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.
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.
good assessment
