[cory1111]

SBRJohn,
As the owner of SBR, do you understand by asking a poster to put up their deposit money that isnt in dispute anymore, in order for him or her to receive the winnings is not only unprofessional, but unethical. And SBRJohn, you dont tell me what to do, you already are in Heritage's back pocket and seem often irritated because posters on your forum are seeing right through what SBR and Heritage is trying to pull. If Heritage is so sure they are in the right, they should have no problem just putting up the 23k for an unbiased decision.

[xstud]

John,

Why even bother anymore? I mean SBR is a free service for anyone to file a dispute and Cory has also been given a platform to speak out against books where he felt he was wronged. SBR went above and beyond and paid for legal services for Cory as well. Let's face it, the guy is about as ungrateful as they come. If you proceed to keep hand holding him from one stop to the next it is only a matter of time before a friend of Cory's or another relative runs into a similar dispute. SBR has spent god knows how many hours dealing with Cory and to continue to "Feed the beast" is only encouraging his reckless behavior to continue.

The claim that Heritage free-rolled Cory is just as ridiculous. Cory clearly played with a SBR sponsor due to SBR siding so heavily with him in regards to the EZ case, now Cory has essentially received all of his initial money back AND Heritage as well as SBR is still willing to listen and go through more with Cory? I think it is time to cut ties John. This is not good for the forum or the industry.

un·grate·ful/ˌənˈgrātfəl/

Adjective:

Not feeling or showing gratitude: "He's so ungrateful for everything we do".

[HedgeHog]

I love how all the EZ dirty laundry is coming out in this thread (SBR paid Cory 3k for his lawyer and another 9k for the RX domain). I guess the old adage is true: When you lie down with dogs, you're bound to pick up some fleas. Continue on....

[cory1111]

SBRJohn,
People know what Heritage and SBR are trying to pull here. By trying to force my mother to place the money that she has wagered with a 3rd party, they are attempting to deter her from seeking an unbiased 3rd party decision.

[SBR_John]

Cory I have other things to attend to.

In closing I will note one more time for the record that we offered;
1) Allow you to select your own licensed UK arbitrator tasked with holding all money and issuing a binding decision and dispersing the funds.
2) SBR offered to pay for your fees for the arbitration process.

You obviously feel you could do no better at a first world arbitration. Your case was handled fairly and unbiased at SBR as your refusal to retry the case with a neutral arbitrator attests to.

Good day and good luck....

[HedgeHog]

SBRJohn,
People know what Heritage and SBR are trying to pull here. By trying to force my mother to place the money that she has wagered with a 3rd party, they are attempting to deter her from seeking an unbiased 3rd party decision.

Cory, just a thought, but have you considered taking Heritage and SBR to court? Covers or EOG might front you the legal fees for a chance to buy SBRforum.com

[cory1111]

Thanks Wiiheim(SBRJohn). Thank-you for confirming that my mom was on SBR's sheet. I guess you really want that 17,200(1,800 fees) in deposits back ha?

[MonkeyF0cker]

John,

Whatever happened to this line of thinking?

If he would have lost would they have refunded those losses? No. They should pay.

Why is this case any different than the SIA one?

[SBR_John]

Cory your myths and spins are meaningless.

I will note one more time for the record that we offered;
1) Allow you to select your own licensed UK arbitrator tasked with holding all money and issuing a binding decision and dispersing the funds.
2) SBR offered to pay for your fees for the arbitration process.

Your case was handled fairly and unbiased at SBR as your refusal to retry the case with a neutral arbitrator attests to.

It's over.

[SBR_John]

John,

Whatever happened to this line of thinking?



Why is this case any different than the SIA one?

Was the player banned for hitting two royals and then re entered the book while banned and hit two more? If those were the circumstances of the SIA case then I was in error for posting that.

[cory1111]

SBRJohn,
When you say "what we are offering", who is we, are Heritage and SBR one party now? Obviously, your still in discussions with Heritage, since I am sure you got their approval for this. I willing to have a neutral 3rd party look at it, but my mother isnt going to throw money that is irrelevant to the claim. Heritage already attested to this by paying the deposits back.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Was the player banned for hitting two royals and then re entered the book while banned and hit two more? If those were the circumstances of the SIA case then I was in error for posting that.

He was banned. I would venture to guess that it was because the player had an advantage there. Is the decision different if the player is banned for NOT having an advantage (such as in Cory's case)?

Was Bill's similar response in error too? Was Justin's decision wrong as well?

The entire SBR staff was singing a different tune. Why?

[wrongturn]

This thread has so many twists and turns, and mini-fights between posters, mods, owner, wannabe lawyers, wannabe judges. Gotta be an all-time classic thread.

[Pareto]

I am sure SBRJohn can defend himself, but this was his response in the SIA thread:

The player deserves to be beaten with canes.

But the book was in error if they let him bet. Its pretty simple to disable someones account. It takes all of 15 seconds and thats taking a break in there too.

And why didnt they zero his account and send him the money? Pretty hard to bet when there is no cash in the acct.

Bottomline the player is an idiot. Why? Because of what happened. I don't question SIA for a second that they properly informed the player there was to be no more wagering. If he came back in under another name they would be justified to confiscate all winnings. But he didnt right? He used real and cleared postup funds on fair lines and won. SIA, pay him and move on.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I am sure SBRJohn can defend himself, but this was his response in the SIA thread:

The player deserves to be beaten with canes.

But the book was in error if they let him bet. Its pretty simple to disable someones account. It takes all of 15 seconds and thats taking a break in there too.

And why didnt they zero his account and send him the money? Pretty hard to bet when there is no cash in the acct.

Bottomline the player is an idiot. Why? Because of what happened. I don't question SIA for a second that they properly informed the player there was to be no more wagering. If he came back in under another name they would be justified to confiscate all winnings. But he didnt right? He used real and cleared postup funds on fair lines and won. SIA, pay him and move on.

Apparently, you didn't read the decision. It was proven that the player was aware that the account was disabled and that he was banned. He played anyway. It is no different. Why on Earth does it matter whose name is used if the player is banned?

John's response and the response of other SBR employees deals with the funds being at risk and not the player being banned anyway.

[Pareto]

It is a bit different. An account that have been disabled can be made active again and limits can be raised, and it doesnt have to be a mistake.

If I had been limited to 10$ at a book and then after some time log in and see I now can bet 1000$, then I would assume they had changed risk manager / strategy and it was ok for me to play 1000$ a game. However if my limit was still 10$ I would not believe it would be ok to make a new account and bet 1000$ from that. At least I would expect it could give me problems.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It is a bit different. An account that have been disabled can be made active again and limits can be raised, and it doesnt have to be a mistake.

If I had been limited to 10$ at a book and then after some time log in and see I now can bet 1000$, then I would assume they had changed risk manager / strategy and it was ok for me to play 1000$ a game. However if my limit was still 10$ I would not believe it would be ok to make a new account and bet 1000$ from that. At least I would expect it could give me problems.

Limits are "a bit different" as well. I think being banned (Cory) is closer to being banned (SIA) than limits (your analogy) are to being banned (SIA).

[SBR_John]

Monkey we offered him a complete new arbitration by a licensed first world arbitrator(UK), one he would select and that we would pay for and he refused. He had a fair arbitration and he knows it.

[MBENZ]

Monkey we offered him a complete new arbitration by a licensed first world arbitrator(UK), one he would select and that we would pay for and he refused. He had a fair arbitration and he knows it.

Now I'm confused.I thought his mother was playing and got reimbursed.Why are you dealing with Cory as if it was his account? It almost sounds as if this was Corys account.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Monkey we offered him a complete new arbitration by a licensed first world arbitrator(UK), one he would select and that we would pay for and he refused. He had a fair arbitration and he knows it.

Yeah. But now he's in a position where he has another gamble to consider. It is a gamble - even if he thinks he has a 90% chance of winning.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Now I'm confused.I thought his mother was playing and got reimbursed.Why are you dealing with Cory as if it was his account? It almost sounds as if this was Corys account.

Is there any reasonable doubt that his mother was playing rather than Cory? If so, then there is nothing to discuss. The entire balance should be rewarded immediately.

[SprayBoy]

hahahahahah I can't get over he used his own mom for this. Guy doesn't deserve a penny purely based on the quality of the lie he attempted

[cory1111]

I never thought I would see the day that sbr would turn into the rx. As it wasn't bad enough that Justin7 asked for personal account information, but now the owner of this forum is saying, "the only way my mother can get a fair, unbiased decision is if she gambles the deposits(which heritage claims is not an issue anymore). Again, my side wants a 3rd party unbiased opinion without having to send the deposits which is only fair. And no sbrjohn, I and many others don't thinks justin7's decision was fair. All SBR and Heritage has been doing is going circles, without producing one ounce of evidence that it was me playing.

[SprayBoy]

I never thought I would see the day that sbr would turn into the rx. As it wasn't bad enough that Justin7 asked for personal account information, but now the owner of this forum is saying, "the only way my mother can get a fair, unbiased decision is if she gambles the deposits(which heritage claims is not an issue anymore). Again, my side wants a 3rd party opinion without having to send the deposits which is only fair. And no sbrjohn, I and many others don't thinks justin7's decision was fair.

You've been caught in a blatant lie and are trying to extract as much resources as you can out of this failure. However the vultures of justice are enclosing in an ever narrowing circle. My 5 year old nephew has constructed more believable lies, and has done so in a manner that involved less idiocy.

It's people like you that cause friction and turmoil between books and players, resulting in fewer bonuses and more problems for us regular players. Not to mention your destructive path through sbr (who have provided free services to all of us and have been more than fair in this case). The sooner you leave the world of gambling, the better.

[cory1111]

Obviously, you cant read sprayboy. SBR is not a free service. Let me help you. SBR is requiring my side to put up the 19k in deposits in order to get a fair and unbiased opinion in order for my mom to get her winnings. SBR did get paid off by Heritage because SBR would not show me their personal bank accounts(to see if they were paid off or not). Its only fair, since Justin7 wanted to see my mother's personal accounts.

[mighty maron]

is this the same cory that in the EZ thread resorted to saying ez farts on cakes or some bs like that?

Heritage quality outfit
Cory non quality human being

[chilidog]

Let's just ban this cory feller and call it a day. He's not getting his money back, and his diatribe has already reached pathetic.

[cloverfield]

John,

Why even bother anymore?

I think they like the traffic this thread is getting.
It's basically down to 4-5 posters going back and forth and neither will be happy until "Corys Mom" gets "her" winnings. It doesn't matter WHO the arbitrator is.. ANYONE who rules against them will be unfairly biased.

Cory knows it was him using the account. Cory knows everybody and their brother knows this..but it's a decent amount of money and he wants to throw anything he can against the wall and see if SOMETHING sticks. Not least he hopes that continued posts in here will make Heritage bend and just pay him to end this. It's just a matter of him being cornered and there is no sensible way out for him.. is he going to admit it was him using the account? no. he is way past that possibility. No matter what evidence comes out his only alternative is to post emails which mean NOTHING to his argument.

Imagine how odd it is that Corys mom is emailing back and forth..doing live chats...but she hasn't posted in this thread???? 1000+ posts and not one appearance from Helena.. I'm sure it is just a mighty coincidence again.. I mean a 60+ year old woman is able to deposit $30k+ dollars into an online sportsbook, only play in the casino, email Heritage numerous times, PM with Justin numerous times.. but she doesn't see fit to post in this thread...why?? is it because the IP's are being watched so closely that it would provide even more evidence???

Im sure Cory thought this was a great plan and since he could use his moms voice to call Heritage, use her identification when he eventually hit royal flushes, etc.. but he didn't think it all the way through.. he didnt cover all sides and now he is simply trapped in a corner where he can only say the same tune over and over and over in HOPES that he will just get the money. if it was a matter of $300 he wouldnt be here right now.. the amount of money "owed" justifies this goose chase and like any gambler...there is always "hope".

I only wished Helena cared enough about this situation as much as Cory does.

[mighty maron]

Obviously, you cant read sprayboy. SBR is not a free service. Let me help you. SBR is requiring my side to put up the 19k in deposits in order to get a fair and unbiased opinion in order for my mom to get her winnings. SBR did get paid off by Heritage because SBR would not show me their personal bank accounts(to see if they were paid off or not). Its only fair, since Justin7 wanted to see my mother's personal accounts.

Chit I didnt get paid off and I think you should get nothing back...

[cory1111]

Do you think people are that stupid that they dont know those posts are coming from Heritage and SBR? The great comment about overseas sportsbooks, who takes your money with no questions in full on day one, but when you want a payout it becomes a full investigation and forces you to wait several weeks. Mighty Maron, I think you messed up a letter, go fix it.

[skrtelfan]

Heritage farts on cakes!

[prop]

If you're going to void winnings, deposits shouldn't be in question. All those deposits were made with no opportunity to win and it would not be fair to keep them.

There's a strong debate what happens if a player sneaks back in. I don't know the answer here, nor do we have a confession this actually happened (is strong evidence to suggest it though). I might be wrong but suspect best policy is to pay the winnings when a player does sneak back in. Why? Because if someone sneaks back in loses $30,000 then reveals themselves then player shouldn't be refunded. That would be giving the player a freeroll against the book. Current policy works fine: They can close the account when player is down any amount for any reason and pay whatever his current balance is (this is the way it works now ). The reason for closing could be they suspect he's a beard and don't welcome the action (not even required to say why though). Giving them a complete freeroll doesn't make sense, unless we also give the player a freeroll too. Best policy imo at the moment is you don't get back your deposits for revealing you were playing while banned, restricted or anything else. If you do get back in and win you get paid. Seems fair, and should be on the site to police and take care of before the win is hit. I can probably be convinced otherwise, but my current thoughts are money was at risk (was down a lot of money at one point) seems Heritage should probably pay up and keep a closer watch.

[MonkeyF0cker]

No freeroll for either party seems pretty fair to me.

As does expecting a book to monitor the action that they take.

[chilidog]

Do you think people are that stupid that they dont know those posts are coming from Heritage and SBR? The great comment about overseas sportsbooks, who takes your money with no questions in full on day one, but when you want a payout it becomes a full investigation and forces you to wait several weeks. Mighty Maron, I think you messed up a letter, go fix it.

Let's just ban this cory feller and call it a day. He's not getting his money back, and his diatribe has already reached pathetic.

[cory1111]

Become A Pro!Join Date: 04-05-09
Posts: 7,913
betpoints: 49

Message Me

Chilidog, your just a bitter poster.

SBR has been rather disappointing lately.