 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
lolz...mcirish calling someone else a thief...cant make this shit up...patty, do you even realize that what j7 did/does is completely different that what corys stupid ass was doing? please tell me you see the difference.. nevermind, im still worried that you might actually think a 60something yr old broad was playing perfect strategy at the fastest speeds we have seen on the game...common
"I know the difference between an independent contractor and an employee, Mr. Mason--as I have worked in both capacities. My point is that regardless of whether he's an IC or employee, Justin7 works here at the whim of SBR."
You may have worked as both but apparently the distinction about what separates and distinguishes the two is lost on you.
To be fair, I didn't assess how good the play was; I only reviewed the speed. If it mattered, I would have reviewed the skill level.Originally Posted by raydog
lolz...mcirish calling someone else a thief
it really doesnt matter... you have to be very very good to play at that speed consistently...i would imagine not many can do it...and definitely not an old lady in her 60s... i mean how gullible are some people? im still waiting for cory to post some more and shove his foot deeper down his throat...
do you know if heritage has already sent their deposit funds back to them?
lolz...mcirish calling someone else a thief
Humor me, explain why they are different to you, if anything Justin looks worse. He clearly broke rules set up by a sportsbook and refuses to admit it, Mrs H is only being accused of it. In overview, here's what it looks like to me:
A - The book knew all along, they freerolled the guy knowing they would be covered if the account ever got winner because they could link Cory to it. I find this the most likely. Ironically when asked what Justin looked into concerning this angle he admitted several times "I do not know". Also "it's irrelevant". He never pursued anything.
B - Anytime there's a big winner they are going to do genealogy searches on everyone, if a name pops up that is related to the winner they are going to start in with an investigation. The account holder better know where she was months ago, where she was when she played, her travel plans, flight schedules and so on.
Either one is not acceptable IMO. And the thing to remember is this case isn't about Cory, he's irrelevant. If Dr Suess was playing on her account then the decision would be the same. The account belonged to Mrs H, period. Cory's name is out there to play to the crowd, create anger, help back up this poor decision. Had Justin said John Smith is playing on Mrs H's account then it doesn't sell near as well. Theatrics, just like they use in the US court system.
are you serious? you dont know the difference in giving someone money to go make a play for you....and using someones name to physically play a casino game yourself...one is bearding, one is flat out scamming...
and i said this over at peeps, but why in the world would they allow cory to scam them under a different name when they already banned him once??? they wouldnt...they would ban him the second they knew it was him...so obviously, they didnt even check till the payout was requested...its cut and dry if we have all the info...its really pretty stupid of you to think differently...
So, like this case, from Nevada, where gambling is legal
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-suprem...t/1458113.html
summarized at http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...20Counters.htm
where the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in literally the exact opposite way that you did about the player getting to keep his winnings even though the only reason he was able to play at all was because he intentionally gave false ID?
Typical lawyer, argue points that are irrelevant to the matter at hand. My point (for the third time) is that J7's position here can be terminated by SBR. As such, regardless of whether you and I agree with his decision, there is a "conflict of interest" present when he decides sponsor involved cases. Additionally, when Justin7 does this in an obvious secretive manner, there is also a hint of impropriety present.
Last edited by HedgeHog; 09-11-12 at 12:26 PM.
Justin7,
How many SIA accounts have you operated?
LOL
Is it really that surprising to people that a book that pays SBR to advertise and hand picks a SBR employee to do the evaluation would ultimately come to a decision that benefits the book?
Neither is allowed. You can talk about which being worse all you want, the fact is both are against the rules. In fact speaking from a book's point of view I'd much prefer they come after me on JB game that I can easily spot/control, some of these circumvent limits/bonus and so on bearding teams playing into you can be very expensive. And as you see in Justin's admissions very difficult to stop. Regardless which you personally think is worse both are against the rules. Justin's actions are no better then Mrs H or anyone else involved in this dispute, comical he was sent in to be the "judge".
Why did they allow it? They didn't. They allowed the play, they knew all along they weren't going to make the account winner. If that is the case, do you agree books should be allowed to freeroll accounts they know they aren't going to pay? And then come to the forums and have Justin authorize the winnings being taken? I mean come on, asking Justin to moderate a dispute between a player and a sponsor? Obviously Mrs H isn't very intelligent, doesn't mean her winnings should be taken because she failed an interrogation though.
Reading the actual opinion, it states:
The Monte Carlo did not show either that it detrimentally relied on Chen's misrepresentation or that Chen's misrepresentation was the proximate cause for the casino's damages for two reasons. First, the Monte Carlo requires a patron seeking more than $10,000 in playing chips to present identification only for regulatory compliance rather than to determine whether the patron is a card counter.2 The Monte Carlo has no policy instructing casino employees to cross-check the patron's identification with any sources that might identify card counters.
So if this player had presented his real ID, he would still have been allowed to play in this Monte Carlo case. What would have happened, if the player opened up another account under the banned name? If Heritage would let the banned player open an account under his banned name, accept deposits and play, this case would be on point.
The Monte Carlo case would be analogous to a book/casino hearing about a suspected shady player from another book, and seizing his winnings without a prior warning or banishment. If Monte Carlo had trespassed/banned the player at an earlier visit, the outcome in the case you cited would have been different.
Last edited by Justin7; 09-11-12 at 12:35 PM.
And Ray, all the beards calling in bets for BW, poker boys and so on should have their winnings stolen? They are all beards betting on an account that does not belong to them. As a point of record the self-alleged father of these watchdog sites was once a well known beard. Now with Justin's ruling, sponsor books only of course, they now have the license to confiscate all that money if they choose to?
i would give anyone back their deposits who was acting as a beard... once...and only once...after that, you risk losing everything you deposit...more than fair, but you still dont see the difference in bearding and what cory did...they are totally different...i cant argue with stupid anymore... if heritage was going to freeroll the guy, they would do it...tell him to fukk himself and keep his deposits, no matter what j7 decided was best...that, they arent doing...it proves to me they had no idea and didnt care who and how they were losing money... its plain as day man..right there if you think about it a little bit and forget about shit that has nothing to do with the case... nobody gives a shit about vegas or what j7 does or any of us for that matter... you keep harping on all this insignificant shit...nauseating...
It was Cory who asked to go to arbitration not Heritage. It was also Cory who hand picked Justin to arbitrate the case, not Heritage. In the interest of fair play, we did as we were asked and now are following the arbitrators ruling.
Were you going to pay him if he hadn't asked for arbitration?
It was my understanding that Cory asked for SBR and Justin to be the arbritor
You are correct and Cory confirmed this in his one post here. Sometimes the facts get in the way of Emily's opinion of Heritage.
To be fair IMO the title thread should be edited to include the fact that the deposits were returned...
How many accounts has Justin7 controlled under other peoples names after having his limits reduced
O/U
Over 35 (-110)
Under 35 (-110)
Post-up: 0. Credit, a few.. But credit accounts aren't really in anyone's name.
Who in the Fukk puts $50K on a Online Casino?? Yep you were trying to SCAM
If You had $50K just to blow on a Computerized Casino why wouldn't U just go to VEGAS, Atlantic, Europe or Somewhere.. Hmmmm Again.. YEP you were Trying to SCAM
Plus Heritage has security issues if they cannot detect anything fast enough.. Has me wondering
PS:Heritage Casino has a weakens let me know when your book comes out
I like this Justin guy
that Harrahs story was pretty damn cool.
Why imagine a US court where gambling is not legal, over a clear-cut case like the Monte Carlo example? I very much respect your insight, but I don't understand the reasoning behind this ruling at all. Same for the sexygamblerchick versus beted. You're getting drawn into identity questions, to the point of absurdity in the case of Heritage doing a family tree (lol), but the gambling was conducted fair and square. The odds didn't change for the player. If the book doesn't like a player with an advantage they can close the door on that player. And then the player can try to get in another way. The book will then have to start the same identity procedure, but can't change bets retroactively, because those bets were available to the entire public. The question therefore is not first about the players identity, but about the book's anal attitude towards one player out of thousands that can beat their casino. To side with a book in such a circumstance, as if a great injustice was done to it, is nothing short of absurd. Those casinos rake in the money, probably with settings that would never pass US law (!), and they cry foul when somebody takes something back? Unreal. Where's the objectivity if you're going to look at this purely from the book's perspective?
Fwiw, Heritage Mike has informed me personally that the casino has different settings; easy for practice play and hard for real money play; this was briefly changed after I commented on it, but later the different settings were put back in place. So the existence of different settings is not in question, and therefore the book's ability to manipulate the odds without the player's knowledge is not in question either! And yet this is all turned into a player identity question? Since when can the inherently dishonest demand absolute honesty?
To put this back into the Monte Carlo context. Their casino is honest. Online casinos in all likelihood are not. A previously banned, disguised player beat the Monte Carlo casino and the court ruled he had to be paid. An online disguised player beats the unregulated online casino, and you rule in favor of that casino? How do different legal experts have diagonally opposing interpretations of the same law (even when not in place in the US)? How you, of all people, can come to this conclusion, when you yourself used to play in disguise in Vegas is beyond me.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 09-11-12 at 04:40 PM.
Did you read my discussion of that case?
I don't. The guy is two faced, depending on whether your complaint is against a sponsor Book or not. Complaint against a non-sponsor gets you a video and free thread to bump the rest of your life. Not so much versus a sponsor Book, where he plays hide the issue. He should be called out on this BS.]I like this Justin guy
[/B]
that Harrahs story was pretty damn cool.
How many videos have you seen where J7 ruled in favour of the book... any book.. and a video was made?
betfair, ezstreet, youwin, bwin, 21kbet, digibet = all instances where he found the book was in the wrong
videos made when the book was found to be in the right, even an OMFG SBR Sponsor Book = crickets
so did you check to see if they knew it was cory playing before he won? thereby, accepting his offer. the ID doesn't have to be physical ID. it could be an IP addresss or betting patterns. anything that would have identified the user as cory.
can you give us a summary of how books keep track of players that play big stakes? i am pretty sure they keep some sort of record on these players.
cory really needs legal representation in these things. cory should have submitted it wasn't him that was playing, but if the mediator finds it was him, then the heritage knew it was him. therefore, the heritage owes him the winnings because they accepted his offer.
I had missed that. Was scanning thread for your response to my post, but it came in response to another post.
I disagree with your interpretation, though. The money was won fair and square. You're ruling protects casinos unreasonably. Their identity check is there to protect them from a few sharp players, in an environment where the public pays them millions/billions, but you nevertheless seek to protect their identity check as a 'legal' entity, and give it greater importance than the fact that player faced the same odds as everybody else. Therefore this ruling can only be seen as shaded towards the book. It lacks the objectivity that you commonly display.
As long as they don't abuse the system in place, such as through bonus scamming, why should players not be allowed to try and circumvent an identity check? Such acts are not dishonest, because they don't change the odds, and are merely a response to the casino's out-of-control greed. The thought of losing money to anyone is too unbearable. Let's not accept that sorry attitude as law.
Since a casino's identity check is not law, if somebody slips through it the only appropriate response is: "Too bad. Enough with the crocodile tears already. Pay the man his money."
Last edited by Dark Horse; 09-11-12 at 05:09 PM.
When Heritage determined that player's ID issue is certainly relevant. Heritage stated that they did not review the account until the player hit a second second royal. If you accept that, Heritage did not suspect the account of anything until the play was finished (and the account suspended). If Heritage knew or suspected the player was bearding and still took his action, it could no longer claim fraud after that point. The action would have been valid. However, there was nothing suggesting that Heritage had that suspicion earlier.
A player depositing $200-$300 per deposit isn't really a high-stakes player. But as I said earlier, there are two typical triggers that will draw scrutiny to an account. Getting up a lot, or asking for a deposit.
Then when you read the Monte Carlo case and compared it to the facts of this case, did you conclude that Heritage did not detrimentally rely on the player's ID? Did you conclude that Heritage would let the banned player in if he used his real name?
what makes it seem biased is in that post you accepted the books claim they didn't know it was him. will you share what evidence you gathered to conclude they didn't know it was him until? it seems the same level of scrutiny should be put on the book and the player because they both have a financial interest in the outcome.
also the level of the deposit doesn't necessary correlate to a high stakes player. the level of stakes he player plays at does. a person could make 100s of 200 dollar deposits and still play at a high stakes level.
This prattle back and forth is still going on.....
Justin you are a patient man or at least one of considerable restraint...you seem to have a thankless job...
Heritage....they paid back the deposits....I for one have no fears that Heritage could not pay if the hit and the op were both legit...money resources are not an issue.
The only item worth of interest is setting up a line on how many pages this thread will go on before people take a pill...its over..nothing to see...move along...
I assume both parties are telling me the truth unless there is evidence to the contrary. Heritage stated that, and I accepted it.
Reply With Quote
