Corey up to no good again, this time at Heritage. Hits 2 Royals and is owed 43K

[BigDaddy]

well that is theft.

you got to be kidding me with that ruling?

[Blissit02]

I wanna know what the hell Corey Roth did...........

[BigDaddy]

Heritage has been a well respected book for a long time.


can the game be cheated

any proof that cheating is involved?

[Patrick McIrish]

" Ms. Harnash had made deposits of nearly $30,000"

"The balance (which is the sum of all the deposits made by the player) will be charged the cost of transactions related to withdrawals and deposits. Heritage should return the remainder to the player."

Yes I understand that part, was asking what kind of transaction fees (on top of the 13k already) that she is going to have deducted. To be clear, how much away from the 43k is she going to be short? If you don't know maybe someone else will. Thanks.

[shari91]

Why is that theft BigDaddy? If you get caught multi accounting a good book should refund your deposits and boot you making it as if the account you fraudulently opened never existed at all. That's what's happening here.

A shithouse book will keep your deposits and boot you. That is theft.

[BigDaddy]

can the game be cheated?

[Patrick McIrish]

Was there any cheating going on? Is any even being alleged here? Or is the winnings being confiscated because Cory was supposedly using a beard?

[BigDaddy]

what if after 30K she decides to stop playing and never uses the book again?

[Justin7]

Was there any cheating going on? Is any even being alleged here? Or is the winnings being confiscated because Cory was supposedly using a beard?

The dispute is being treated as any other multi-account dispute. If someone beards in, you void all action, and refund the deposits (minus your costs). This is what happens regardless of whether the game can be cheated. The mention of Heritage's suspicion was to explain why the banned the first Roth account. Again, it does not matter why they banned the first account. If they banned it and he beards in, they can void the action.

[Brick]

Why is that theft BigDaddy? If you get caught multi accounting a good book should refund your deposits and boot you making it as if the account you fraudulently opened never existed at all. That's what's happening here.

A shithouse book will keep your deposits and boot you. That is theft.

Problem is nobody was caught doing anything. There is no proof that anyone else played on her account. Why do they feel the need to interregate her and running an online genealogy report before letting her cash out.

[Patrick McIrish]

The dispute is being treated as any other multi-account dispute. If someone beards in, you void all action, and refund the deposits (minus your costs). This is what happens regardless of whether the game can be cheated.

So Justin, and I'm just asking, not as familiar with the industry as you are - if a book knows they are getting action from BW beards for example all those winnings can be kept as well? If that's the case a lot of syndicates probably aren't sleeping too well tonight, the books know exactly who works for the big boys. There is a lot of bearding that goes on, we both know that, lot of multi-accounts ringing the phones in this industry. So with your decision tonight books can rightfully start taking those winnings as well?

[brettels]

in disputes like this, what legal justification do you use to enable the books to keep the losses, but not give up the winnings?

Haven't seen a answer for this yet. There is no legal justification.

[Justin7]

There is no proof that anyone else played on her account. Why do they feel the need to interregate her and running an online genealogy report before letting her cash out.

The joy of airing private disputes in public... The player played from Florida. The player was never in Florida. The elderly woman played 19 hands per minute. So did Cory. Most people can't do this. The player is Cory's mother, but she denied this. The player gave inconsistent statements about where she was, and her flights. She changed her version of the story to "I was always in Florida", which would be consistent with IP logs. The player refused to cooperate with the least intrusive way to validate where she was.

Do you know how much time I spent on this giving her a fair shake? Do you know how much time Heritage spent, giving me all manners of details when I challenged them on their version of what happened?

[Patrick McIrish]

BTW I'm a Heritage fan, certainly nothing against them. I just find it odd you were almost throwing books around the office, pushing furniture over, screaming into the camera about how innocent Cory was when it was EZSports. Now a different book and we're doing online genealogy reports? LOL.

I'm also just absolutely AMAZED how on August 28th they suddenly realized who Cory was. The losing went on fine, once the account got up and started to win the connection was suddenly made! I wonder if that thought enters their mind if she/he loses 300k and never wins?

Just a rhetorical question, pretty sure we both know the answer to that one. Carry on.

[Trident]

Around August 29, 2012, Heritage did an online genealogy search of Ms. Harnash.

I can now say I have seen it all.

[Justin7]

How much time did Heritage spend on this? In 4 days, there were 56 emails exchanged, and over 15 MEGs of data submitted for me to review. Heritage agreed to give me every request I made. Before this whole thing started, Heritage had a good faith basis to believe there was multi-accounting. At the onset, Heritage offered the player all her deposits back if the player conceded that her previously banned son was using the account. How much time have I spent on this? About 30 hours.

[Patrick McIrish]

How much time have I spent on this? About 30 hours.

And they aren't even billable these days.

I will say though the amount of time you invested is irrelevant. Doesn't mean you were fair to the player or got it right, zero correlation. For example in the last Cory incident Wilheim probably spent 200+ hours on the case and still got it wrong.

[Brick]

The joy of airing private disputes in public... The player played from Florida. The player was never in Florida. The elderly woman played 19 hands per minute. So did Cory. Most people can't do this. The player is Cory's mother, but she denied this. The player gave inconsistent statements about where she was, and her flights. She changed her version of the story to "I was always in Florida", which would be consistent with IP logs. The player refused to cooperate with the least intrusive way to validate where she was.

Do you know how much time I spent on this giving her a fair shake? Do you know how much time Heritage spent, giving me all manners of details when I challenged them on their version of what happened?

Do they warn people before depositing that your personal life and information will be turned upside down in order to request a withdrawal? There is no reason whatsoever that people needed to play detective in order for her to cash out. Ok so they play at the same speed, but cory played much longer sessions than his mother did. Doesnt that disprove your theory right there?

[Justin7]

Do they warn people before depositing that your personal life and information will be turned upside down in order to request a withdrawal? There is no reason whatsoever that people needed to play detective in order for her to cash out. Ok so they play at the same speed, but cory played much longer sessions than his mother did. Doesnt that disprove your theory right there?

In the past, Cory played longer sessions. In this dispute, I reviewed sessions that were allegedly his that included 213k hands (I did not confirm the sessions at another book were his, because it was not needed for the decision... but I did not include those 20 megs of data in my data body count) and there were similar breaks in Cory's new sessions that did not exist in the EasyStreet case.

[Rollins08]

They had a player who dropped 30 grand and they had no idea who he was, but then he wins they know it's Cory? I don't disagree that there is something shady going on here, but the book also looks shady in this case for waiting until the player won to call him/her out. One other thing is that they think Cory has an advantage at this game - where is the proof in that? Everyone who's played in an online Casino knows the software is so steaky that it is nearly impossible to win. I don't believe they release accurate stats on the amount they payout. The book doesn't give back the money they win, they should payout when they lose. Ban the mom, but she should be paid.

[antifoil]

i agree with the ruling, so long as, the deposit is returned.

i have a hypo question, what if a player banned from playing at a sportsbook found a way to play at the sportsbook, lost X amount of dollars, and then contacted you with the necessary proof saying he was not allowed to play there so he would like his deposit back?

[Justin7]

One other thing is that they think Cory has an advantage at this game - where is the proof in that?

This was not relevant to the decision. Cory was banned from Heritage; the reason does not matter. If he came in again after being banned, it is multi-account abuse. Heritage claimed that Cory was up at 9 different major DGS casinos. I did not look at this or document it, because it was irrelevant. If Heritage believed that Cory had an edge, they don't want his action. If Heritage thought left-handed players were luckier than right-handed players, it is within their right to kick out any left-handed player. If that same left-handed player multi-accounts to come back in, it is fraud whether or not Heritage was correct in its (hypothetical) belief that left-handed players have an advantage.

[antifoil]

what if they banned based on race for the same reason? would you say they are a protected class and use the strict scrutiny test?

which brings about another question which jurisdiction do you use in these matters?

[brettels]

The least heritage should do is return the deposits.

[antifoil]

i also think it would be reasonable for the mediator to assign a fee amount to the book, in addition, to the transaction cost for the time spent resolving the matter in cases where the fraud is evident. it could be used as a deterrent to habitual offenders.

[bobbywaves]

what if after 30K she decides to stop playing and never uses the book again?

Exactly... Shari thinks Heritage would still refund the 30K deposit in that scenario? However, everyone else knows better.

[princecharles]

I am fascinated by none of this I have read.

However I am absolutely spell bound about several points I have not seen addressed.

1) Not one mention of a possible bot being used. That was central to the EZ street case.

2) How the hell can someone have an advantage playing a
-EV cartoon?

3) Can Cory's speed per hand (3.3 seconds) be in any way an 'advantage'?

4) If he is using a bot, why the hell doesn't he slow it down by a second or two????

5) What does he know that allows him to be up at many DGS casinos?

Simply playing perfect basic srategy still has the game slightly -EV against the player, so I want to know what he has figured out to be able to beat it?

6) I'm assuming he has been winning off of paytables that are not the occasional loss leaders we have seen in the past, which was the reason bots were not welcome.

7) Is anyone claiming Cory was able to 'induce' two Royal Flushes somehow?

That would be something worth far more to DGS than the amount in question here.

Justin I understand these points are not germain to him circumventing being banned, just these are the points I would love seeing addressed.

[Justin7]

I am fascinated by none of this I have read.

However I am absolutely spell bound about several points I have not seen addressed.

1) Not one mention of a possible bot being used. That was central to the EZ street case.

2) How the hell can someone have an advantage playing a
-EV cartoon?

3) Can Cory's speed per hand (3.3 seconds) be in any way an 'advantage'?

4) If he is using a bot, why the hell doesn't he slow it down by a second or two????

5) What does he know that allows him to be up at many DGS casinos?

Simply playing perfect basic srategy still has the game slightly -EV against the player, so I want to know what he has figured out to be able to beat it?

6) I'm assuming he has been winning off of paytables that are not the occasional loss leaders we have seen in the past, which was the reason bots were not welcome.

7) Is anyone claiming Cory was able to 'induce' two Royal Flushes somehow?

That would be something worth far more to DGS than the amount in question here.

Justin I understand these points are not germain to him circumventing being banned, just these are the points I would love seeing addressed.

None of this is relevant to the dispute. If the DGS casino was broken and allowing players to play at +EV, Heritage's remedy is to pursue DGS. My point in including this was to show that Heritage not only banned Cory, but would not want any of Cory's action. Even if you establish fraud, you have to show what the scenario would have been, but for fraud. For most casino games and most players, a casino/sportsbook would not care who it was unless their play was +EV (including bonuses and rebates).

[princecharles]

None of this is relevant to the dispute. If the DGS casino was broken and allowing players to play at +EV, Heritage's remedy is to pursue DGS. My point in including this was to show that Heritage not only banned Cory, but would not want any of Cory's action. Even if you establish fraud, you have to shoe what the scenario would have been, but for fraud. For most casino games and most players, a casino/sportsbook would not care who it was unless their play was +EV (including bonuses and rebates).

Eli buddy, I get that my questions are not relevant in the narrow sense.
A joint doesn't want you, and you sneak in the back door, you do so at your own peril.

I'm wondering aside from charge backs, bonus abuse and other 'run of the mill' short cons, what if anything does this guy know that can allow him to be winning systematically on DGS software?

Aren't you curious as to the circumstances re: two Royals so close together?
Are you writing that off as a fluke of variance?

Am I skating on delicate ice with these questions?

[shari91]

brettels - The player's getting the deposits back. That info is included in the entire summary Justin7 posted.

Exactly... Shari thinks Heritage would still refund the 30K deposit in that scenario? However, everyone else knows better.

I don't recall a case of someone fraudulently opening an account, losing and then trying to get their losses back. Usually multi-accounters disappear because they know the risk they're taking by trying to screw the book in the first place. Definitely not saying it hasn't happened but I can't think of seeing one on here like that, at least not any time recently. If you know of one please show me where it is...I'd love to see how it all went down.

[bobbywaves]

i agree with the ruling, so long as, the deposit is returned.

i have a hypo question, what if a player banned from playing at a sportsbook found a way to play at the sportsbook, lost X amount of dollars, and then contacted you with the necessary proof saying he was not allowed to play there so he would like his deposit back?

Very nice hypo, which to me = hypocritical: When you lose the book will never refund your deposit(s), their justification is you were banned & our inept security measures should not have allowed you to play in the first place. But when you win, the sportsbook & SBR come off like they're doing you a big favor by getting just your deposit back after being booted. When in reality, the book has just taken a free shot at the player. Happened to me when GT Bets refunded my 1k deposit after booting me, & stole my 3k in winnings. It's a win win situation for the books.

[shari91]

Very nice hypo, which to me = hypocritical: When you lose the book will never refund your deposit(s), their justification is you were banned & our inept security measures should not have allowed you to play in the first place. But when you win, the sportsbook & SBR come off like they're doing you a big favor by getting just your deposit back after being booted. When in reality, the book has just taken a free shot at the player. Happened to me when GT Bets refunded my 1k deposit after booting me, & stole my 3k in winnings. It's a win win situation for the books.

How do we know what a decent book would do with the deposits if we lost? That's why I asked you if you know of any cases where this happened. Not with some crappy book because I wouldn't be surprised by that but a good one. We can speculate but that doesn't help us at all.

[cutter2225]

I agree its highly likely that something fishy was at play here but the measures Heritage asked this woman to go through to prove her innocence, or more likely guilt, is ridiculous. If a book is permitted to take such action as to request an outrageous amount of personal info, then why can't all the players that have been and continue to be given the runaround by betonline regarding pending payouts, request to see "proof" that betonline indeed has the funds available to satisfy those payouts. Did the old lady break rules? Maybe, but so to is betonline and maybe you(SBR) should stop acting as if they're innocent. Oh wait they're a sponsored book, you're in bed with them and any negative comments are strictly prohibited. Note the common theme. That is all.

[bobbywaves]

You're right, we don't know..... I just think it's common sense that a book is not going to refund a banned players deposit after losing, A+ books included. If a book wants to boot you, that's their business decision. The problem I have is when books don't honor the bets they accepted & steal your winnings, refunding deposit if you're lucky. That's theft.

[prop]

I don't even think Cory is very relevant to the dispute. I assume operating an account for someone else (whoever that someone is and banned before or not) is against their terms? If so, based on the facts presented (which have not been openly debated, but based only on the facts presented) there is clear and convincing evidence this player was acting as a beard for someone. Regarding interrogation before paying, Heritage had plenty of reason for reasonable suspicion and and upon looking into in more depth had sufficient reason to believe this player was acting as a beard. Unless the player wants to come here and defend themselves further - I don't see to much to discuss. Ruling by Justin7 is fair imo, and don't think Cory is even that relevant to the topic.