[Justin7]

What is the level of proof required to take 15k in profit from a player. Is it a preponderence of the evidence (51% likely) as in a civil trial or beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. And should "Cory's Mom" be required to provide info that may be used against her?

These are very good questions.

The preliminary question is: is there a reasonable suspicion of the book that the player multi-accounted? If no, the case is over. The book can ask for KYC stuff, but nothing intrusive.

SBR is ultimately a player site. If there is a reasonable basis for believing there is multi-accounting, then 1. The standard I use is clear and convincing (this is higher than a civil court would require), but 2. The player must cooperate. If there is a lingering doubt and the player is giving all information we request, I would recommend the book to pay the player, even if I thought there was a 55% chance that the player was multi-accounting.

In most cases, when both sides cooperate fully, you can be 99% certain which side is right.

As mentioned earlier, an IP issue does not mean with 100% certainty that a player is multi-accounting. I had two cases (one involving about ten players) in the last year where there were (apparent) shared IPs, and I ultimately recommended that the players be paid. But in both of those cases, there was a lot of questioning of the players... And they were more than happy to give me anything and everyhing I asked for, including allowing me to log in to their cell phone records. However, if there is an IP issue and the player won't work me me, there isn't much I can do.

[pjesnik24]

How the tables have turned on poor Cory, now that Justin won't shield him from the Books anymore. In fact, J7 was basically Cory's lawyer in the EZ case, coaching him on not to admit to his charge-backing past. Now J7 is basically Cory's prosecutor, desperately trying to get hold of records that would help prove Cory was the actual perp vs Heritage.

very good

[tommygun]

I have to say I agree with everything "Sharp"cat has stated.

[SBR_John]

Let's assume you agree with that any casino has basic right in refusing future action from anybody. If you don't agree with this basic right, then there is no point to argue further, because you will rule in players favor in any case, which won't fly in reality.

Now come to what proper penalty will be if this basic right is violated. People can argue that if confiscating all winnings is too heavy, or what kind of banning message is acceptable by court, or whatever undue burden casinos have to take to prevent banned players coming back, but there must be some kind of penalty that is allowed to protect this basic right, correct? Otherwise, what is the point of that basic right?

Why have any rules? If books are not able to protect themselves the costs of rule breaking play will be passed on to the rule abiding players in the form of lower specials, higher juice, higher withdraw fees and a limited betting selection just to name a few.

What if we just eliminated all rules? If a book wanted to pay you they would, if they didn't they wouldn't. Justin's job would be the easiest one on the planet. If we are going to be able to enforce rules that protect players we also have to enforce rules that protect the books. Has to be a two way street.

[tomcowley]

Hey Justin, I'd be happy to continue to discuss why fraudulent inducement into one contract is a) clearly inconsistent with past decisions and b) an obviously terrible framework, but..

YOUR EMPLOYER JUST "UPGRADED" WAGERWEB AND TRIXTRIX HASN'T SEEN A PENNY.

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

[HedgeHog]

A few of you are assuming Pinnacle would of honored the debt. I doubt it. One thing we probably all agree on is no other book would honor a debt from a banned player who sneaked back in. Especially if his wins came at what he was kicked out for the first time.

Hopefully Corey and everyone else understands this will not have the same ending in the next case. A banned player who sneaks back in should be kicked out as soon as he is identified. His action should be cancelled and whatever remaining balance returned. He should never get more than his last deposit.

So you would have ruled for Heritage to keep everything except his last deposit? That's barely better than Shilheim allowing EZ to keep everything. Returning ALL deposits less expenses is a far better option than giving the (sponsor) Book a 40k freeroll. As Mike Ditka would say....Stop It!

[MonkeyF0cker]

None of the players placing bets had ever been trespassed at Harrahs. There wasn't even a representation of identity put forth; ergo not bearding.

That is completely insignificant. Harrah's still would have had to pay regardless - even though you may have gone to jail for the night.

That is how a fair, regulated casino is operated.

[Justin7]

That is completely insignificant. Harrah's still would have had to pay regardless - even though you may have gone to jail for the night.

That is how a fair, regulated casino is operated.

If the player were trespassed, and presented false ID before the bet was accepted, you think the bet would still be honored? I'm not sure how the gaming commission would decide... But I have had a bet accepted, paid the cash, provided the ID for a CTR and then had the bet rescinded.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Why have any rules? If books are not able to protect themselves the costs of rule breaking play will be passed on to the rule abiding players in the form of lower specials, higher juice, higher withdraw fees and a limited betting selection just to name a few.

What if we just eliminated all rules? If a book wanted to pay you they would, if they didn't they wouldn't. Justin's job would be the easiest one on the planet. If we are going to be able to enforce rules that protect players we also have to enforce rules that protect the books. Has to be a two way street.

There is a pretty simple rule that Las Vegas books MUST adhere to and one that offshore casinos seem to be impervious to - mostly propagated by rulings like this.

That rule is: If you take a bet, you pay the bet.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If the player were trespassed, and presented false ID before the bet was accepted, you think the bet would still be honored? I'm not sure how the gaming commission would decide... But I have had a bet accepted, paid the cash, provided the ID for a CTR and then had the bet rescinded.

They have absolutely no right to confiscate money (whether it's beyond their initial buyin or not) from the player. It was their own lapse in security that allowed the wagers in the first place and they would be forced to pay.

The gaming commission is not too fond of allowing freerolls by either party.

[Inkwell77]

There is a pretty simple rule that Las Vegas books MUST adhere to and one that offshore casinos seem to be impervious to - mostly propagated by rulings like this.

That rule is: If you take a bet, you pay the bet.

It's a joke that they are not paying here. It's pretty damn simple.

[Dark Horse]

I'm done with the argument, but would like to leave one thought for the philosophical side of the debate:

Does anyone truly believe that Vegas was build on avoiding a few sharps?

[HedgeHog]

I'm not an online casino player (except for a few pts with SBR), so it's tough for me to keep track of all this crap, but didn't SBR rule for 5-Dimes in 3 different cases during the EZ debacle. I have no worries about playing at Heritage or 5D's sportsbooks, but why all the problems with casino games. Bots or no bots, regardless of who the player is, isn't it the game itself that controls the expected payouts. Assuming it's all -EV action, why are Books--including A rated outs bitching about 5-figure winners--especially since regular casinos love the free publicity of paying off "winners". The Books still have the house edge....right? So what is the problem?

[touchback]

Here is my 2 cents...

2 cents

Later...

[touchback]

Another 2 cents.. this now makes 4 cents of my time wasted. Many services are based in Costa Rica because sportsbook gaming is basically unregulated... period... the end. A book can do what they want, it will only really effect thier reputation which in turn may effect future customer deposits... this Corey guy has repeatedly been in the sh1t over the years so what gives... he should have been blacklisted from even opening an account at any reputable shop just based on historical and very public disagreements with services... in fact they should add a line item to all rules pages on all websites... ¨If an account is opened by Corey and he wins he may or may not be paid at management discretion... I mean, this is where it is going... am I right or am I right. Forged boud it... Nothing personal Corey, more power to you I guess.

[Dark Horse]

The Books still have the house edge....right? So what is the problem?

This has been argued extensively.

When Justin wears a wig it's all in good fun, but when Corey wears a wig he's a bank robber.

[Heritage Insider]

What is the level of proof required to take 15k in profit from a player. Is it a preponderence of the evidence (51% likely) as in a civil trial or beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. And should "Cory's Mom" be required to provide info that may be used against her? I would hope Justin is not letting (sponsor) Books recoup winnings based on a general likelihood that evil intent occurred. W/O the records supplied by Cory's Mom, I'm not sure reasonable doubt has been erased--at least in some posters' minds.

How the tables have turned on poor Cory, now that Justin won't shield him from the Books anymore. In fact, J7 was basically Cory's lawyer in the EZ case, coaching him on not to admit to his charge-backing past. Now J7 is basically Cory's prosecutor, desperately trying to get hold of records that would help prove Cory was the actual perp vs Heritage.

Regardless of how you feel about the decision here, Justin has as much legitimacy deciding a Heritage case as "Shilheim" being the decider of facts in an EZ dispute.

Hedge - Heritage has been in business a long time and we have always bent over backwards to do the right thing. Cory asked us to go to arbitration. We agreed and let him pick the arbitrator. He picked Justin. When Justin gave his ruling we immediately released the 16K that had been deposited. After that we got a call from Cory who wants to go to another arbitrator. Now, it isn't right to keep picking arbitrators until you get the ruling you want however we told him we would consider this but in order to protect ourselves we have hired an Industry Expert to give us a legal opinion first. We informed Cory that when we get this we will talk again about the possibility of further arbitration.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Hedge - Heritage has been in business a long time and we have always bent over backwards to do the right thing. Cory asked us to go to arbitration. We agreed and let him pick the arbitrator. He picked Justin. When Justin gave his ruling we immediately released the 16K that had been deposited. After that we got a call from Cory who wants to go to another arbitrator. Now, it isn't right to keep picking arbitrators until you get the ruling you want however we told him we would consider this but in order to protect ourselves we have hired an Industry Expert to give us a legal opinion first. We informed Cory that when we get this we will talk again about the possibility of further arbitration.

Why don't you guys just pay the account balance to the account holder and close the account? Why do you need an arbitrator or an "Industry Expert" to tell you what's the proper course of action here?

There was absolutely no need for it to get to this point. If you offer a wager, have a willing taker, agree to the wager, and then welsh when you lose, you're a stiff - plain and simple.

[Heritage Insider]

Why don't you guys just pay the account balance to the account holder and close the account? Why do you need an arbitrator or an "Industry Expert" to tell you what's the proper course of action here?

There was absolutely no need for it to get to this point. If you offer a wager, have a willing taker, agree to the wager, and then welsh when you lose, you're a stiff - plain and simple.

We agree - if you take a bet you need to pay it. We have a long history of doing just that. We did it with Cory the first time he hit us. However when you ban a player and you believe he has snuck back in under a beard the casino has reason for redress (see the Iowa case). Cory wanted to go to arbitration over this - we agreed and let him pick the arbitrator. He lost (with the arbitrator he picked) and now he wants another shot - and we are open to that too.

[MonkeyF0cker]

We agree - if you take a bet you need to pay it. We have a long history of doing just that. We did it with Cory the first time he hit us. However when you ban a player and you believe he has snuck back in under a beard the casino has reason for redress (see the Iowa case). Cory wanted to go to arbitration over this - we agreed and let him pick the arbitrator. He lost (with the arbitrator he picked) and now he wants another shot - and we are open to that too.

If you can show me where in that Iowa law the casino gets to keep the winnings, you have an obscure law in a completely irrelevant gaming market that agrees with your side of the story. Unfortunately, the casino in Iowa does not get to keep the money either. So, attempting to hide behind that ridiculous law is absurd.

What is the difference where the action came from? You already took the bets. Please, explain how you are not in a position to freeroll here. If you cannot, please explain where players are afforded a similar position to freeroll you - out of fairness of course.

[HedgeHog]

Hedge - Heritage has been in business a long time and we have always bent over backwards to do the right thing. Cory asked us to go to arbitration. We agreed and let him pick the arbitrator. He picked Justin. When Justin gave his ruling we immediately released the 16K that had been deposited. After that we got a call from Cory who wants to go to another arbitrator. Now, it isn't right to keep picking arbitrators until you get the ruling you want however we told him we would consider this but in order to protect ourselves we have hired an Industry Expert to give us a legal opinion first. We informed Cory that when we get this we will talk again about the possibility of further arbitration.

I don't doubt your Book's integrity for a second, and Heritage remains a top three out for me. My problem is with SBR in general, and Justin7 specifically, deciding a sponsor case like this--especially given the history they have had with Cory. Scumbags like Cory need to be detered, but doing so via the forum you advertise at seems shady as well. Don't lower yourself to his level (Obviously I should take my own advice). No argument from me with J7's decision except that he has no business making it.

[Squared Box]

You were going to stiff Cory's mom unless she agreed to arbitration, right? Not much of a choice there, is it?

[Heritage Insider]

You were going to stiff Cory's mom unless she agreed to arbitration, right? Not much of a choice there, is it?

That's not true at all Squared Box. We had an idea of what was fair but Cory wanted to go to arbitration and that seemed like a fair thing to do especially when we let him pick the arbitrator.

[Heritage Insider]

If you can show me where in that Iowa law the casino gets to keep the winnings, you have an obscure law in a completely irrelevant gaming market that agrees with your side of the story. Unfortunately, the casino in Iowa does not get to keep the money either. So, attempting to hide behind that ridiculous law is absurd.

What is the difference where the action came from? You already took the bets. Please, explain how you are not in a position to freeroll here. If you cannot, please explain where players are afforded a similar position to freeroll you - out of fairness of course.

You have a great point. I don't know what legal decision is relevant either. However Cory was comfortable with Justin deciding this issue and we honored his request. Now he wants another arbitration. We want to do the right thing by every account holder whether it be Cory's mom or Cory himself. Don't we have the right to consult an expert now that Cory doesn't want to accept the first arbitration?

[MonkeyF0cker]

...

[Heritage Insider]

I don't doubt your Book's integrity for a second, and Heritage remains a top three out for me. My problem is with SBR in general, and Justin7 specifically, deciding a sponsor case like this--especially given the history they have had with Cory. Scumbags like Cory need to be detered, but doing so via the forum you advertise at seems shady as well. Don't lower yourself to his level (Obviously I should take my own advice). No argument from me with J7's decision except that he has no business making it.

Thank you Hedge. Justin's decision seemed fair to us too but that's neither here nor there. By the way we have our Cash Back distribution this October 1st and 3 days later on the 4th is our 1st "Get Out of Your Bet at Half" game. Sorry I couldn't resist putting in a plug.

[MonkeyF0cker]

That's not true at all Squared Box. We had an idea of what was fair but Cory wanted to go to arbitration and that seemed like a fair thing to do especially when we let him pick the arbitrator.

Would you consider Las Vegas gaming regulations to be fair?

[Heritage Insider]

Would you consider Las Vegas gaming regulations to be fair?

I would but it's not up to me. We used Justin to arbitrate at the request of Cory and now, at the request of Cory we are going to look at this again. We will wait to see what an expert in the field determines and then go from there. Thank you all for your input.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I would but it's not up to me. We used Justin to arbitrate at the request of Cory and now, at the request of Cory we are going to look at this again. We will wait to see what an expert in the field determines and then go from there. Thank you all for your input.

What do you mean it's not up to you? I'm quite certain the two parties can come to an amicable resolution without the need for an "expert" if Las Vegas regulations are employed to settle this dispute.

You know it. I know it. We all know it.

So why not just admit to what you're attempting to do? Knowingly freeroll this player.

[raydog]

heritage insider, was anything brought up about harnage using cc's with different names to deposit funds? how do you guys handle that type of situation when withdrawals are requested?

[HedgeHog]

This has been argued extensively.

When Justin wears a wig it's all in good fun, but when Corey wears a wig he's a bank robber.

Actually when Cory wears a wig, he's his mother. Not sure who Justin pretends to be when he's in drag.

[Justin7]

Would you consider Las Vegas gaming regulations to be fair?

I almost hate to raise this, but...
How would IBAS rule?
How would Malta LGA rule?
How would eCogra rule?
How would Gibraltar rule?

They are non-US jurisdictions, but they are much closer to the fact pattern than older US cases.

That said, I don't think there is a court in the US that would find there was assent to a contract under these facts.

[Heritage Insider]

Monkey - We don't look at it as free rolling a player. We look at it as a banned player (for whatever reason) used a beard to come back and win more money. I'm sure the industry expert will be aware of Las Vegas regulations. We have been more than fair in this case. Cory asked to go to arbitration - we did. He wasn't happy with that so we are looking into it further. I don't think anything else needs to be said. With that I wish you a good night.

[Heritage Insider]

Raydog - I don't have that info at hand but we will post the case opinion when we get it. Good nite all.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Monkey - We don't look at it as free rolling a player. We look at it as a banned player (for whatever reason) used a beard to come back and win more money. I'm sure the industry expert will be aware of Las Vegas regulations. We have been more than fair in this case. Cory asked to go to arbitration - we did. He wasn't happy with that so we are looking into it further. I don't think anything else needs to be said. With that I wish you a good night.

Are you telling me that if the account had been down a significant amount of money, that you would still be fully refunding the deposits?

In other words, if the two royals hadn't been hit, we'd be entertaining the same result?

Ok. Now, you're insulting my intelligence.