YouWager Invented Lies and is Confiscating My $77,721

[hudnutter]

Sure, if I didn't work here of course I wouldn't be dumb enough to say anything the angry mob does not want to hear.

Calling the genuine concern of SBR's core customers an "angry mob" seems like it might not be best for building brand affiliation. But, hey, what do I know?

Consider this though: maybe if there is an "angry mob," there's a reason for it. Can you point me to the threads where there are "angry mobs" of customers ranting about BetOnline? Or about BetCRIS? Weird that this "angry mob" seems to correlate pretty well with something called "theft." Maybe you can point me to the "angry mobs" that are furious about the dishonest behavior of state-run casinos in New Jersey? I mean, surely we're all just a raving gang of lunatics who just like to complain without any justification. There must be "angry mobs" about all books, right?

[BankrBIG]

But hey, I like this "Let's imagine" game. "Let's imagine you tried to steal $77k from a player and he goes public with it," is a good one. Here's a couple more hypotheticals:"Let's imagine you're a gambler looking for a new site to play at."So you see this one called YouWager, their site looks alright, the bonus is decent, and they're rated "A" at a big review site. You decide to look a little further. You find there are several complaints on the forum. They stole several thousand dollars from a player, and it's not really clear why. Seems kind of shady. Let's look further. Oh, there are several other players that are saying their withdrawals got sent to somebody else. Oh and another player has not received any withdrawals in several weeks, even though he is owed around $30k. It's been two or three weeks and none of it has been resolved. The review site has an appartent employee who is "not taking sides" on something that looks pretty clear to have a right side and a wrong side. So, let's imagine you were thinking of sending money to this sportsbook. Let's imagine you had other options as well. Let's imagine some of the other options also had sites that look nice. And even better bonuses. They also have "A" ratings. And this other site doesn't appear to over several people several thousands. Would you deposit to this "YouWager" site? Or would you try a different one?Fun game.

This is exactly what happened to me. Decided to shop around and see what other books/poker rooms have and stumbled upon this thread. Damn straight I'm not making any deposits here, and the SEO of this site is pretty good, hasn't even been a couple weeks and the thread already shows up in Google when you search my username.

BTW their Poker room sucks ass, I literally saw like 2 players.

[Crusherrr]

Consider this though: maybe if there is an "angry mob," there's a reason for it. Can you point me to the threads where there are "angry mobs" of customers ranting about BetOnline?

BetOnline had MANY angry customers for a few months when their site basically was unusable. You can find customers ranting about just about any site here at one point in time. I suppose you just didn't use the search feature or you would have found those threads with angry mobs ranting about BetOnline.

[milwaukee mike]

Yes, clearly the only option for YouWager is to rob the player blind. I'm sure that will be good for business. A good long-term strategy for building their brand.

The only problem is, YouWager had already made the decision to rob the player, BEFORE he posted anything about it. So your timeline is a little bit off there.

But hey, I like this "Let's imagine" game. "Let's imagine you tried to steal $77k from a player and he goes public with it," is a good one. Here's a couple more hypotheticals:"Let's imagine you're a gambler looking for a new site to play at."So you see this one called YouWager, their site looks alright, the bonus is decent, and they're rated "A" at a big review site. You decide to look a little further. You find there are several complaints on the forum. They stole several thousand dollars from a player, and it's not really clear why. Seems kind of shady. Let's look further. Oh, there are several other players that are saying their withdrawals got sent to somebody else. Oh and another player has not received any withdrawals in several weeks, even though he is owed around $30k. It's been two or three weeks and none of it has been resolved. The review site has an appartent employee who is "not taking sides" on something that looks pretty clear to have a right side and a wrong side. So, let's imagine you were thinking of sending money to this sportsbook. Let's imagine you had other options as well. Let's imagine some of the other options also had sites that look nice. And even better bonuses. They also have "A" ratings. And this other site doesn't appear to over several people several thousands. Would you deposit to this "YouWager" site? Or would you try a different one?Fun game.

Let's keep playing.Let's imagine another of your options was a state-run casino. Let's imagine you don't really trust that online sportsbook review site anymore, since they gave an "A" rating to a sportsbook that seems to be stealing from several players. Let's imagine you are just gambling for fun and don't want to get your money stolen, nor do you want to have to wait for weeks and hope that the online review site will help you. Let's imagine you didn't exactly interpret their behaviour as helpful in those complaints you read about at that top-rated site. Do you think you would send your money to an online sportsbook to the guy who told you on the phone, "Don't worry, we are SBR rated A," with a thick Spanish accent? Or would you just go down the road, where you talk to an American, they have laws and regulation to make sure they don't steal your money? Can you imagine that that might be a better option for you, in this hypothetical?

Can you imagine how SBR not making a sincere effort to help players in a timely manner could simply drive American gamblers to state-run options?

well the "angry mob mentality" seems to be a proper comparison in this case... you seem angry, for what reason?

angry mobs are usually angry about nothing, if/when they learn the facts... since there have been nothing but crickets from the group associated with those "incorrect" bitcoin payouts, let's assume they turned tail and ran... so we're left with the 77k incident.

you're really going to be that angry and feel that much compassion for 1 player who probably broke the rules and then lied about it? what if it turns out he has been doing that for years to youwager with multiple accounts, and won 300k off of them, would that change your mind?

just saying, let's wait until we hear the facts before calling people thieves, facts could be totally different than the 1 side you've heard

[Crusherrr]

just saying, let's wait until we hear the facts before calling people thieves, facts could be totally different than the 1 side you've heard

You've been around for much longer than I have and truth be told in almost every instance I've seen when someone comes here and immediately points the finger and blame at a certain book and even SBR they did so because THEY were the ones who did wrong. Not the book and not SBR. SBR is an advocate for the player and yes YouWager is an A rated sponsor with SBR but we still haven't heard any final determinations in this case or the incorrect bitcoin payout problem. I'm sure we will find out whats going on soon.

The missing/incorrect bitcoin payouts is a major problem and hopefully that gets resolved soon. It's definitely not the first time a book had an issue with bitcoin payouts going to wrong addresses or even (possibly) having an employee stealing/taking the payouts for themselves. If something YouWager did was wrong, I have no doubt that they will do the right thing and make good.

[Optional]

Calling the genuine concern of SBR's core customers an "angry mob" seems like it might not be best for building brand affiliation. But, hey, what do I know?

I hope not too many people think that.

If I give off that impression I had better try to tone it down a bit.


People like MonkeyFocker who turn up at SBR about once a year and attack. People who don't know whats going on yet but start yelling 'SBR is letting them steal' before SBR even know what the book's final position is. People who just seem to want to encourage drama. That's who I mean. Not people with genuine concerns. I bust my nuts trying to help anyone with a genuine problem.

[Optional]

You find there are several complaints on the forum. They stole several thousand dollars from a player, and it's not really clear why.

It will be cleared up.

And if it did turn out that were genuinely "stealing" anything from anyone, it would negatively affect the relationship with SBR and probably the rating too.



It's taking a lot longer than I expected. it's soon.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I hope not too many people think that.

If I give off that impression I had better try to tone it down a bit.


People like MonkeyFocker who turn up at SBR about once a year and attack. People who don't know whats going on yet but start yelling 'SBR is letting them steal' before SBR even know what the book's final position is. People who just seem to want to encourage drama. That's who I mean. Not people with genuine concerns. I bust my nuts trying to help anyone with a genuine problem.

Right. Players like me or anyone else have no "genuine concerns" when a book confiscates $77k from another player while a mod in here is actively defending the poor book's reputation and insinuating that the player is guilty while admitting that the book didn't provide sufficient proof for the confiscation. JFC.

[JoeCool20]

I hope not too many people think that.

If I give off that impression I had better try to tone it down a bit.


People like MonkeyFocker who turn up at SBR about once a year and attack. People who don't know whats going on yet but start yelling 'SBR is letting them steal' before SBR even know what the book's final position is. People who just seem to want to encourage drama. That's who I mean. Not people with genuine concerns. I bust my nuts trying to help anyone with a genuine problem.

LOL I would hope people don't get mad at SBR or the mods if the guy doesn't get paid!

[MonkeyF0cker]

BTW, Optional, you're free to post any quotes where I've attacked anyone regarding sportsbook payouts on SBR in the last four years. In fact, the last thread I commented on in here, I replied to Bill and stated that the player was likely a shot taker.

We both know you're just full of shit.

[JoeCool20]

Originally Posted by hudnutter
But hey, I like this "Let's imagine" game. "Let's imagine you tried to steal $77k from a player and he goes public with it," is a good one. Here's a couple more hypotheticals:"Let's imagine you're a gambler looking for a new site to play at."So you see this one called YouWager, their site looks alright, the bonus is decent, and they're rated "A" at a big review site. You decide to look a little further. You find there are several complaints on the forum. They stole several thousand dollars from a player, and it's not really clear why. Seems kind of shady. Let's look further. Oh, there are several other players that are saying their withdrawals got sent to somebody else. Oh and another player has not received any withdrawals in several weeks, even though he is owed around $30k. It's been two or three weeks and none of it has been resolved. The review site has an appartent employee who is "not taking sides" on something that looks pretty clear to have a right side and a wrong side. So, let's imagine you were thinking of sending money to this sportsbook. Let's imagine you had other options as well. Let's imagine some of the other options also had sites that look nice. And even better bonuses. They also have "A" ratings. And this other site doesn't appear to over several people several thousands. Would you deposit to this "YouWager" site? Or would you try a different one?Fun game.




Posted by "BankrBIG"
"This is exactly what happened to me. Decided to shop around and see what other books/poker rooms have and stumbled upon this thread. Damn straight I'm not making any deposits here, and the SEO of this site is pretty good, hasn't even been a couple weeks and the thread already shows up in Google when you search my username.

BTW their Poker room sucks ass, I literally saw like 2 players."







I would hope nobody deposited in ANY S-book because they had a "good rating" on some web site!!


Because that would mean the person didn't know that the ratings are based on the amount the book pays that particular web site!

The great ratings don't mean that particular book won't lie or steal your money!!

It just means they paid a lot of money to that particular web site to get the "great" rating!!



I had a great experience with a little book that I won't mention, and I asked them "Why is your rating so low on SBR?"


And they said "SBR want us to pay them before they will give us a better rating, and we aren't going to do it."


Making a S-book decision because that book pays a certain web site big money to rate them "A+" is no different than buying some shitty stock because you got a flyer in the mail from some small company who has been paid to "pump" the stock and try to sucker others into buying it!!

[Optional]

Right. Players like me or anyone else have no "genuine concerns" when a book confiscates $77k from another player while a mod in here is actively defending the poor book's reputation and insinuating that the player is guilty while admitting that the book didn't provide sufficient proof for the confiscation. JFC.

It is a genuine concern Monkey.

Just like the OPs behavior since submitting is.


I guess it is showing through that I think he and his mates are P.O.S. personally.

Can you blame me for that when he is all sugary sweet please help me in communications with SBR, within minutes of calling SBR and me scumbags over and again at other forums?

If you are honest and think you have a genuine case with 77k at risk, is that how you would act?

It's certainly not how 90% of complaints for 50k+ amounts usually go down in my experience. The opposite in fact. I often can't convince them to post about it to help me put pressure on where I think it would help.


But hey, gotta be fair about it still. And SBR will be.

[JoeCool20]

Right. Players like me or anyone else have no "genuine concerns" when a book confiscates $77k from another player while a mod in here is actively defending the poor book's reputation and insinuating that the player is guilty while admitting that the book didn't provide sufficient proof for the confiscation. JFC.

LOL man why don't you lay off the guy!!

If you worked here like he does, would you bad mouth any of the S-books that were paying big money to this web site?

Of course not!!

[MonkeyF0cker]

It is a genuine concern Monkey.

Just like the OPs behavior since submitting is.


I guess it is showing through that I think he and his mates are P.O.S. personally.

Can you blame me for that when he is all sugary sweet please help me in communications with SBR, within minutes of calling SBR and me scumbags over and again at other forums?

If you are honest and think you have a genuine case with 77k at risk, is that how you would act?

It's certainly not how 90% of complaints for 50k+ amounts usually go down in my experience. The opposite in fact. I often can't convince them to post about it to help me put pressure on where I think it would help.


But hey, gotta be fair about it still. And SBR will be.

Gotta link? Or is this just more BS like the stuff you made up about me?

[JoeCool20]

I STILL stand by my original comment that there is NO WAY to absolutely and solidly prove that someone was using a "robot bettor"



So therefore it just depends on whether they steal his money because they choose to SAY he did without being able to "solidly" prove it.



I've told y'all a thousand times on here, we are sending our money to strangers and "hoping" that they are fair!


ANY S-book can steal ANY player's money ANY time they want, and there is NOTHING we can do about it!

[Optional]

BTW, Optional, you're free to post any quotes where I've attacked anyone regarding sportsbook payouts on SBR in the last four years. In fact, the last thread I commented on in here, I replied to Bill and stated that the player was likely a shot taker.

We both know you're just full of shit.

Who's full of shit???

Here's a link to your posts. Less than 30 over the last few years.

Nearly every post is a bitter attack on someone!!


You ran off after being owned like an idiot over and again years ago and still have not got over it. And you still can't put together a cogent argument. Just rant like a self righteous loony same as always.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Who's full of shit???

Here's a link to your posts. Less than 30 over the last few years.

Nearly every post is a bitter attack on someone!!


You ran off after being owned like an idiot over and again years ago and still have not got over it. And you still can't put together a cogent argument. Just rant like a self righteous loony same as always.

The only snarky comments are over a guy who said he had a degree in "science" in a political thread. The rest are MORE than cordial.

Owned? LOL. That's why people still mention me in the Think Tank. Funny how they never mention you.

Character assassination is all you have in this thread. It's fvcking pathetic.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The ONLY reason I left this place is because it's been overrun by lying con artists and overall lowlives like you.

[Optional]

Gotta link? Or is this just more BS like the stuff you made up about me?

Do a search. Try 'youwager sbr scumbag optional'. Should get you started on finding some.

[Optional]

That's why people still mention me in the Think Tank.

You are missed from there Monkey. Got to give you that.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Do a search. Try 'youwager sbr scumbag optional'. Should get you started on finding some.

The only thing I'm seeing is a thread on 2+2.

Maybe you could start by saying how the OP is calling you a scumbag there when he's banned from 2+2.

However I am seeing evidence that the OP was banned from SBR...

****

Then you admit to it...

*******

Then you recant with a ridiculous excuse since apparently it's really difficult for a mod to tell if someone is banned on their forum...

*******

Then you admit that the OP is on post review. LOL. Unreal.

********

Funny how everyone uses the excuse that posters disappear here after they file a complaint. How often is this "fair" and "unbiased" behavior happening?

[Optional]

Read the thread.

He wasn't banned.

I was tricked too.

Turns out he was a just logging in directly to a page here that he was restricted from viewing after being moved to post review.

He simply needs to log out and login again from the main forum page.


Also, I am removing all those screenshots from 2+2.

If people want to read the attacks they can go do it over there.




No back-tracking on calling me on BS Monkey

[MonkeyF0cker]

Of course. Likely excuse. He just didn't know how to navigate to his own thread. Sure.

And that explains why a poster who just filed a complaint is now on post review and wasn't previously.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If I were still moderating as Justin7 and handling this dispute, here's how I would have handled it:

Player vs Youwager/77k confiscation

Per the player’s complaint, he opened an account at Youwager in 2016. The player made many wagers and increased his balance to $77,721. In May and June of 2018, the player placed 72 bets for $1 or $3. In June through October, he resumed his normal bets with at least $100,000 more in volume.

Youwager accused the player of using a robot and claimed the 72 small wagers was proof, and that keeping a large balance there was also proof of robot usage. It also claimed that the players’ $1 bets occurred within seconds of line movements as further proof that the player was using a robot (this proof may or may not exist, but it has not been posted publicly.)

In Youwagers’ General Rules, there is prohibition against robots. Rule 13 says “Robot or automated wager is not allowed at FF. If your account is flagged as Bot or automated use, winnings will be reversed and account closed”. The rules also state in rule 9: “Nevada Gaming Commission rules and regulations, payoffs and wager types always apply.”

Issue: Is confiscating a players’ prior balance for subsequent robot play a reasonable remedy?

Assuming Youwager can show robot play, is it reasonable to seize the players’ balance? There are some rules that are reasonable which allow a Sportsbook to seize a balance. If a player uses someone else’s credit card, it is normal to void all wagers due to costs of credit card fraud. If a minor player submits an incorrect age that makes him appear to be a legal adult, that is another case where undoing all transactions is fair. In both those cases, there are huge costs or penalties to the sportsbook if those wagers are allowed to stand (in terms of losing a license or dealing with a claim of credit card fraud.)

Another case where it can be reasonable to revoke a bonus, and winnings based on that bonus occurs when a player that already has an account fraudulently opens up another account with a fake I.D. In this case, the player is making an overt action to defraud the sportsbook, and the transactions related to that fraud can reasonable be voided.

There are also ridiculous rules that sportsbooks have tried to use to fabricate a reason to refuse payment. SBR has dealt with many of these Sportsbooks in the past that use rules as a pretext to seize a player’s balance. Oddsmaker (Rated F) had a free-play promotion with some nasty fine-print: if you placed a single parlay, all your winnings were voided. This rule was unreasonable and contributed to Oddsmaker being demoted to an “F” rating.

Another example of a ridiculous rule was WagerHub (Rated D- at the time), which had a rule banning “non-recreational play”. When WagerHub seized $8200 from a player using this rule, SBR noted that it considered that action theft.

If a rule prevents a harm, and the penalty is related to that harm, the rule is probably reasonable. If a rule is just a ploy to grab a player’s balance, and is either unexpected, or the amount seized unrelated to what occurred, the rule is unreasonable.

If the player used a robot to place 72 micro-wagers, at most the book could do is void those wagers. His winnings from non-robot wagers were fair, and unrelated to the 72 micro-wagers. The player is owed his balance.

What is the remedy for a sportsbook when a player uses a robot or scraper? The reasonable remedy, if the sportsbook does not want that, is to close the account. Indeed, most sportsbooks will close your account or block your IP if you scrape it too often. However, when a Sportsbook uses this as a ploy to seize $77k, that is unacceptable. That is behavior similar to how D- and F books behave. Youwager should pay the player, or be treated as other books that use “gotcha” rules to steal balances and deserve a rating similar to WagerHub or Oddsmaker.

We don’t need to determine if the player actually used a robot, as it has no effect on the correct outcome.

This is what Justin7 had to say about this complaint if anyone from back in the day is interested.

[Optional]

Of course. Likely excuse. He just didn't know how to navigate to his own thread. Sure.

And that explains why a poster who just filed a complaint is now on post review and wasn't previously.

He was on post review as he was attacking SBR and the book. He was not helping himself or SBR work with the book.

And he isn't being prevented from posting. He hasn't tried since the problem came up.


Anyway Monkey. I think I have done enough to entertain you whilst getting nothing back in return now. Have a good night

[MonkeyF0cker]

He was on post review as he was attacking SBR and the book. He was not helping himself or SBR work with the book.

And he isn't being prevented from posting. He hasn't tried since the problem came up.


Anyway Monkey. I think I have done enough to entertain you whilst getting nothing back in return now. Have a good night

Huh? How was the OP attacking SBR and the book without being able to post on 2+2 (he's banned) or here (he was banned and is on post review according to your own words)?

[milwaukee mike]

This is what Justin7 had to say about this complaint if anyone from back in the day is interested.

a reasonable post but with a couple issues

1) youwager wasn't saying that the only robo-bets were the $1 ones, they are saying that pretty much all the bets up to and including those were robo-bets, and that the player only switched to manual betting when a captcha was put on the account
2) justin is saying that "normal behavior" was resumed... all the bets were normal behavior, they were all max bets (?), the only difference was that his limits were temporarily reduced to see if his play would change at all

that said, he is right with the information we currently have available... maybe if he wants to be "holier than thou" he could've done it when his opinion actually fukking mattered in disputes... to do it now, simply to stir the pot, is just being a condescending hypocritical prick imho

let's work together to get the player paid, the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime here

[bubba]

i miss justin7. The most reasonable/wise voice on this forum in its history. He posts under a differnt username? what is it?

[milwaukee mike]

i miss justin7. The most reasonable/wise voice on this forum in its history. He posts under a differnt username? what is it?

daringly on other forums

after some bad decisions in favor of the books (which he now says were bad decisions), he now sides with the player in every dispute without having all the info, primarily out of spite and to make himself look good

he even throws in total crap like "We don’t need to determine if the player actually used a robot, as it has no effect on the correct outcome."

who is we? and why doesn't it matter if the OP is lying? if he is lying about the major issue, then wouldn't it be difficult to assume the rest of what he is saying is true? and if he is telling the truth and youwager is lying, then wouldn't that also be important?

[bubba]

daringly on other forums

after some bad decisions in favor of the books (which he now says were bad decisions), he now sides with the player in every dispute without having all the info, primarily out of spite and to make himself look good

he even throws in total crap like "We don’t need to determine if the player actually used a robot, as it has no effect on the correct outcome."

who is we? and why doesn't it matter if the OP is lying? if he is lying about the major issue, then wouldn't it be difficult to assume the rest of what he is saying is true? and if he is telling the truth and youwager is lying, then wouldn't that also be important?

i cant speak for what he says these days as I dont even know where he posts.

The argument that "even if player used a bot, he shouldnt be robbed of 77k" does not sound that outrageous to me. He gives some examples there how something, even if in the fine print, does not make it right. Players do need protections from hidden/unfair rules. The question I have is if this bot rule qualifies as a hidden/unfair rule. I dont even know the definition of a bot. (just like i dont know the definition of a bad line. haha)

[milwaukee mike]

i cant speak for what he says these days as I dont even know where he posts.

The argument that "even if player used a bot, he shouldnt be robbed of 77k" does not sound that outrageous to me. He gives some examples there how something, even if in the fine print, does not make it right. Players do need protections from hidden/unfair rules. The question I have is if this bot rule qualifies as a hidden/unfair rule. I dont even know the definition of a bot. (just like i dont know the definition of a bad line. haha)

that i agree with, but that's not what he said, he essentially said he knows everything that's relevant (based on 1 person and his buddy's word) and it doesn't matter whether or not the player is telling the truth. weird logic there, where you base on opinion on someone's word, yet you don't care whether that person is lying or not.

in that case i guess i'll tell him that he owes me $1 million and it won't matter whether or not i'm lying

[HedgeHog]

daringly on other forums

after some bad decisions in favor of the books (which he now says were bad decisions), he now sides with the player in every dispute without having all the info, primarily out of spite and to make himself look good

he even throws in total crap like "We don’t need to determine if the player actually used a robot, as it has no effect on the correct outcome."

who is we? and why doesn't it matter if the OP is lying? if he is lying about the major issue, then wouldn't it be difficult to assume the rest of what he is saying is true? and if he is telling the truth and youwager is lying, then wouldn't that also be important?

The robot issue IS irrelevant in regard to the OP getting paid. Unless the bets were obvious line errors, or made after the games started, they should stand. Instead of focusing on the OP's character, which admittedly is shady, "we" need to judge the integrity of the bets he or his robot made. If YouWager is an A Book, they pay the OP and close his account.

[JoeCool20]

Why even post about a "betting robot" when it can't be solidly proven?


Once a S-book tells a player that: "We are taking your money over something that we CAN NOT SOLIDLY PROVE."


Then that player is done.


They could use that on ANYBODY that they wanted to and steal their money.



So of course, they picked a guy with a huge balance, and stole it from him over something that they can't solidly prove.




And nobody who reads this should EVER deposit there again, lest they grant YouWager the same right to steal



their money too over something that they can't solidly prove.

[creditcardclown]

With the assistance of SBR, me and YouWager have reached a satisfactory settlement!

[Optional]

With the assistance of SBR, me and YouWager have reached a satisfactory settlement!

That's good news. For you.


Kind of a shame karma didn't give you the bitch slap you so richly deserve though. ;-)