Cory - you are getting a second opinion. It should be ready in 3 or 4 weeks.
-
Comment -
It would prolly help your case, if you would just drop this "my mother" bullshit.Comment -
Cory,
You asked this question, and I answered it.
Your mom said she was in New York for 5 months. Then she said she was in Florida for 5 months. How do I decide which is accurate? Or should I assume the first one was accurate, and the second one was changed to conform with the IP logs? Or should I try to find something that helps her out... validates the second statement?
Do you think a sworn statement under oath would have been less intrusive?Comment -
For the record, I have nothing to do with Heritage's rating (although I agree that they are an "A" book).Comment -
I've never understood how a rec-only book could possibly get an A-rating.
Especially when they clone and/or deal dual lines.
Apparently, those are non-factors...Comment -
a second opinion should come to the same conclusion as justin7 unless cory is able to fairly present his position and gather evidence on what heritage knew about the account and when they knew it.
also could i get a copy of the procedural rules on these type of mediations. or what rule of civil procedure are used?
i mean can cory file a motion in limine?Comment -
Here is the problem with a second opinion. The player has made numerous misstatements, and now had the benefit of seeing a lot of what Heritage can prove. Will the player change her version further, in an attempt to have a better chance of winning? There have been so many substantial changes of position and no attempt to allow anyone to validate the changes.Comment -
So do we keep going 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion until Cory gets what he wants? Is this a whole new trial? Is it an appeal were no new evidence is presented?Comment -
i agree with you. i am thinking instead of a second opinion (and it may not even be feasible. i have no idea about the organization or person conducting the second opinion) that organization should use an appellate type process to review the previous opinion. in that review cory can point out errors in the preceding mediation some of which i have expressed in this thread.
of course, meditations like this aren't binding anyway.Comment -
and then i will solicit monkey, mathdotcom, durito, and the other sbr pro gamblers to write an amicus curiae brief on their behalf for a reasonable fee.Comment -
durito is pro sneak your way back into the book as many times as possible. You play both sides so you don't give an honest opinion. I don't know much about Mathy. I'm not saying that you are bad guys, just that your arguments lack merit. You don't know what's right or wrong. You could very well hurt the case.Comment -
"Sneaking" into a book is fair game in my opinion.
If accepting a publicly offered wager is "scamming" a book, calling yourself a recreational book and tossing winners is scamming players.
Seems pretty even to me.Comment -
So that we're clear, Cory/Mom are declining your offer to return their net deposits-- which equal about 2/3 of the amount in question? As such this 28-30k is back at risk with the new mediator (as it should be)? If so, Cory/Mom are essentially laying 2-1 odds that the new decider will rule for them to collect the full amount. And they could get next to nothing if someone like SBR John rules on the matter (he would return last deposit only).
This is a horrible gamble for Cory's Mom to make and she should be made aware of the risk she's taking. Afterall, this is her money on the line, not Cory's (what kind of degenerate son puts his mother in a position like this?).Comment -
Yeah. Everybody in it for themselves. People using disguise to play at Pinnacle is fine. People using the same method to win at Beted is way across the line (sexygamblerchick). And someone using disguise to bet at Heritage is cheating. As long as the same advocates who argue in favor of the book's stance are also going to act and/or argue in favor of the player's view in case of Pinnacle, this debate has no credible foundation. It's whatever way the wind blows. The only golden rule is to honor any bet that is accepted. Clean, plain, and simple. Go beyond that, and lawlessness rules.
A standoff like this can never be resolved, to the satisfaction of both parties, in a negative climate. You would basically need a player to tell a book: "I understand you may kick me out", with the book saying "You know what, I understand you may use disguise to continue to play." Once that is an accepted reality, without any blame or guilt attached, it may be possible to get somewhere.Comment -
yes if you are paying for the expert, that is about as impartial as an auditor that gets paid to render an audit opinion on financials when they also collect consultation fees.Comment -
Just post everything on here. We've seen what Cory has to say, all we get from the Heritage side is a filtered story mixed in with "you don't know the facts" arguments. Quit acting like you are hiding stuff and show the evidence.Comment -
Justin, a few points for you to consider.
1. The sportsbook has admitted that it does not investigate losing accounts, but only winning accounts. This is unconscionable conduct. The evidence regarding the "style of play" would have existed for months, prior to account winning. The player's money was always at risk, and the sportsbook has devised a deliberate, systematic attempt to freeroll its players. The book does not come to the dispute with "clean hands".
2. Since the book is alleging fraud, the primary burden is on the book to produce evidence to establish a presumption of fraud (to the extent that the player, in order to the defend the allegation, would need to produce evidence to rebut the presumption). The evidence does not really establish anything:
a) The genealogy website stuff has zero evidentiary value, which you have acknowleded.
b) Inconsistency re knowing Cory. It is natural for a person, especially an eldery lady, to deny charges in order to protect herself and her son. Even if there is a relationship between Cory and the player, this doesn't really establish anything. There's certainly nothing fraudulent about two family members holding an account with a book.
c) Inconsistency re where the player opened the account. Again, entirely irrelevant. The book is not prejudiced by the location of where the account is signed up, so pursuing this line of questioning is merely a fishing expedition to discredit the player.
d) Inconsistency re IP addresses. This is simply not evidence because the IP address that the book is interacting with is not necessarily the IP address that the player is playing from. For the obvious reason that the player's internet connection, or the ISP, could be routed through Florida.
This case would be a slam dunk for any competent attorney for the player:
Attorney: How many times did the sportsbook contact you during the x month period during which you lost about $30,000 in their casino?
Player: Nil
Attorney: And then, when you started winning, how many times were you contacted?
Player: xx times in xx weeks.
Attorney: What was the nature of the sportsbook's contact with you during this period?
Player: They were accusing me of fraud.
Attorney: Did the sportsbook provide you with clear, written reasons for their allegations, before asking you for information?
Player: No
Attorney: What did they do?
Player: They called me on the telephone x times.
Attorney: How did you react to these telephone calls?
Player: I panicked, I was flustered, I was confused
Attorney: How old are you?
Player: 64
Attorney: How's your memory?
Player: Not very good
Attorney: Do you sometimes get confused and incorrectly recall information?
Player: Yes.
The above "evidence" would get laughed out of court, and would not support a presumption of fraud against the player. If the book wished to establish fraud, they could have, for example, arranged for surveillance of both the player and Cory, or obtained disclosure of travel records and/or electronic records from the ISP of both the player and Cory. Fraud is a very serious allegation, and the book has not obtained any evidence.
3. Clearly, the book's cause of action is with the software company. If Cory has figured out how to exploit the game, it's inevitabe that others will do so too.Comment -
2(c) is often accounted for in the books terms of service. 2(d) can be checked from the logs. If an IP is "sometimes" routed and sometimes direct, it's cause for further investigation. Additionally software often takes other identifiers of the local environment.Comment -
1. The only relevant rule I could find with Heritage is as follows: "Only one account is allowed per name, household, or IP address. Heritage Sports reserves the right to charge a "Multiple Account Fine" for each additional account when any customer opens more than one account. Violators also risk the forfeiture of the funds in these multiple accounts." Unless they were living in the same house, it seems as though family members can play.
2. "Can be easily evidenced" - that's the point, they haven't obtained any evidence, in circumstances where it is practical for them to do so.
Edit: Santo's original post read: "2(c) can easily be evidenced, such routing tends to be consistent and is, in any case, documented."Comment -
Yep I modified it to try and clarify. Agree they haven't publicised such info (see my even earlier post for why I don't think they should be required to), but they may have it.Comment -
Man, I definitely want some of you guys defending me if I ever commit a crime. Interesting stuff, and I'll leave it at that.Comment -
21 pages and I don't see one critical question answered:
Why was he banned in the first place?Was it for winning or was it for a ********** scheme?Comment -
Makes sense, and now I understand why Cory is posting with more passion lately (he received the payment). FWIW, a Book has every right to ban a player, and if he chooses to re-enter afterward, he does so at his own risk. There is no doubt in my mind, provided all info released is correct, that Cory was the actual player--not the mother. As such, he should NOT be allowed to profit from the deception he initiated. I hope this expert sees it the same way. GL.Comment -
Helps if you read the thread before giving people incorrect information but why start now, right? The deposits = 19k according to Cory. His mother made a 'mistake' that Cory didn't think to correct publicly until 24hrs ago.
"Heritage has sent my mother the 3k(which she received. Heritage has notified that the other 14,200 is in transit(yes the amount deposited was only 19k, not 30, my mom was going by the casino losses, and there were 53 deposits sent so an honest mistake)."Comment -
"It has always been important to us that we treat all our customers fairly, giving them the benefit of the doubt whenever a dispute comes up" Heritage Insider
Yesterday 06:38 PM
#701
Heritage Insider
Cory - you are getting a second opinion. It should be ready in 3 or 4 weeks.
No Hedge, we have already sent the net deposits back as per Justin's decision. Cory is now saying he should receive the winnings too. To be completely fair we hired an Industry Expert to give us his legal opinion. It should be ready in 3 weeks or so.
Heritage Insider
I do want to say thank you to Heritage for the agreeing to a second opinion in this case. As most of you know that wasnt the case in the last dispute I had(EZstreet). I hope the first statement stays true to form and Heritage and my side can get this case worked out in the near future. Saying all that, I just want to note that my side has not agreed to Heritage's legal opinion, as we do not know who this legal opinion is,nor his or her credentials(which I would love to hear ASAP), and I am sure the person is of higher standards, but as for making a decision on this matter my side does not accept. I do hope though in the near future Heritage and my side can come to some sort of an agreement consisting of a fair, an unbiased opinion to settle this matter.
Comment
