Rule 12(c): If you call wagering line #2 on a Tuesday, you will be stoned to death

[Justin7]

Yes, it's ridiculous. US law doesn't allow crap like this. In fact, US law will pretty much ignore any fine print that goes against what every else does - the industry standard.

I clicked on the Terms and Conditions link for bonuses provided by Shrink here: http://www.oddsmaker.com/terms.php - 33 pages of conditions. Do you really expect anyone to read that? Ok, assume they did.

For the sake of argument, assume everything Oddsmaker and Shrink said is true. What is Oddsmaker's remedy? You don't get to stone the player to death, even if your boilerplate rules say so. *if* Oddsmaker shows the player broke the rules, their "damages" are simply what they suffered from the player breaking the rules. In this case... $0. *if* the player tried to open a second account and failed, Oddsmaker lost nothing.

If gambling were legal in the United States, any court would laugh at Oddsmaker's "defense", and order them to pay the $8400.

To the Shrink, I ask: how can you make a ruling in favor of Oddsmaker that is both 1. unfair, and 2. against contract law in any civilized country? There is not a country in the world with a code of laws that would rule in favor of Oddsmaker.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Shrink only cares about his bottom line. If there was anyone NOT to ask for help in this situation, it's him. A complete and total conflict of interest. He has the spin machine (mo) working double time right now. Absolutely sickening.

[Justin7]

I don't think that Mofome's analysis adds weight to Shrink's opinion.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It certainly shouldn't, but somehow some idiots value his opinion. They both sound ridiculous. They have no answers to the questions that matter. They're both scumbags as far as I'm concerned...

[Justin7]

They're both scumbags as far as I'm concerned...

Focus on the facts. While I understand your point of view, we need to stick to the facts and logic if the player is to be helped, and the industry preserved. Name calling and rhetoric distracts people from facts and logic.

[reno cool]

Yes, it's ridiculous. US law doesn't allow crap like this. In fact, US law will pretty much ignore any fine print that goes against what every else does - the industry standard.

I clicked on the Terms and Conditions link for bonuses provided by Shrink here: http://www.oddsmaker.com/terms.php - 33 pages of conditions. Do you really expect anyone to read that? Ok, assume they did.

For the sake of argument, assume everything Oddsmaker and Shrink said is true. What is Oddsmaker's remedy? You don't get to stone the player to death, even if your boilerplate rules say so. *if* Oddsmaker shows the player broke the rules, their "damages" are simply what they suffered from the player breaking the rules. In this case... $0. *if* the player tried to open a second account and failed, Oddsmaker lost nothing.

If gambling were legal in the United States, any court would laugh at Oddsmaker's "defense", and order them to pay the $8400.

To the Shrink, I ask: how can you make a ruling in favor of Oddsmaker that is both 1. unfair, and 2. against contract law in any civilized country? There is not a country in the world with a code of laws that would rule in favor of Oddsmaker.

I'm not so sure. Gaming commissions are so crooked in favor of casinos. Let alone clueless and ignorant to what goes on.

Was reading a story on Wizardofodds how a casino refused to pay a player who doubled down on a soft19 and drew a 2 for 21. They alleged since the rules say dd allowed on 9 10 11 only, the player was conceding the Ace to count as 1. After the complaint was filed with the gaming board they sided ridiculously with the casino. Now that's some fine print overruling a very basic, widely excepted principle of the game.

[j0hnnyv]

there is a running poll over there of who agrees with what. lets just say only 2 have voted in favor of the book here....i wonder who they were??

this ruling will change in the next few days, the player will be paid imo.

i am shocked the sbr complaint wasnt enuff here....everyother time there is a complaint sbr gets it done. very surprising kenny had huge say on this just because they advertise over there. :clueless:

[englishmike]

Whilst there's absolutely no debate as to the rights and wrongs of this case, let's not forget the naive part SBR played in giving the biased arbitrator ammunition and reason (in his own warped mind) to turn down the claim on grounds of spite alone.

SBR employee The General went over there in a spirit of cooperation and was told his request would be looked into and The Shrink would do all he could to settle the matter amicably. Whilst he was making calls (allegedlly) SBR decided it would be a good idea to publish a front page article that said Oddsmaker were thieves. Despite the fact the allegation is factually correct, why did SBR think it would be a good idea to leave The General high and dry and give the odious Kenny a spiteful reason to turn the claim down flat?

Bottom line is, Oddsmaker are theives and Kenny is complicit in their theivery but that doesn't change the fact he was given the chance to make political statements that were nothing to do with the case and were nothing more than a smokescreen to get out of paying the guy, but SBR gave him the chance to do it.

Why that article couldn't have been left on the shelf for a week I'll never know and if I was The General i'd feel very let down.

[Justin7]

I'm not so sure. Gaming commissions are so crooked in favor of casinos. Let alone clueless and ignorant to what goes on.

Was reading a story on Wizardofodds how a casino refused to pay a player who doubled down on a soft19 and drew a 2 for 21. They alleged since the rules say dd allowed on 9 10 11 only, the player was conceding the Ace to count as 1. After the complaint was filed with the gaming board they sided ridiculously with the casino. Now that's some fine print overruling a very basic, widely excepted principle of the game.

I actually am very familiar with that complaint. That is the industry standard though (when playing a poor game like that). In that instance, the player doubled with a "9", received a 2, and lost with an "11". While the rules are poor, I think any casino that plays with that rule would grade that hand the same way. At one point Caesar's palace had some similar rules... I don't remember if it was the Pussycat Pit or the $25 bleachers, but I avoided it.

[englishmike]

there is a running poll over there of who agrees with what. lets just say only 2 have voted in favor of the book here....i wonder who they were??

this ruling will change in the next few days, the player will be paid imo.

i am shocked the sbr complaint wasnt enuff here....everyother time there is a complaint sbr gets it done. very surprising kenny had huge say on this just because they advertise over there. :clueless:

Kenny was asked to arbitrate by an SBR employee.

[reno cool]

Wow! I didn't know that. I guess I haven't been around games with that rule. Who would assume that if they let you dd they're changing the standard way cards are counted in 21. That seems way out of line to me.

[Dark Horse]

I remember that Shrink personally guaranteed any oddsmaker account for up to 5K, if a player ever ran into trouble there.

So now we see how that works, and what that's worth.

[Justin7]

englishmike,

The General was just being diligent. If he took a swing with Oddsmaker and failed, going to EOG was a logical way to give the player a second "at bat". There have been many times where a book doesn't respond the way I want, and I try a different approach. If the player is more likely to get his money, it's a good idea. While I don't know what the odds were that Shrink would help the player (and he still might), it was certainly greater than 0%... In General's position, I surely would have done the same thing.

[englishmike]

Don't misunderstand my position, I'm 100% behind the player and what both the Shrink and Oddsmaker have done is inexcusable and is nothing less than theft, end of story.

The point I make is, once Oddsmaker were branded theives by your article, what motivation was for them to pay, their name was blackened anyway, they had absolutely no motivation to pay and there was no leverage (by way of the threat of an article) that could then be used to threaten the Shrink with. Shrink had no reason to side with the player, his sponsor has already been tried in the court of public opinion before their decision was due, why would they pay?

I've no wish to argue, i'm just balancing.

[Chi_archie]

whole situation has me shaking my head

[MonkeyF0cker]

Mike,

Oddsmaker can still save face. Right now, they seem completely underhanded. If they were to reverse course and pay Jimmy, at least it would give the impression that they are willing to listen and agree to fair arbitration for future resolution.

[tacomax]

To the Shrink, I ask: how can you make a ruling in favor of Oddsmaker that is both 1. unfair, and 2. against contract law in any civilized country? There is not a country in the world with a code of laws that would rule in favor of Oddsmaker.

Good post.

But he backs Oddsmaker with his own money. And if he's concerned about his own profit over players being treated fairly then he made the right decision. Also, he's probably in the wrong business.

[reno cool]

8k or save face? I'm thinking they prefer 8K.
It sounds funny for us to discuss this when it seems we have no leverage.

[englishmike]

Mike,

Oddsmaker can still save face. Right now, they seem completely underhanded. If they were to reverse course and pay Jimmy, at least it would give the impression that they are willing to listen and agree to fair arbitration for future resolution.

Totally agree but I'd doubt he's man enough to reverse now, ego etc.

[tacomax]

8k or save face? I'm thinking they prefer 8K.

Exactly. These guys ain't WSEX.

[englishmike]

8k or save face? I'm thinking they prefer 8K.
It sounds funny for us to discuss this when it seems we have no leverage.

There's a perceived leverage of deciding whether to play there or not, I can only imagine how many withdrawal requests go in this week.

[MonkeyF0cker]

These types of disputes always reinforce my decision to move to Vegas. I'm really glad I don't have to deal with these types of things any more. That $8k would probably be the best advertising they could possibly purchase right now.

[englishmike]

That's the bit I dont get. They will lose this 8K 50 times over, they could have even got away with offering 4K, it makes no sense.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Focus on the facts. While I understand your point of view, we need to stick to the facts and logic if the player is to be helped, and the industry preserved. Name calling and rhetoric distracts people from facts and logic.

Sorry. I've been involved in the discussion all day across the street and I'm exhausted of talking about the facts in this case. I'm just calling it as I see it.

[unknown Gambler]

Its like the Dumb & Dumber show happening across the street, beteween the head Mod Mofo making a complete fool of himself, contradicting his previous posts, hes reverted to calling Jimmy the player in question, a liar and a cheat,he called the decision an EASY ONE, now he says there looking at other stuff..lol.

Ken his fearless leader made a ``FINAL VERDICT``posted it on his Homepage, now it may not be final.

I think the heat is getting to hot in the kitchen for them , their bailing, and i think this could be good news for Jimmy.

[englishmike]

I just ploughed my way through both the threads over there and I take back what I said. Although I still think the timing of the article was ill-advised I can now see it didn't matter. Just by reading their replies you can see the arrogance and they either had no motivation to pay or were on the take and it's great to see them trying to backpeddle, but the bottom line is they're slimeballs with absolutely no professionalism or integrity, as is evidenced by their replies.

The irony is the guy will now get paid. They could never have anticipated the backlash from their own people and it's blatently obvious they're just structuring the best 'win-win' as they see it whilst gently dropping hints about a u-turn.

Two good things come from this. The arrogance and pure naivety of the people over there is undeniable, to the point where their own posters are scratching their heads and wondering what they're doing there, and secondly, Oddsmaker.com is wounded beyond repair, just snap its neck and get it over with.

[tacomax]

I clicked on the Terms and Conditions link for bonuses provided by Shrink here: http://www.oddsmaker.com/terms.php - 33 pages of conditions. Do you really expect anyone to read that? Ok, assume they did.

BTW, I love the way that on of the paid posters at EOG likened reading the T&Cs to that of a mortgage. I've had a mortgage and it was nowhere near 33 pages. And I probably never got past page 2, I had faith that the document I signed wouldn't screw me over for no good reason in the future. That's how normal legal documents work.

The 33 pages of conditions here is akin to signing a credit card bill in a restaurant on the assumption that if you don't clean your plate thoroughly at the end of the meal, the restaurant has first dibs on your first born son. Unreal.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The EOG bumper sticker:

I hired a team of six lawyers to run through the T&C so I can create an account, accept a bonus, bet, withdraw, and get stiffed at Oddsmaker.com.

[jjgold]

To the Shrink, I ask: how can you make a ruling in favor of Oddsmaker that is both 1. unfair, and 2. against contract law in any civilized country? There is not a country in the world with a code of laws that would rule in favor of Oddsmaker.

He ruled in favor of them because they pay him to always rule in favor of them, Shrink made a fool of himself.

[durito]

I remember that Shrink personally guaranteed any oddsmaker account for up to 5K, if a player ever ran into trouble there.

So now we see how that works, and what that's worth.

That "guarantee" has a whole list of onerous requirements that jimmy certainly didn't follow as he didn't know about EOG before hand.

[durito]

Professional players or PLAYERS CONSIDERED TO BE ABUSING THE BONUS SYSTEM BY ANY MEANS may have bonuses revoked and be subject to further sanctions, at the discretion of OddsMaker.com management.

He cites this rule over and over again. This rule is so vague it basically could let them do anything they want. Win a parlay? You are a professional and we are taking all your money. In the case, there was no intent to abuse the bonus system, no actual abuse, and zero reason for taking his money.

[Bread]

I hope to one day get called a cheat, a liar and a piece of shit all in the name of leverage.

[pavyracer]

Allow poster to poster gambing at SBR. Then we won't have to worry about crooked books like Oddsmaker.

[nosniboR11]

good job Justin.


Justin top and most respected poster on SBR