[Dark Horse]

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?

Again, I don't accept the identity excuse, because that's all it is.

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."

[HedgeHog]

[QUOTE=shari91;15981142]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[/QUO





Thanks for the PM earlier, but we definitely disagree how Justin handles sponsor vs nonsponsor cases. Where the hell is the video on this case--is he embarrassed by his decision? Must be, because he's tried to hide this issue from the onset. If it's a non-sponsor Book like EZ he's a fukking hero exploiting the fact. Justin is a coward that needs to be called out. If you believe in your decision, make a fukkin video to explain it.

[antifoil]

I assume both parties are telling me the truth unless there is evidence to the contrary. Heritage stated that, and I accepted it.

so can you share what method or evidence you obtain to suggest a book is telling the truth? i mean what evidence you gather to dispute that claim.

i am concerned because it is easy to begin were the parties are telling the truth, and then conclude the party was telling the truth because you did nothing to determine if the party was lying.

[boatboatboat]

Justin if in the future you are asked to rule on a JB case that has Cory envolved do you think Cory's past history would influence your thought process?

[cory1111]

I just want to state another fact. On my mother's CC that she used at ** on the computer, has the same last name as mine. Therefore when Heritage asked for the receiver it was the same as my last name. Justin has been made aware of this for awhile.

[boatboatboat]

cory do you ever go to vegas and play JB, where payouts are never an issue?

[boatboatboat]

[QUOTE=cory1111;15981534. On my mother's CC that she used at ** on the computer, has the same last name as mine. [/QUOTE]

I thought your moms last name wasn't the same as yours?

[wtt0315]

corey

Can i ask a question. If you are banned at heritage why even risk it? I mean even if it was your mother playing why wouldnt you tell her hey i am banned and you might get in trouble too. There are a lot of other books, why go back to one you are banned at? You are asking for headaches weather you are doing legit or not. I know that if i was banned at a book and one of my realitives wanted to play there i would say mom i am banned there dont try it. Or mom tell them first i you are my mother just to make sure you have no problems..

[HedgeHog]

Cheat EZ and we'll give you a thread to bump. Cheat a sponsor book and we're all over your ass. That's my take on this thread.

[Justin7]

Cheat EZ and we'll give you a thread to bump. Cheat a sponsor book and we're all over your ass. That's my take on this thread.

Hedge,

Instead of a blanket accusation of bias, why don't you discuss the actual case. Did I get the facts wrong? Or was the legal conclusion based on what I had wrong?

[raydog]

haha, you guys have too much of a hard on for sponsor/non sponsor issues...shit is irrelevant here and i really see nothing that shows any favoritism...if j7 wanted to take care of the book, he would have told the slimy scamming fukk to piss off and ruled that heritage shouldnt give him back anything....believe me, he wouldnt have been the only guy in the industry to feel that way.... instead, his ruling was more than fair and cory knows it and is happy to get back what he is... the kids mom is butchering her name by lying her ass off for her little boy...its cute

[antifoil]

I just want to state another fact. On my mother's CC that she used at ** on the computer, has the same last name as mine. Therefore when Heritage asked for the receiver it was the same as my last name. Justin has been made aware of this for awhile.

is the last name rather unique? how notorious are you know in the online book industry were your last name would be a trigger?

[antifoil]

Cory beat us on 2 Royal Flushes a 1½ years ago. We paid him, closed his account and notified him that he could no longer play at Heritage.

MBENZ is right – we do not check losers but when there is a large win we need the approval of our Fraud Department before we send payment. This department uncovered a pattern that matched Cory’s previous play. When investigating further they found out the account holder was Cory’s mother. We contacted the account holder with this information and eventually we were contacted by Cory himself. We expressed our desire to resolve this issue and asked for his input. He asked that the case be arbitrated by Justin. We agreed.

As of this morning this account’s deposits less fees are available for withdrawal as per Justin’s recommendation.

has anyone reading this thread had their account closed at heritage even without winning? please post so. it will help dispute the claim in this post they do not look at losses.

[Justin7]

I just want to state another fact. On my mother's CC that she used at ** on the computer, has the same last name as mine. Therefore when Heritage asked for the receiver it was the same as my last name. Justin has been made aware of this for awhile.

Are you suggesting that Heritage should have known someone else was playing her account from this?

[Patrick McIrish]

I assume both parties are telling me the truth unless there is evidence to the contrary. Heritage stated that, and I accepted it.

Well there you go, that was as far as his investigation went. He basically took the case from Heritage, rubberstamped it, and hoped like hell this never hit the forums. BTW in a US court you don't accept statements from the defendants as fact, you look for actual evidence. When Reagan questioned you on another forum it was absolutely stunning how little work you had done in the area of any possible wrongdoing on the book side of this. As you said so clearly - "they stated it and I accepted it". WOW.

For the Cory haters, best not to look at this as Cory, sure it might be him, very strong possibility in fact. But if you're SBR you don't set precedent with an eye on punishing some degenerate loser. That's my problem with all this. Sure it's nice to cheat a scammer, but when you create rules and make decisions that can be maximized by others (and you can't bet your ass they will) then you've won the battle and lost the war. I'd be very careful these days if you're a winning player, especially with sponsor books here.

[Patrick McIrish]

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.

Excellent point, it's a shame someone like you didn't get to investigate the case. In the US court system someone like Justin with clearly vested interest in the case would never be allowed in the building.

FTR I'm not arguing for Cory, and I'm not arguing with Justin for the hell of it, I just think he's wrong. Agreed with him probably the last 14 decisions in a row, this one though is hard to digest.

[Inspirited]

[ ] conclusions of mine that you care about
[x] in the end it seems a fair ruling by j7. he could have sided totally with heritage allowing them to keep his losses.
[x] heritage had a freeroll on. without sbr cory was toast. good that heritage was willing to go along with the process
[x] cory had no business trying to get around his ban
[x] i rly wanna know how cory had +ev in supposed -ev game. vry interesting if not bonus related.
[x] don't rly think bs obamish lawyer speak can rly distinguish between what this guy did and what j7 and his syndicate buddies did. they are same in essence. blah blah blah
[x] sbr has some bias towards sponsors.
[x] sbr is still one of the greatest sites on the internets despite the fact that us government holds its true potential down
[ ] i am an sbr pro
[x] i am rambling on now
[x] i went 6 -10 against the nfl spread last week
[x] i could contend for last place in BTP
[ ] i actually bet those
[x] i have a br to bet
[x] my br is cheeseburger money for poker and not betting
[x] i believe i can beat video roulette despite mathematical expectation sayin no.
[ ] i'm not a neck bearded virgin hoping to use sbr as welfare once i go pro
[ ] rofl
[x] FML

[wrongturn]

I just want to state another fact. On my mother's CC that she used at ** on the computer, has the same last name as mine. Therefore when Heritage asked for the receiver it was the same as my last name. Justin has been made aware of this for awhile.

If you imply that Heritage knew the lady related to you when she made deposit, you have very weak case. As we all know, books' risk department only gets nosy when large payout is requested, rarely when an account is opened or deposit is made. And regular CS handling the deposit probably has no clue who you or she is.

[Patrick McIrish]

I just want to state another fact. On my mother's CC that she used at ** on the computer, has the same last name as mine. Therefore when Heritage asked for the receiver it was the same as my last name. Justin has been made aware of this for awhile.

The book wasn't investigated. Anything your Mom shows and might help her case won't be considered, as Justin said all that's irrelevant. His main job was to take statements from the book, accept them as fact, get this issue buried as quickly as possible. You know, the US court system way. He's a hired gun for SBR, he isn't going to get work by disagreeing with one of their sponsors. If you want to hire him Cory as an independent contractor you might get these "decisions" in the future.

[antifoil]

you have as much evidence that justin made this decision with malice as justin has shown that he used due diligence in investigating the book's knowledge on the player.

[shari91]

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

Thanks for the PM earlier, but we definitely disagree how Justin handles sponsor vs nonsponsor cases. Where the hell is the video on this case--is he embarrassed by his decision? Must be, because he's tried to hide this issue from the onset. If it's a non-sponsor Book like EZ he's a fukking hero exploiting the fact. Justin is a coward that needs to be called out. If you believe in your decision, make a fukkin video to explain it.

Again: When have you seen a video made when Justin ruled in favour of the book? Any book? He makes them when a book has done something dodgy. Not sure why we're still discussing this point.

[cory1111]

Justin wanted full access to my mother's personal accounts including passwords, not related to the sportsbook. When my mother refused Justin ruled in Heritage's favor. My mother sent proof of ticket on RCCL ship when the first royal hit, at which I was not present.

[cloverfield]

I will not comment any further than this on my mother's case.

Cory

you cant even tell the truth posting on a forum.

Can you ask your mom what VPN services she uses? My grandmother really likes Chuck Norris movies and she said she is looking for a better VPN when she uses torrents for downloading.

thanks cory

[tomcowley]

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.

....


If Monte Carlo had trespassed/banned the player at an earlier visit, the outcome in the case you cited would have been different.

You read the decision, but your argument here only applies to the first point. Heritage did rely on the false ID (assuming it's Cory piloting, I'm not going to argue that point here), however it doesn't apply to the second point.

To establish fraud, the Monte Carlo must show that Chen provided a false representation of a material fact, which he knew to be false;  that Chen intended the Monte Carlo to rely on the misrepresentation;  that the Monte Carlo detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation;  and that the misrepresentation proximately caused damages.

Chen's skill in playing blackjack, rather than his misrepresentation of identity, was the proximate cause of his winnings.

This is true whether he was trespassed or not. He'd have to stand for violating the 86, as opposed to what actually happened where he only had to stand for possessing false ID, but the decision is crystal clear. The play is the the proximate cause of winnings, therefore the winnings aren't fraudulent (unless they can prove that the play itself is somehow fraudulent, but good luck with that), therefore they can't keep them because of a fraud claim.

[antifoil]

the facts are different. i feel like there is a difference between presenting false ID and a different individual's ID. in the casino example, the employee's had a chance to see him and interact with him allowing for further opportunity to identify him. this is not possible with an online casino. therefore, presenting someone else's ID would be the proximate cause because the lack of the ability to further identify the banned player.

that is unless of course they had some other way to identify it was cory, as i have presented in this thread. if that was the true, then this case wouldn't matter because they accepted his action.

[sharpcat]

corey

Can i ask a question. If you are banned at heritage why even risk it? I mean even if it was your mother playing why wouldnt you tell her hey i am banned and you might get in trouble too. There are a lot of other books, why go back to one you are banned at? You are asking for headaches weather you are doing legit or not. I know that if i was banned at a book and one of my realitives wanted to play there i would say mom i am banned there dont try it. Or mom tell them first i you are my mother just to make sure you have no problems..

Would you tell your mom to go play at a casino with a 97.5% return VP machine? or would you suggest that she play at a casino who offers a 9/6 payout chart and has a 99.5% return?

[sharpcat]

Are you suggesting that Heritage should have known someone else was playing her account from this?

Are you drawing to conclusions because something someone says does not make sense to you? or do you as an attorney feel that you should draw your conclusions based on provable facts and not assumptions?

[Hustler11]

I think people are using their bias that says "J7 is gonna rule in favor of the book if they sponsor him." How long has j7 been doing this? wouldn't it be dumb for him to ruin his reputation because of one sponsor? I saw nothing wrong with how he ruled this. He gathered all the evidence he could and made his decision based on it. Where's the problem? The kid messed up playing when he was banned in the first place, not to mention the fact he was depositing a few dimes.

[skrtelfan]

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.

how is being up an amount only 40% more than the biggest loss considered up a lot, wouldnt they have checked before

[frostno98]

At this point, I think every offshore book is shaddy in one way or another. Heritage is just like the rest. They didn't do jack until the person decided to cash out. They gladly collect the 30k in losingThis is the thing that bothers me more than anything.

[Sodium Pentothal]

Took 12yrs shame it took something this incredibly simple.

Cannot take one way action indefinitely and at the same time claim someone is banned.

It is ludicrous. Oh yea, 10yrs guy lost but in the 11th he hit two royals, we're keeping the money cause he was banned.

There is no court on planet earth that would ever consider such a one way exclusion policy remotely enforceable.

This is of course glossing over the ridiculousness of most of the rest of it. Confiscation with no cheating. The IP stuff is hilarious.
If the guy had just bearded better........

It is sublime in parts, inane in others and with Raiders carrying your water well beyond tedium.

Time to man up and get the bets, that were made at fair odds, that would otherwise be paid to almost any other human on earth, paid.

SPVI

[Dark Horse]

No need to 'blame' Justin. If this is theft, which it clearly is to a significant part of the people in this thread, Heritage can't hide behind one SBR person. The hit they take in their reputation is real. After all these years, we're still talking about sexygamblerchick, and everybody remembers the name of the book. And how Beted ended up cheating everybody out of their money later on. In that case, SBR ruled in favor of the book as well.

As to the alleged cheating. Corey could teach his method to anybody. Is that also illegal to Heritage, or only if the person has the same last name or shows up on some branch in his family tree?

I believe Justin relied heavily on the speed of play in his decision. If so, that's not evidence at all. Who is to say that if Corey were to teach ten people this system all ten wouldn't be playing at the exact same speed a week from now? All it suggests is that somebody played the same method. It offers zero evidence that it was the same player.

In fact, Corey, if they refuse to pay why not inform them that you will teach ten Heritage players this system? Keep it in the family (without same last name), or friends and family. See how they like that. They've already told you they're afraid of it. So hit them much harder than for what they're trying to avoid. If they are ok taking the hit, increase the number of your group until they're not. If you don't want those players to use it outside of Heritage, have them sign confidentiality agreements. The mere fact that playing in this manner is possible shows the absurdity of this refusal to pay.

[Dark Horse]

nm.

[wtt0315]

So since I have lost about 4000 there on jacks or better can I tell them that I am corry so they can refund my money?

[Dark Horse]

So since I have lost about 4000 there on jacks or better can I tell them that I am corry so they can refund my money?

No, but you should be able to make the argument that the book was too sharp. Refund is in the mail.