betphoenix problem!

[katstale]

I think this sums it up nicely. I might have handled the dispute differently at BetPhoenix, but if the net result was no change in equity at the time of cancellation, it's hard to call it a "hard foul". The book was trying to act fairly.

Betting your balance on a 10:1 Parlay... That is a classic freeroll tactic if you're planning a **********. Given this wager and the player's propensity to misstate facts, I'd give BetPhoenix a pass on this one.

[ucbearcats1027]

I stand by the decision that was made. The time line from email, to actual charge back is not a minute to minute item. We get the notice from 3rd party processors when they get it to us. each processor is different with regards to refunding, charging, amounts, acceptance etc.
Any of the posters here that are backing this gentleman, you are saying that as a business you would accept a bad charge or check from a client. You would give him a product knowing he would default along the way.

When he wins it gets worse...you get to pay him, and a few months later you get the charge back anyways. There is really no way to win here at all from our end. All of his charges are refunded because there is no point to it. Winning or losing bets here don't matter because these charges are all going to come back out at the end of the day

What your saying makes no sense. The only reason I charged back on sports-1.com is because FRANCO was suspossed to refund my cards and it was not happening and he even stopped responding to my emails. The money was already susposseed to be refunded therefore the ********** didn't create any loss of money they what was originally suspossed to take place.

[michael777]

You would give him a product knowing he would default along the way.
richard,you do not know that he would do a **********,do i think he would have? yes i do,but there is no way to know for sure,i think you run a good book but are wrong in this case

[big joe 1212]

There is no doubt the player was freerolling, based on his style and history! My problem is that I don't beleive that Bet Phoenix got word at 9pm from a processor, or word from sports-1.com about the situation. It's hard to beleive the timing of it. However, I dont really see this player having a legit complaint since he was freerolling! Both parties are devious here I beleive. They basically seemed to take shots at each other.

[themajormt]

I think this sums it up nicely. I might have handled the dispute differently at BetPhoenix, but if the net result was no change in equity at the time of cancellation, it's hard to call it a "hard foul". The book was trying to act fairly.

Betting your balance on a 10:1 Parlay... That is a classic freeroll tactic if you're planning a **********. Given this wager and the player's propensity to misstate facts, I'd give BetPhoenix a pass on this one.

This is a great post Justin and I could not agree more. UCB went from saying "the bank did it" to "I did it because they took too long". He has lied and changed his story numerous times and he gets what he deserves. Its not like he deposited $2k and threw it all on one game, he threw it down on a 4 team parlay, not 2 or 3, but a 4 teamer! Smells like free rollin all the way!

But on the flip side, the timing by Betp needs to be questioned... It is one hell of a coincidence that they received notification during halftime with 2 legs already wins. You are a math guy Justin, what are the odds of that??

[BestPlay2day]

After reading this post, it's obvious he was taking a free shot at BetPhoenix. Think about it, deposit $500 by credit card. Bet your whole balance on a 10-1 longshot parlay. If I lose, I file a ********** to my credit card, if I win I will get paid. No one that's not taking a free shot at an online book bets their whole wad on a 4 team parlay. Although the 13 year old "son" story was pretty good, I wouldn't of come up with such a "great" story!

[ucbearcats1027]

sorry for feeling risky that night, i didnt know you were not allowed to take risks and hook up a 4 team parlay that you felt was going to hit. I got a freeplay bonus with my deposit so its not like if i lost i would of lost it all, i still had a chance to turn the freeplay into more money

[baseballstud]

Ok I believe you. Why has your story changed a few times. Would you believe this story if someone else was saying the same stuff.

[dlw902]

I think everyone is missing the point that BetPhoenix allowed him to deposit and play as long as he was losing. If you are worried about him freerolling, DON'T LET HIM PLAY FROM THE GET GO. If you choose to let him play then you're taking a chance... you don't just get to cancel parlays in the middle of them. Like I said, if I put in a parlay, I couldn't call betphoenix and ask them to cancel it because of certain circumstances... BetPhoenix should play by the SAME rules.

[reno cool]

I think everyone is missing the point that BetPhoenix allowed him to deposit and play as long as he was losing. If you are worried about him freerolling, DON'T LET HIM PLAY FROM THE GET GO. If you choose to let him play then you're taking a chance... you don't just get to cancel parlays in the middle of them. Like I said, if I put in a parlay, I couldn't call betphoenix and ask them to cancel it because of certain circumstances... BetPhoenix should play by the SAME rules.

Yes, your right, and despite all these claims stating that he was freerolling the book nobody has presented additional evidence such as:

How long has he been playing at the other book.
How many deposits did he make altogether?
How much did he lose over that time?
Has he charged back all his deposits?

[Cloak & Dagger]

If this is true then WHY did you take accept his deposit to begin with? I mean you guys not only accepted a deposit once, you accepted two of them. You knew that he had an account with betphoenix.. took his money first time around, he redeposited, was about to hit a parlay and then you decide to cancel his account and refund his deposit. Sorry but I think that is poor business. You can use this whole ********** thing as an excuse but I think most of us know that essentially, you didn't want to pay that 5000+ to someone who charged back a sisterbook... but as long as he was losing you were going to allow him to play. I can understand what you are saying about the chargebacks but YOU were the one that chose to let him play as long as he loses but if he wins, flag the account and give him his deposits back. Why did you not cancel his account when he initially signed up? This was handled completely wrong and I think you know it. The account should have been cancelled before any wagers were placed and you guys should honor the wagers that were placed since you did allow him to deposit twice and you allowed the wager to actually begin. If I called you and told you in the middle of a parlay that i wanted to cancel that wager, would you allow me to? You guys should have to follow the same rules.

[clarkd32]

he was 1.5 games through a 4 game parlay... how is that considered "about to hit a parlay"?

also... and I'm not sure how sportsbooks work... but dealing with credit card payments and 3rd party processors isn't always that easy. sure, getting verification that the credit card is valid isn't difficult and can be done quickly. but the process implemented that identifies an account as having a **********, especially when it is with a 'sister book' very well may take a day or two to get identified. it isn't like this poster made a deposit last month and then made another one this month. he made two deposits in the matter of 2-3 days. this is just from my experience in dealing with 3rd party credit card vendors - but in a different line of business.

[dlw902]

when a team has a 20+ pt lead, another team has a 7 pt cushion, chances are neither will lose... especially considering LSU is better than MSU. Then you factor in that Oklahoma killed Baylor first time around, which they ended up killing them the next game too... pretty much factored down to one game IMO. So you mean to say that you believe that the processor just told him that there was a ********** at 9:00 PM in the middle of a winning parlay? hmm, I believe that, not. He knew this guy had an account with betphoenix... I've come to one conclusion and that is they were going to let him lose money but wasn't going to let him win any... Books should have to play by the same rules as the players. I can't cancel a parlay mid-way through it, so they shouldn't be able to either.

[trixtrix]

some of these newbie 10$ parlay posters make no sense, i don't necessarily agree w/ betphoenix methodology here.. but if betp really wanted him to keep losing until he wins, and then kick him out.. why would they refund back his first deposit?

1.) if they wanted to keep his losses they would've kept the first deposit and only refunded the 2nd AFTER the entire parlay outcome is known...

2.) if one claims that this is a premeditated strike by betp who knew beforehand that his history at sport-1. one has to follow up to the illogical conclusion that, despite knowing this posters scamming and ********** history. betp had to have legitimately *thought* that they would be able to keep his losses, ie his deposits and the scammer would then NOT ********** despite previous history to do so.. now does this theory sound at all plausible to anyone who knows anything about running a business?

[dlw902]

why doesnt' Richard explain why his account wasn't cancelled right away. He knew that the guy had signed up... I'll wait for a response.

PS, you've had 81 total posts and you can come on here and call people newbie posters? good try.

[reno cool]

some of these newbie 10$ parlay posters make no sense, i don't necessarily agree w/ betphoenix methodology here.. but if betp really wanted him to keep losing until he wins, and then kick him out.. why would they refund back his first deposit?

1.) if they wanted to keep his losses they would've kept the first deposit and only refunded the 2nd AFTER the entire parlay outcome is known...

2.) if one claims that this is a premeditated strike by betp who knew beforehand that his history at sport-1. one has to follow up to the illogical conclusion that, despite knowing this posters scamming and ********** history. betp had to have legitimately *thought* that they would be able to keep his losses, ie his deposits and the scammer would then NOT ********** despite previous history to do so.. now does this theory sound at all plausible to anyone who knows anything about running a business?

by the same logic you can say they had to return the first deposit because he would charge back that sense they refuse to pay winnings. And of course, he would be justified.

[trixtrix]

no, i said newbie b/c you show a lack of understanding of gambling as a business... nice to see you revert to a newbie tactic when you can't attack the logic so you have to attack the poster

of course they had to return his first deposit b/c the poster would've charged back anyways, i said so in an earlier post. even the guy from betp admitted that the guy would've charged back due to his history. but that's the pt of bullet 2.), why in the world would any book even believe they would've been able to keep any losses (ie deposits) in the 1st place due to poster's past behaviour?

p.s: obv betp had some internal operational breakdowns that allowed the poster to join up and deposit twice in the first place. i addressed this in my post when i said i don't agree w/ betp's handling methodology in this case. the pt of my post is to point out the illogicality of someone who believes this is some sort of a preconceived attack on betp's part instead of some type of operational breakdown of the process.

compare/contrast this w/ beted's case, which is the completely opposite..

[Santo]

"why doesnt' Richard explain why his account wasn't cancelled right away. He knew that the guy had signed up... I'll wait for a response."

I've still yet to see proof of this. The poster says he sent an e-mail. That is no proof that Richard either saw the email or researched the players background at that second. People working for sportsbooks aren't omnipresent, you can't fully research every signup at the moment they register.

[RJbetphoenix]

Simple, the timeline of the actual ********** is the reason. Sports-1 was still attempting to refund, and looking afterwards to maintain the client via other deposit options. A week or so later the ********** came. As soon as that info came all activity was canceled and all refunds applied from Phoenix's side immeadiately. We were not attempting to keep losses etc because there is no point.

[dlw902]

Simple, the timeline of the actual ********** is the reason. Sports-1 was still attempting to refund, and looking afterwards to maintain the client via other deposit options. A week or so later the ********** came. As soon as that info came all activity was canceled and all refunds applied from Phoenix's side immeadiately. We were not attempting to keep losses etc because there is no point.

ok, that all I wanted to know. I still find it very odd that it was cancelled in the middle of a parlay that hit but I'll live with the answer. I do not believe for one second that that information came in at 9:05 PM right before you cancelled his account. That is way too coincidental. I still feel like you were going to let him lose but if he won then you were going to cancel... but that is fine. Good luck to BetPhoenix and UCBearcats in the future.

[RJbetphoenix]

Again, I moved to cancel transactions as soon as I got the word that the guy charged back. In all honesty I was on the freeway home at that time. I did not care what the play was, If he had losers, winners, pushes, or even just a charge in the account with no activity. It all became moot right then.

[ucbearcats1027]

the charge back should not matter since the money was suspossed to be refunded anyway. thats my whole point. you just said that sports-1.com wanted to refund the charges and maintain the client relationship via other deposit methods but the charge back didn't create any loss for you or any gain for me. They were suspossed to be refunded anyway.

[reno cool]

Simple, the timeline of the actual ********** is the reason. Sports-1 was still attempting to refund, and looking afterwards to maintain the client via other deposit options. A week or so later the ********** came. As soon as that info came all activity was canceled and all refunds applied from Phoenix's side immeadiately. We were not attempting to keep losses etc because there is no point.

So you're admitting that the clients previous record (before the original dispute) was good, and the book didn't want to lose him. This goes against the notion that he's simply a scam artist and would charge back any losses.

[robmpink]

the charge back should not matter since the money was suspossed to be refunded anyway. thats my whole point. you just said that sports-1.com wanted to refund the charges and maintain the client relationship via other deposit methods but the charge back didn't create any loss for you or any gain for me. They were suspossed to be refunded anyway.

Listen, I in no way am making fun of you and am not a spelling whiz. But if I read another post from you and see suspossed I may vomit. The word is supposed. No s.

[ucbearcats1027]

ha sorry

[robmpink]

ha sorry

No prob. Hope things work out.

[RJbetphoenix]

Not what I am saying. I am not looking to argue over it with you. I would make the same decision again for Phoenix. If you were on this side of the desk you would see it like this too.

Reno Cool would have paid the man...I know. So here you go Reno. Here will be your net for the guy you are going to bat for...

+ $500 CC deposit
-.8% Fees = 40
-overhead costs= say 50
-Player wins 5800 parlay (est.)= -5800 including risk.
-Free Payment (1 per month) = 40

Net on client= -5930 - +500 (risk) = -$5430
Payment to client = $5930
********** from client -500
********** fee from processor -50 (min)

New Total Net From Client= $5930 (win + risk + expenses) + $500 (**********) + $50 (********** Fee) = -$6480.

Rough result...but close.

[dlw902]

hmm so what you're saying is you cancelled because you felt like he had a good shot to hit the parlay? You make 5800 off of people in a couple of hours.. i think the assessment that as long as he was losing, you were going to keep him as a phoenix member fits this scenario perfectly.

[reno cool]

you make it sound like he's a lock to ********** any and all deposits. I don't see enough evidence for that.

[ucbearcats1027]

we will see what osga and the licensing company says

[durito]

you make it sound like he's a lock to ********** any and all deposits. I don't see enough evidence for that.

The fact that he'd already done a charge back + bet his entire deposit on a parlay makes it extremely likely he would charge back if it lost. That's sportsbook scamming 101.

I'd prefer to see any bets that are made canceled before the game starts, but you can't catch everything immediately.

[durito]

we will see what osga and the licensing company says

lol

maybe you can pay your "lawyer" to fly down to costa rica and file suit there.

[ucbearcats1027]

sorry i didnt no you were not allowed to bet your bankroll on a parlay. i wanted to hit the parlay so that i could bet bigger amounts on other games and i was pretty confident it was going to hit

[reno cool]

The fact that he'd already done a charge back + bet his entire deposit on a parlay makes it extremely likely he would charge back if it lost. That's sportsbook scamming 101.

I'd prefer to see any bets that are made canceled before the game starts, but you can't catch everything immediately.

If one is going to consider the charge back at the other book shouldn't they consider all of his history at that book and others if possible?

[BouncedCheck]

I just read through this entire thread, and aside from the laughter and giggles, I have a few observations. I'd originally written a lot of questions, but since I'm new here, I figure it would be better not to stir the pot so much right away, so I'm only going to share observations.

I think this guy has less than zero credibility, but I hate seeing people convicted of a future crime they haven't even committed yet, especially when it's based solely on circumstantial evidence. Yeah, he probably would have charged back betphoenix if that 4-team parlay had lost, but this isn't Minority Report and I'd lay out a lot of money that says this guy ain't Tom Cruise. Although they clearly had good reason, I don't like how betphoenix canceled a bet they had originally accepted.

First, he claims after he requested his withdrawal at sports-1.com, the money was never deducted from his betting account. Delays in payments, electronic glitches when transferring money, etc., I understand, but once the withdrawal is requested, the funds should be removed from the betting account immediately. Maybe it was an honest mistake on the part of sports-1.com, but they're leaving themselves open to criticism. It's too easy for someone to come along and say they left the money there hoping he would get drunk, play more blackjack (while impersonating his 13 year old poodle), and blow his whole bank again. I totally think he was wrong for initiating the **********, and even more wrong for later lying about it here. But it takes two to tango, and both sides are looking bad right now in my eyes.

My guess is that he wasn't a top priority to betphoenix and hadn't done anything to draw attention to himself until they realized he had a pretty decent chance of winning that parlay. THAT and only that is what got their attention. Then they quickly investigated his account history at the sister book and discovered information that would have given them legitimate reason to suspend all his accounts for life, irrespective of the pending parlay wager.

I believe Richard when he says he got the call when he was on the freeway and made the decision without considering the possible outcome of the parlay. But the timing of it stinks like high hell. Again, this family of books is opening itself up to criticism, because it's easy for someone to come along and say they were freerolling the player by taking his bet without having any intention to honor it if it would have won, which it ultimately did. It's important to nip these cancers in the bud before they turn into a total debacle, which I think this is.

It's simple really. In the future, anyone who first blows $6000 in black jack and then gets half of it back by basically crawling back to the bookie crying about it and claiming it was his 13 year old kid, and then does a **********, should be banned for life from the entire family of books.

Why he was allowed to register and deposit at betphoenix is beyond me. Since they accepted his bet, they should honor it. Part of the risk of taking credit cards is that it will inevitably attract deadbeats to the site who try to freeroll the book. Due to the nature of gambling, if a bet is placed and accepted, it should be irrevocable by either party unless they mutually agree to cancel it, which is why I think BetEd couldn't have been more wrong with their recent $6600 scandal. If the player loses, don't be a pussy or a scammer and initiate a **********. If the player wins, the book should stand by its acceptance of the bet, even under trying circumstances such as this. In the BetEd case, all the mundane details about what rules were broken are tangential to the fact that a wager was placed and accepted by the book. That's all that should matter, ever.