[romaine]

Great!

Yeah, but even though I feel like throwing some monumental party myself right now I prefer to stay alert and wait for things to happen. Looks good, though.

[vanzack]

So whats the resolution?

Glad to hear this is getting resolved.

[tacomax]

If this is resolved to the players advantage then, mark my words, it will be solely due to Buddybear and his "voice of conscience".

[Bill Dozer]

5Dimes has decided to credit Romaine and the other Austrian accounts in full for these parlays. Payment will be sent today.

5Dimes believes it was clear to Romaine that the limit was $200. The player asked for an increase in limits but was told that was as high as 5Dimes would allow on minor league tennis. 5D's caps on parlays have always been the same as allowed on a single bet but this changed about a week earlier with 5Dimes' new software. The player was able to get 100x the straight limit down on parlays. (This software is now corrected and will apply correct limits.)

5Dimes felt the limit was clear and that the player used the parlays to circumvent. However, 5Dimes has always been able to say that if they book the bet, they pay the bet and want to continue to do so without debate. They acknowledge that the rules did not address this exact situation and they recognize that the matter was not addressed when it needed to be.

I personally give credit to 5Dimes for this customer-is-always-right conclusion. I do agree that the player should be paid since he was able to put his funds at risk and also agree with 5Dimes that the player knew he was circumventing limits, at least initially. This might be the industry's very first 20k+ Challenger Tennis parlay.

[vanzack]

5Dimes has decided to credit Romaine and the other Austrian accounts in full for these parlays. Payment will be sent today.

5Dimes believes it was clear to Romaine that the limit was $200. The player asked for an increase in limits but was told that was as high as 5Dimes would allow on minor league tennis. 5D's caps on parlays have always been the same as allowed on a single bet but this changed about a week earlier with 5Dimes' new software. The player was able to get 100x the straight limit down on parlays. (This software is now corrected and will apply correct limits.)

5Dimes felt the limit was clear and that the player used the parlays to circumvent. However, 5Dimes has always been able to say that if they book the bet, they pay the bet and want to continue to do so without debate. They acknowledge that the rules did not address this exact situation and they recognize that the matter was not addressed when it needed to be.

I personally give credit to 5Dimes for this customer-is-always-right conclusion. I do agree that the player should be paid since he was able to put his funds at risk and also agree with 5Dimes that the player knew he was circumventing limits, at least initially. This might be the industry's very first 20k+ Challenger Tennis parlay.

Kudos to 5dimes. Big time.

As for our Austrian friend Romaine - I guess its time to "throw another shrimp on the barbie" and say "G'day mate"!!!

[bigboydan]

Glad to see this dispute finally was resolved, and payment will be processed.


Heres A quote we as players should never forget.

5Dimes has always been able to say that if they book the bet, they pay the bet and want to continue to do so without debate.

[vanzack]

This thread is a nice example of when not to jump to conclusions about a player or the book.

Both (in my opinion) were at fault here but there was a resolution. Romaine gets his money and Tony hunts him down in the outback of Austria until the day he dies.

everyone is happy.

[romaine]

Some of you will be glad to hear that I just received a Neteller amount of MY FULL REMAINING BALANCE AT 5DIMES

That's right. Bill totally worked it out for me and I am a little speechless right now.

I will go and celebrate now my very own X-mas miracle. But be sure to hear more from me tomorrow. .

[tacomax]

Now that this has all been resolved, I think it's appropriate for me to make a "Best Of" compilation of some of the classic quips in this thread. Oh, and good work, SBR.

FYI: Arhimed.....hmm, let's see for a moment. 5dimes helps pay SBR's bills. Romaine does not. I wonder who SBR is going to side with here.

Do you think for one moment SBR is going to do anything about this situation...do you even think SBR is even working on the "case" here

Romaine means absolutely nothing to SBR and if anything, SBR will get a small cut of the money 5dimes stole from Romaine.

How can I make it anymore simple. One side pays you, the other side doesn't. Given that SBR is a profit-seeking enterprise, I would bet they side with the person who is paying them. It's as simple as that.....

Sorry to burst your bubble Romaine....there is no "investigation," there is no "progress" that John reported, there is no "dispute" here according to them......Sorry Romaine you aren't going to see that money you won...i am sorry I had to be the one to tell you if you haven't figured it out already.

[SBR_John]

Good work all involved. I would just note that Bill works on these type of disputes everyday and most never see their 1st thread or post.

Without even seeing Bill's final report I can add that I think 5Dimes did the right thing. The book had a good case but it fell short because of a lack of rules to match their new software, and a lack of detailed rules in general. If its not written in the rules then its not a rule. I think thats the bottom line.

[Patrick McIrish]

5Dimes has decided to credit Romaine and the other Austrian accounts in full for these parlays. Payment will be sent today.

5Dimes believes it was clear to Romaine that the limit was $200. The player asked for an increase in limits but was told that was as high as 5Dimes would allow on minor league tennis. 5D's caps on parlays have always been the same as allowed on a single bet but this changed about a week earlier with 5Dimes' new software. The player was able to get 100x the straight limit down on parlays. (This software is now corrected and will apply correct limits.)

5Dimes felt the limit was clear and that the player used the parlays to circumvent. However, 5Dimes has always been able to say that if they book the bet, they pay the bet and want to continue to do so without debate. They acknowledge that the rules did not address this exact situation and they recognize that the matter was not addressed when it needed to be.

I personally give credit to 5Dimes for this customer-is-always-right conclusion. I do agree that the player should be paid since he was able to put his funds at risk and also agree with 5Dimes that the player knew he was circumventing limits, at least initially. This might be the industry's very first 20k+ Challenger Tennis parlay.

Very nice work Bill.

[sergfro]

good job...this all wouldnt of happened if you guys didnt vioce your displeasure

[Sean]

good job...this all wouldnt of happened if you guys didnt vioce your displeasure

Dispute resolution efforts and player complaint investigations are underway almost daily at SBR regardless of whether or not the issues makes it to this forum.

[Shack]

For once the player gets what he deserves and the book gets to keep their reputation. Damn, so many books make it look so difficult to do the right thing. Thank God for SBR to be a viable source of info. and power(not close to God though).
I wish other disputes could be solved correctly like this one is.

[Lucas]

very nice work SBR!
i think we can not demand more from A bookie, every manager is only proud God, sorry human

[szk1983]

Guys, the important thing here is to remember that there were many posts completely bashing 5dimes, and jumped to the conclusion that they were wrong. This is why they are an A book. And as i've said all through this post, they have never stolen money from a player, and i'm sure never will.

[TLD]

I think some will interpret this as the player was clearly right, and the book tried to screw him and only very reluctantly paid up when it realized not doing so would do too much damage to its reputation.

I don’t, though. I think this was very much a gray area case, and it is generous of 5 Dimes to pay 100% of the claim when they could have made a very good argument for a compromise settlement.

Good job by 5 Dimes. And a good job as usual by the SBR crew.

[Bill Dozer]

I think some will interpret this as the player was clearly right, and the book tried to screw him and only very reluctantly paid up when it realized not doing so would do too much damage to its reputation.

I don’t, though. I think this was very much a gray area case, and it is generous of 5 Dimes to pay 100% of the claim when they could have made a very good argument for a compromise settlement.

Good job by 5 Dimes. And a good job as usual by the SBR crew.

There probably could have been a settlement but it wasn't about the money for 5D. If the player wanted to give the money to charity it would have been sent on day 1. In the end 5D went the way of a good consumer business that takes 100% of the responsibility while believing it was only partly at fault. That is what is expected from a top book.

[SBR_John]

Good post TLD, very accurate.

5Dimes did have a very good arguement. But when you really broke down the rules, as 5Dimes wrote them, it became clear that this player did not break any. He might of taken advantage of a 5Dimes rules oversight and clearly 5Dimes never intended for players to wager in the manner the player did. Still, its up to the sportsbooks to spell out the rules for the players to follow.

[Santo]

Kudos to 5dimes. Big time.

As for our Austrian friend Romaine - I guess its time to "throw another shrimp on the barbie" and say "G'day mate"!!!

You're thinking Australia, not Austria :P

[BadAzz]

Yep, I think he should put on those Tyrolian lederhosen and go yodling to the mountains instead.

Work well done here SBR.

[Korchnoi]

I think some will interpret this as the player was clearly right, and the book tried to screw him and only very reluctantly paid up when it realized not doing so would do too much damage to its reputation.

I don’t, though. I think this was very much a gray area case, and it is generous of 5 Dimes to pay 100% of the claim when they could have made a very good argument for a compromise settlement.

Good job by 5 Dimes. And a good job as usual by the SBR crew.

Good post TLD, very accurate.

5Dimes did have a very good arguement. But when you really broke down the rules, as 5Dimes wrote them, it became clear that this player did not break any. He might of taken advantage of a 5Dimes rules oversight and clearly 5Dimes never intended for players to wager in the manner the player did. Still, its up to the sportsbooks to spell out the rules for the players to follow.

Can you please summarize 5Dimes's argument. Did they prove he opened multiple accounts? How was he able to circumvent the rule? How did he put 100x the max straight wager in parlays? What's with asking Romaine to deposit more money, were they going to take that too? Did 5Dimes provide you with any of the chat logs that Romaine requested??

[kdmfox]

From Buddy Bear

Sorry to burst your bubble Romaine....there is no "investigation," there is no "progress" that John reported, there is no "dispute" here according to them......Sorry Romaine you aren't going to see that money you won...i am sorry I had to be the one to tell you if you haven't figured it out already.

I think Buddy Bear should have the last word on this thread ... Good job SBR, Bill and John.

[BuddyBear]

From Buddy Bear




I think Buddy Bear should have the last word on this thread ... Good job SBR, Bill and John.

I think I will have the last word and I can assure you that I stand by my comments and if nothing else they have been reinforced by this latest incident. Most of you fail to realize the bigger argument that I am making on here that have largely gone unaddressed throughout this thread and other threads in which I have had these debates. A few of you get it...and for those of you who don't, well you'll never get it. The basic premise of my argument is that people, in all industries, who take uneven distributions of money from the interests in which they are suppose to regulate can never be fair evaluators of the items especially when they are "dependent" as opposed to "independent." for their support We can debate about the extant of influence but we can't debate about whether one is influenced or not. That's the basic argument I have been making all along and feel free to challenge it. I mean do you really think I give two penetrates over whether VIP is an A or an A- or an A+ book? Either way, it's one of the better books out there. The argument I make is strictly theoretical and exists at the conceptual level. Sure are grades off....yeah some are, most aren't though. But that's never been my concern. When you have humans rating books there is always going to be some sort of variance, sometimes high, some times low. But if you think that's what I am debating you aren't reading my posts very carefully.

Notwithstanding, some watchdog groups are clearly better than others. As i've mentioned in this thread and in others we ALWAYS give SBR the benefit of the doubt no matter what. After all, we post here and are guests on this site and have daily interactions with the management who by all acconts are honorable people. As I've said in numerous threads, SBR does far more good than bad and its not even close. However, that does not mean we should adopt the TACO model and just stay silent and believe everything that we are told and ignore anything that may produce unfavorable or questionable evaluations. It's our job as posters and citizens in general to ask tough questions and challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom.

Now, in this situation we can look at in a number of different ways. We can take a look at this as an example of the "system" working or really we can take a look at it as a reinforcement of the status quo. But that's one way and there other ways in looking at it as everyone should interpret it differently. For instance, this is clearly a situation where had SBR not intervened 5dimes would not have returned the money and their management acted about as unprofessionallly as one possibly can. Therefore, a better question to ask is why does SBR still list 5dimes an A book when it is clear that they would have taken their money? So in essence you have a situation where SBR confers a book with its highest grade yet has to fight tooth and nail to retrieve the money from this same "A" book for a situation where the book was clearly in the wrong. So why not just mark the book down even to an A- temporarily as a way that reflects this incident as a way to prevent future incidents like this? After all, they would not have returned the money had they not been pressured but there are apparently no consequences for their actions?

Anyway....good luck the rest of the way. See you guys next year.

[bigloser]

So did the guy have multiple account as suggested in Tonys post ?

[vanzack]

You're thinking Australia, not Austria :P

Its a dumb and dumber reference.

[SBR_John]

Thats a pretty long read BB. I didn't actually read it but I think what you are trying to say is: another one of my stupid conspiracy theories bites the dust! (dam it the player got paid ). But nevermind that im working a new conspiracy all the time!

[BuddyBear]

Thats a pretty long read BB. I didn't actually read it but I think what you are trying to say is: another one of my stupid conspiracy theories bites the dust! (dam it the player got paid ). But nevermind that im working a new conspiracy all the time!

Sorry I should have realized that someone who voted for George Bush twice would not be able to process a three paragraph statement. If you want, I can send you it in 3 weekly installments instead.

As one would expect....SBR champions itself as a leader in allowing its posters to criticize then yet when one does, he is branded as a conspiracy theorist. Not much different than those who criticize Israel who are called anti-semites or those who criticize the U.S. gvmt as unpatriotic.

Basically...you are welcome to criticize SBR but if you do, you are a conspiracy theorists with some sort of agenda

Have a nice Christmas and New Year John....see you next year for some more fun.

[SBR_John]

Thanks Buddy, you too!

BTW, I did not vote for Bush twice. Once was enough.

[Korchnoi]

Can you please summarize 5Dimes's argument. Did they prove he opened multiple accounts? How was he able to circumvent the rule? How did he put 100x the max straight wager in parlays? What's with asking Romaine to deposit more money, were they going to take that too? Did 5Dimes provide you with any of the chat logs that Romaine requested??

Will you forget about BuddyBear for a second and answer MY reasonable questions?

[SBR_John]

Korchnoi, I'm not going to go in all the details. It was obviuosly a case of circumventing limits. The player wheeled two team parlays to grossly exceed the 5Dimes straight bet limits. The problem in simple form was 5Dimes did not have stated limits on parlays and their new software was not able to id the risk. So the events went off with the bets in action. The last point is key. The player would have lost and the 2nd point was there was no rule written prohibiting multiple pops on parlays which was obviously just an unfortunate oversight.

[bigloser]

So did the guy have multiple account as suggested in Tonys post ?

Please

[Korchnoi]

Korchnoi, I'm not going to go in all the details. It was obviuosly a case of circumventing limits. The player wheeled two team parlays to grossly exceed the 5Dimes straight bet limits. The problem in simple form was 5Dimes did not have stated limits on parlays and their new software was not able to id the risk. So the events went off with the bets in action. The last point is key. The player would have lost and the 2nd point was there was no rule written prohibiting multiple pops on parlays which was obviously just an unfortunate oversight.

We all want to know if Tony is a lying sleezebucket or not. I don't care that he eventually paid, any rational human being (sleezebucket or not) would have under the circumstances (ie the negative publicity).

[Sam Odom]

5Dimes has always been able to say that if they book the bet, they pay the bet and want to continue to do so without debate.

Good work everyone ! I will re-up w/5Dimes per usual come baseball season

[SBR_John]

Kor,
Do you know the Tony story? Its one of the best human storys in the offshores. Tony was a player. At first he was a small player just another guy. But he was sharp. He became a big sharp player and one of the most feared players anywhere. He then bought a book; 5Dimes. He is not an Oxford grad but he could of done great at MIT.

So yes, Tony is a great guy and 5Dimes is a great book. Do you watch sbrodds? 5Dimes many times has an opinion on a game and you can get some sweet value.