the facts here.
A store has security measures that should protect the credit card holder.
At Beted you can use someone else's card, in this case a parent. This store will keep that money. Provided that you lose. Only if you win do the rules kick in. The 'security' is in place to not only protect the shop, rather than the customer, but also to create a one-way flow of money that benefits the shop only. This has nothing to do with security, and everything with scamming.Comment -
Not to mention that beted itself has allowed 3rd party deposits to stand previously when proof of authorization was submitted. But yeah, you must be right, it's fundamental that nobody will allow it.Comment -
Is that it?, nothing more than crawl back in your shillhole beacuse someone disagrees with you,
You have the option to debate the point or throw these silly accusations, we now know which one you choose.
Warning to everyone follow the herd or be branded.
I expected better of this forum.
And of course another one that throws accusations simply because someone disagrees with them, pattern developing here.betpartners have you read all the posts on this forum about this, or just this thread?
If not, please do so now.
If so, your prolly a shill.
At last a mature response that disagrees but does not find the need to throw baseless accusationsThat is not a correct representation of the facts here.
A store has security measures that should protect the credit card holder.
At Beted you can use someone else's card, in this case a parent. This store will keep that money. Provided that you lose. Only if you win do the rules kick in. The 'security' is in place to not only protect the shop, rather than the customer, but also to create a one-way flow of money that benefits the shop only. This has nothing to do with security, and everything with scamming.
Darkhorse that is the accusation i take it, that the rules only apply when you win and not when you lose, and if that is the case then BetEd should at the very least refund those that lose in these instances, that i do agree with and if they do this practise then they are without doubt in contempt
But that still does not get away from the fact that the "victim" broke the rules, what rules are allowed to be broken and what are not?
Whats the point of rules with any sportsbook.
BetEd can and should be taken to pieces if they do this sort of thing but that does not mean that you can use anyone elses card with ANY sportsbook, it is not allowed, does that make every sportsbook on the planet scum and disgusting, the fact that it is BetEd this time gives ammunition to those that enjoy being rude and immature, what if it was betcris or another A+ book would they be expected to ignore their rules?
All sportsbook have the same rules, no sportsbook in operation allows anyone to use anyone elses card no matter the circumstances, so why should BetEd have to?
Is it because they have a bad reputation? or is because they are an easy target or would you seriously expect every sportsbook to pay out in these circumstances.?
It really is simple, use your own funding or dont betComment -
Did you even read the thread? BetED ITSELF has allowed 3rd party deposits in the past with proof of authorization (because the player was a net loser that they wanted to keep).All sportsbook have the same rules, no sportsbook in operation allows anyone to use anyone elses card no matter the circumstances, so why should BetEd have to?
Again, did you read the thread? This is exactly the case. BetED has never refunded such a deposit, and has stated that they will not refund such a deposit if a player plays and loses.that the rules only apply when you win and not when you lose, and if that is the case then BetEd should at the very least refund those that lose in these instances,Comment -
What no insults this time? you want to debate now?
Yes i have read the whole thread and IF you read what i have said i have stated on more than one occasion that betEd don't come out of this smelling of roses either.
No doubt they have a case to answer in relation to not refunding losers in this situation.
But that does not mean that any sportsbook be it BetEd or any other will allow winners to keep their money if they use someone elses card
But this lad broke the rules why wont you accept that?
Tell you what show me a sportsbook that allows this, anyone anywhere on planet earth and i will back down and accept i was wrong.
There is not one single sportsbook on planet earth that will allow someone to keep their winnings if they used someone elses card, not one
And if you cannot name me one single sportsbook that would will you honestly tell me that they will then refund losers in this situation, no they wont unless exposed.
This lad broke the rules and cannot be expected to be paid, what should happen is that BetEd are forced to pay out all losers that have done the same thing, that i agree with.
But unless another sportsbook would pay under these circumstances why should BetEdComment -
Which book do you work for betpartners?
I hope it's one that I've had the pleasure of playing at.Comment -
He wont tell you he works for a book. He'll lie and say he is some random poster.I'll ask also.
What book do you work for betpartners?Comment -
Oh come on, you missed boat on that one, other posters have already thrown that one, think of something fresh to throw rather than follow the crowd
Or you could name me a sportsbook that would allow someone to claim their winnings after using someone elses card.
But that would be too difficult wouldn't itComment -
Yeah, shill without a doubt. The fact that they don't refund losers is the exact reason that they should be paying winners. It's not rocket science. If you're going to book a bet and profit if the player loses, then you'd damn well better pay when he wins. If you don't want to pay when he wins, then you'd better make damn sure that you never keep his money when he loses. The book you work for fails both tests.. and allows net losers to continue to play with proof of authorization, but not net winners.Last edited by tomcowley; 02-17-09, 07:59 PM.Comment -
lol quite pathetic really
Shill without a doubt?
mmm how does one respond to that?
does one ignore it and let it be seen for what it is or does one call the person out on it.
I could lets say embarrass you big time and prove my credentials and force you in to dipping in to your pocket for a charity and making a public apology, yes i like that one
You up for it?
Want to back up your false accusations with cold hard cash, want to be shown up as someone making false accusations in the same vein that you accuse others of
Or do you wanna name a single sportsbook that would allow this, anyone, go one, just one
Or you up for the challenge, but be careful once you have been proven as someone that makes false accusation it will be public knowledge.
your choice big man, ready to back up your false claims or answer the question
Now thats not rocket science.Comment -
betpartner's ip is based out of:
costa rica: -800
malta: +300
field: +1000Comment -
Greek payed out in a somewhat similar situation a few years ago. (bounced e-check deposit that went on a big run)Comment -
Here, I'll name one.. BETED ITSELF. They allowed a player to continue with the funds from a 3rd party deposit after proof of authorization. Funny how you always ignore that point.Last edited by tomcowley; 02-17-09, 08:16 PM.Comment -
tomcowley i dont ignore that fact, but whats the point of me addressing that if you are just going to make false and i repeat false accusations because i disagree with you.
what is the point of having debates if one side always makes false accusations?
But to be mature about this i will repsond to that speciifc point.
That was wrong of beted and of course that was the door that opened up all this and for that they have themselves to blame
But the other side applies to the "victim" here, it is a rule enforced by every book that you cannot expect to claim winnings if you used someone elses card, that is why i said a compromise should be reached and a gratuity payment made, if you read my responses you will see i said that, strange thing for a shill to say hey?
so both sides are wrong and culpable here, Beted have made a rod for their own back but so has the victim.
like i say this is a rule enforced by every book and all sorts of books make gratuity payments despite rules being broken but they dont make that a habit, in fact gratuity payments are rare and rules are enforced.
Only rarely do they make a payment despite rules being broken but they do that on condition that it is accepted that it is not a normal occurance
you name any book you want and they have made gratuity payment of some sort or not but that does not mean that their rules are then void, it just means that on a specific occasion they gave the punter the benefit of the doubt
In this case they ahve not and they are within their rights not to
The bottom line is this lad broke the rules, what more did he expect.Comment -
ROFL. Like anybody who doesn't work for a book could come up with that line of nonsense and think it makes any sense. I'm accusing you of being a shill because that's where the evidence points. -1000 that you know somebody who works at/owns BetED or got involved here at the behest of someone who does.
So let's see what you're actually saying here, since you don't try to make a coherent big-picture argument.
1) Beted has been in the wrong, for as long as they've accepted echecks, by not refunding every 3rd party deposit. Let's not even mention willfully failing to identify them unless the player wins.
2) Beted shouldn't pay the current player in full.
So, according to you, beted shouldn't attempt restitution on past 3rd party deposits (not that they could because they willfully fail to detect most of them), and they shouldn't pay winnings here. So, in conclusion, it's perfectly ok for them to scam and they shouldn't refund losers or pay winners. Yeah, that's the logic of somebody who doesn't shill for a crapbook. Really.
IF- and that's a big IF- BetED refunded all 3rd party deposits in full, I would agree that this player shouldn't be paid. I made that point in the other thread, and made that question the central issue of the decision. Beted's two actions aren't independent. If they don't refund losers (and they haven't refunded a single one, ever, despite lying about it to SBR, and then clarified their position that they won't refund a loser), and they don't pay winners, then they're running a scam. They need to remedy one of those problems to not be a scam, and since they won't (and can't) refund all past deposits, their only choice to not be a scam book is to pay the current player. Sure, they don't HAVE to, but they absolutely 100% deserve the scambook label and a huge downgrade if they don't.
If they want to avoid this problem in the future, then they should take the basic steps that reputable books that accept e-check deposits take, but that doesn't solve the problem of their conduct up to this point.Comment -
betpartners, the penalty for breaking such a rule can be banishment, no action accepted, whatever, but it can never be "we will book your bet but not pay winnings". Why can't you understand that?bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
That was before the US passed the most recent gambling legislation. Its much different now. Your comparing 3 years ago to now... 3 years ago is 3 years ago. Things do change.
If you want to make your point post the whole thing you stupid ****.
ps
I still hate beted for depositing my echeck transaction 3 times and forcing me to dispute it. While I hate this book, I do believe I'm okay with there overall decision. Yes I realize this is a change of heart from previous posts.Last edited by purecarnagge; 02-18-09, 12:22 AM.Comment -
For the record, I looked at rules for the A-rated books and higher. About half of them had a rule disallowing this; about half (seem to) permit it.Comment -
UIGEA has less than nothing to do with this- if they wanted to stop the deposits (since that's what "processing changes" would refer to, the player making the actual deposit that gets processed, not any wagering afterwards), there are numerous steps they could have taken to stop or discourage people from even attempting these deposits in the first place. They've taken exactly zero of those steps. The UIGEA defense is a complete smokescreen.Comment -
You're definitely coming in from a book angle, but even so you're agreeing that Beted bears responsibility and should pay (how much would depend on your definition of 'gratuity payment'. Gratuity payment is a funny way of putting it, but let's not get too technical).
This is where it gets interesting. So Beted, as you have already explained, is wrong and should pay; but they are within their rights not to...
In other words, they are wrong not to pay, but it is their right to be wrong (and profit from it).
Thanks for clarifying, because this is exactly what Beted is doing: placing themselves above the rules. The rules apply, but not to them. That, after all, is the only way to be wrong, while remaining within your rights...
A good book, when there is a lack of clarity, will fix the problem. Beted will not, because it is within their rights to be wrong. And how could freerolling be wrong when it feels so right?
The bottomline is that Beted has lost the respect of a lot of players. And they will not regain it. When the name of Beted comes up, those players will remember, and advise others against playing there. SBR may be polite enough to keep them in the C range, but to a lot of players this is now a D book. In the long run, the respect from players is worth more than all the advertising in the world. That is the reason why books make 'gratuity payments'. Beted is on the Sportsbook.com track, of stiffing players and make up for the damage to their reputation by spending the loot on advertising. They had their chance to choose the way of mutual respect. They didn't take it.
That's the sound of dominoes falling.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 02-18-09, 02:03 AM.Comment
