 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 | ||
It's called arguing in good faith. You can't take 6 different positions and make 6 different arguments, but that is exactly what is happening here. If the player wants to argue how the law should be applied, the facts needed to be determined with the player's cooperation. Without her helping determine the facts, the whole dispute resolution process degenerates into a circus.Originally Posted by sharpcat
This case is so interesting for the very reason that it IS arguable on many levels.
I would like to shoot a spoof, where a bunch of black guys shooting craps in an alley, want to 'ban' a brother who has been practicing the Golden Touch dice control technique.
The banned black guy leaves, and then this big grandma lady shows up (him in drag), and wants to play.
"We checked wif FamilyTree.eu, and dis lady be yo nana!".
-stay tuned, more to follow-
I don't know Cory or his mother, but I'd prop bet blind any of the day of the week, my Mother would destroy his at video poker speed and accuracy. She's played 8+ hours per day in Vegas for over 30 years and all her friends are just as vicious. Walk through any local casinos known for video poker let me know a guess at the average age. Then let me know how the old Asian ladies who look like they're playing wack-a-mole how many hands they play per minute, can't see why some can't do the same with a mouse and time spent using it. A side note: My sister is sick at video poker too as that's what her my mom do with most their time.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
A quality book's rep is taking hits from a non-quality human being. That is all there is to it.
Heritage pays on time...Heritage is a quality company. The Greek would not have decided to give this company its US customer base if it wasnt.
I would give Heritage the benefit of the doubt.....Cory I would not lend a dime
Point.... People are going on about how this would be handled in court.....
Question: In the UK where this is regulated, how does a publicly listed quality book handle this?
Does anybody know if there were any case ruled by judge that Las Vegas casino can confiscate a player's winning who was explicitly banned in that casino before? The case mentioned in this thread is about a card counting player with fake ID but not about he being already banned before.
Here's one wrongturn. Not in Vegas though - Iowa casino.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A man who won more than $9,000 at an Iowa casino can’t collect his winnings because he was banned from the casino 10 years earlier, the state Supreme Court ruled today.
The court found that Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino in Altoona “had the authority to withhold winnings from a person who had been involuntary excluded.”
The case involved Troy Blackford, who won $9,387 on May 5, 2006. Because of the size of the jackpot, Prairie Meadows had to issue a W-2 immediately for tax purposes. Casino officials then learned that Blackford had been banned in 1996.
According to court documents, Blackford had been issued a “trespass ban” because he hit and damaged a slot machine. The ban, according to Prairie Meadows, was permanent.
Blackford pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and paid a fine. He was found at the casino in March 1998 and was escorted out. He pleaded guilty to trespassing and paid another fine.
When Blackford hit the jackpot in 2006, Prairie Meadows’ records indicated that he was still banned. He was escorted to the security office and his winnings were confiscated.
Blackford filed a petition against the casino to recover damages.
A Polk County district court concluded that Prairie Meadows had the authority to confiscate winnings from patrons who are banned.
Blackford appealed. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling and ordered a new trial, saying it found no statutory provision allowing the casino to confiscate Blackford’s winnings.
The casino appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the lower court.
The ruling makes clear that banned customers should stay away, said attorney Dennis Ogden, who represented the casino.
“It essentially sends a message to people who’ve been banned from casinos that they aren’t going to be able to come in and win any money,” he said.
Blackford’s attorney, Ryan Beattie, said they were disappointed in the court’s ruling.
|
|
Agree, mom lives in NewYork and claims she only played from New York. Then story gets fuzzy when confronted with IP that shows all play was from Florida from person who had been banned from playing their. This place is becoming a joke for players looking for help on legitimate issues. Nothing legit about this story
So many pointless posts. Corey cheated, got his deposit refunded end of story.
The important question is WHY did Heritage close his account for playing a -ev game that he should have been guaranteed to lose money on in the long run. The payout table in the casino is -ev. If it was bonus abuse I think that would have been made public by now, also hard to believe Heritage would offer +ev bonuses on so many deposits to the same customer over the course of many months.
The only thing that makes sense is there is a flaw in the RNG on DGS casinos that can be exploited. Considering how many reputable sportsbooks use this casino software I'd really like to know why Heritage closed Corey's account in the first place. As for him using his mother as a beard it's a moot point, he broke the rules and is being refunded his deposits. But why was he ever barred from playing a -ev game??????
Thanks to you I just spit out my coffee. thanks for the laugh.
but I agree with you.. anyone that lacks common sense or just gets off on bashing a "book" would consider this theft and leave the OBVIOUS/ACTUAL proof at the door...and there ARE a lot of nutjobs in this thread.
That's what I mean.. anyone with common sense knows this is a beard/shady attempt by Cory. His only avenue is to keep this in the limelight as long as possible HOPING that Heritage just says OK WE'LL PAY. In a situation like this I don't feel Heritage's rep is taking a hit..because it's clear that certain people will only hate on the book and ignore the actual findings.. clear as day this guy Cory is one shady mofo.
If anything it makes it more clear to me that Heritage stands behind its principles/clearly marked rules and doesn't cave in to extortion attempts.
Last edited by cloverfield; 09-12-12 at 11:59 AM.
1) This guy physically entered a property that had a court order preventing him from entering.
2) the casino was actually able to prove that he trespassed on their property against court orders.
3) This had nothing to do with the mans mother.
This case is not even close to being similar but nice googleing I am sure your boss appreciates your effort.
Cory must have been doingand thinking why I didn't tell Heritage to go to sharpcat for mediate. It would be total win to me.
Everybody who read the EZstreet case knows I hate Cory but he would have at least got a fair ruling from me, instead he chose to let his butt buddy Justin7 handle the case thinking that Justin7 would ignore the obvious conflict of interest with Heritage, SBR, and their financial relationship.Cory must have been doing
Heritage is an invite only book.
Why did Heritage invite Cory's mother to play at their book?
I thought Heritage opened their doors to anyone a while backHeritage is an invite only book.
Why did Heritage invite Cory's mother to play at their book?
You can also sign up with them through SBR can't you?Heritage is an invite only book.
Why did Heritage invite Cory's mother to play at their book?
If she signed up through SBR wouldn't that mean that SBR would share a percentage of this players wins/losses with Heritage? So if the player were paid it would cost SBR money also?
That would be a major conflict of interest in a case with such a controversial ruling.
I was certainly joking as I read that thread. But what your fair ruling is going to be? Full confiscation? Does not make sense as it is worse than J7's ruling. Refund deposit only? Not making sense since it is same as J7's and you are arguing so much. Full refund? Even less sense as how you argued in that ezstreet thread. Your dislike of J7/SBR is clouding your judgement, I am afraid.
Last edited by wrongturn; 09-12-12 at 02:41 PM.
My ruling is the book took the bet and the player risked their money. Unless they can offer up some solid evidence to prove that Cory physically controlled the account......pay the player, close the account and take steps to ensure that this does not happen again in the future. Most books have rules against correlated parlays but if the software allows the bet Justin7 has always ruled that the fair remedy is to pay the player and fix the issue.
Justin7 taught me in the EZ case that you can not rule on gut feelings and that you need actual proof that the player cheated.
Okay, that is fair. As player I like this reasoning as well.
So you think EZ has proved Cory cheated but Heritage has not. Is my understanding of you words right? Or you think EZ should have paid Cory?
EZ had strong reason to believe that Cory was using a bot and was a ********** artist but could not prove beyond doubt that Cory used a bot. EZ was ordered to pay by SBR.Okay, that is fair. As player I like this reasoning as well.
So you think EZ has proved Cory cheated but Heritage has not. Is my understanding of you words right? Or you think EZ should have paid Cory?
Heritage has strong reason to believe this account was a Cory beard but can not produce solid evidence to prove this. Heritage was told by SBR they do not have to pay.
I think if EZ was told to pay that by the same standards Heritage should have to pay.
Okay, you don't like SBR rulings. I got it. So assuming SBR didn't rule in both cases, and Cory asked you to mediate, what your "consistent" ruling on both cases will be if you can not get 100% proof, may I ask???
Last edited by wrongturn; 09-12-12 at 03:55 PM.
Smart guy. Heritage pays SBR, EZ doesn't. Easy to figure out. SBR looks out for itself first, everyone else bend over.
Man I wish I could use the ignore function here. You're beyond pathetic at this point.
You think I need you to point out any dissimilarities between the two cases? I was responding to wrongturn's question. "Does anybody know if there were any case ruled by judge that Las Vegas casino can confiscate a player's winning who was explicitly banned in that casino before?"
Thanks for the laugh though!!!
Exactly, look at this sub forum and you will find complaints left and right about Heritage. They make you send in all kinds of ID just to sign up and make withdraws as painful as possible. Then they out right steal the winnings from a player, yet they get an upgrade from SBR. I've played with about every book imaginable and by far the worst experience I ever had was with Heritage.
You want fair unbiased ratings on the books.... Here you go:
Pinnacle A+
Greek A+
Bookmaker C
5dimes C
All others F-
Too bad Cory doesn't have the same common sense you do. The guy asks RX/Wilheim to decide an EZ Street issue where they are a sponsor Book--he loses 46k. You would think he learns from this blunder, but nooooooo. He then asks SBR/Justin to decided a Heritage complaint where they are a sponsor Book and loses about 15k in winnings and deposit expenses. Not too bright.
So anybody that doesn't see things your way is a nutjob? Makes sense. I've been making the same argument I made in the beted/sexygamblerchick case. Many agreed there. There are simply two different ways of looking at casino identity checks, and SBR is looking at it from the book's perspective rather than the player's. The fact remains that the player never broke any of the game's rules and faced the same odds as everybody else. This central fact was properly recognized in the Monte Carlo case.
Because he beat their casino? Or because he used disguise (not proven, but let's assume). Justin, the judge in this case, himself used to go into Vegas casino(s) in disguise. I don't quite understand how he switched from the player's perspective then to the book's perspective now, but people can change. I would love him to explain the difference, though. I haven't been in this particular situation, but I think it would bother me to have such opposing opinions on the same matter, separated only by time and association.
Hypothetically, if Corey would teach his method to a 1000 Heritage players, what argument could Heritage possibly have to not pay? If the answer to that question is 'none', then this one decision not to pay is completely arbitrary.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 09-12-12 at 05:04 PM.
it is disturbing justin7 has yet to produce the method of investigation or evidence(and lack there of) he used to show heritage didn't know the player was actually cory before he won. even if he wanted to start with the assumption all parties are telling the truth, he should do due diligence to determine the parties are telling the truth. that was certainly the case with the investigation of cory. the negligence in doing so would be a real indictment of his ability to preform these mediation.
I don't think he changed at all. His perspective is swayed by his own personal interests, just like the rest of us. His decision would have likely been 100% for the player had the issue not involved a sponsor Book.
That allegation is too easy, because he did go to great lengths to investigate. If the outcome was a foregone conclusion, why investigate?
People do change positions depending on self-interest, and that would be hard to deny here. As you say, that is common. But the degree of self-interest is not at all clear here. He may simply have become more conservative than in his wild youth, so to speak.
what you are saying is a red herring. people separate their personal life from professional life all the time. like a district attorney that drives home drunk or smokes pot, but still prosecutes defendant that do the same.
True enough. There's a word for that.
Justin has helped far too many players in the past to make unfounded allegations. I doubt this thread is the stage for him to explain his changed position on this topic, or the possible continued use of disguise in connection with non-US player books, but it would make for an interesting read.
I'm going to assume that his position is something like: "Disguise is ok, but don't get caught; because if you do, there's nothing we can do to help you." (not applying to bonus scammers).
Last edited by Dark Horse; 09-12-12 at 05:54 PM.
Dark Horse, your argument is at least consistent. I wish you could be a supreme court judge as I can sneak in to any books that have banned me and come out okay if got caught. Basically what you saying that books/casinos banning players is a non-enforceable rule, same to any other rules that not related to gaming odds and gaming rules. I don't think it is going to fly in the real world though.
It already has flown. Monte Carlo. The policy is enforceable, but not retroactively where it comes to any honest betting action.
I find it hard to believe how easily people buy into the crocodile tears of a casino. Especially online. They make millions with these rigged games, but somebody slips through their identity check, takes a little back, and the cries of foul play start. Just incredible.
There's another issue on the table, and that is the fact that the money belongs to the player, or the book, as soon as any bet is decided. After that, the online book only holds the money for the player, because it would obviously be too much of a hassle to move the money in and out every day. As such, the player extends to the book a level of trust normally reserved for banks. But the book holding the money for the player is not a bank, and certainly does not have any right to refuse the player his money when he asks for it. That is way across the line. So the way Heritage is using their socalled Fraud Department is a clear expression of free rolling. If you lose, all is well with their world. If you win, they reserve the right to pay you or not, long after you rightfully believed the money belonged to you!
The system that is in place is a joke. Not helpful to players that SBR is going along with it. There need to be much clearer definitions about these shady areas, because every unclearly defined area will be decided in favor of the book. After all, they have the power because ... they hold your money.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 09-12-12 at 06:57 PM.
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: Dr.Gonzo
|
It is a different case, and I agree with that ruling. But if Monte Carlo bans that player, and player comes back again, you argument of paying the player equals to that banning rule has no practical effect, thus not enforceable.
Reply With Quote
wrongturn gave shari91 5 SBR Point(s) for this post.
