[McFly86]

the freeroll would have been if they kept the deposits and/or knew it was him all along and kept it all...not the case...sorry you wont convince me. how about we rage at the debates on tv for the next few hours.

No. What you are describing would be described as pure theft. What heritage did is a freeroll because there were two inevitable outcomes- either they would keep all despots if the player lost, or they would break even by refunding deposits if the player won.

Freerolling customers is fraudulent because they are accepting wagers that they will never honour

It's unreal that this is even a debate.

[McFly86]

True and that's why I said "likely". My point is that Heritage's "freeroll" liabilty needs to be mitigated by Cory's blatant violation of the ban order.

I'm a lawyer and I have no idea what you are trying to say here

[Winner_13]

Heritage Insider, are you not going to respond to me?

[raiders72001]

No. What you are describing would be described as pure theft. What heritage did is a freeroll because there were two inevitable outcomes- either they would keep all despots if the player lost, or they would break even by refunding deposits if the player won.

Freerolling customers is fraudulent because they are accepting wagers that they will never honour

It's unreal that this is even a debate.

That's not the case. There were three possible outcomes. Heritage could have taken all the funds, just refunded deposits or paid all winnings.

Both partied agreed to binding arbitration to determine one of the three possible rulings. There wasn't a freeroll. If Justin had ruled for cory, then cory would have received the winnings

[raiders72001]

MFer should pay the dime. The ruling could have caused Heritage to pay all the winnings.

[Scooter]

Have any of the sportsbooks supposedly suspicious that Cory has found a way to exploit the game/software, eliminated the game or changed the software manufacturer?

I'll be very surprised if they don't all still offer the same game with the same software.
Someone's already stated that Heritage still offers the game with the same software.
So they feel the game/software is vulnerable, but they choose to keep offering it?

Just a red herring.

[prop]

both partied agreed to binding arbitration to determine one of the three possible rulings.

stop spreading this lie!

[skrtelfan]

calling something arbitration when the arbitrator takes advertising from one of the parties is a misuse of the word

[HedgeHog]

I'm a lawyer and I have no idea what you are trying to say here

All I was trying to say is that Cory's claim of being "freerolled" needs to weighed against his initial bad act of violating Heritage's ban order. Heritage made it clear they didn't want the guy's action and shouldn't be responsible for his ill-gotten profits. They should be put back in the same position as if this all had never occurred. Returning ONLY the net deposits is thus a fair solution to this situation--again one created by Cory.

[raiders72001]

stop spreading this lie!

what lie?

[Maximo]

What's the final decision now?

[cory1111]

My side is still waiting to hear from Heritage's so-called expert. Heritage said it was going to take 3 weeks and we are now going into the 4th week.

[MonkeyF0cker]

All I was trying to say is that Cory's claim of being "freerolled" needs to weighed against his initial bad act of violating Heritage's ban order. Heritage made it clear they didn't want the guy's action and shouldn't be responsible for his ill-gotten profits. They should be put back in the same position as if this all had never occurred. Returning ONLY the net deposits is thus a fair solution to this situation--again one created by Cory.

Then why aren't you pushing for them to post a rule that wins AND losses by previously banned accounts are no-actioned and deposits are returned?

Or are you here to support players being freerolled?

[uncynd]

I will never deposit to heritage if this is correct, and I have a lot less respect for SBR forum if what they said is true.

It looks to me like heritage is taking advantage of a marketing contractor to essentially extort money from WHOEVER. Shame on you heritage for not doing the proper background before accepting 30k worth of action, you should be under duress to pay and I'm glad that some people will see this for what it is.

Shame on you SBR for allowing this kind of player manipulation to occur. Justin7 from my very short history of seeing you in action I can conclude only that;

a) you enjoy complicating simple matters

b) you have an agenda to protect sportsbooks you also represent unless the evidence is too damning and blatent.


So I ask you sir...is there information you have not told us? Otherwise it sure looks that way to me.

[uncynd]

I seriously get stuck on how anyone thinks that someone who is banned from a book should get paid. I truly don't see the point of rules at all if that's what some think should be the standard.

Shari I have real issue when a sportsbook will accept action continuously ie: deposits and has no issue when the account is losing, but all of a sudden when it's time to assess a cashout, the team starts to dig and actually determine who is placing bets or who's action it REALLY is. I think the most professional books determine their level of risk BEFORE any action is taken rather then the latter and if they need to refuse action they will. I really have zero respect for books who operate this way; it's 2-bit, it's slimey and it's not excusable, ever.

I think what is funny about all this is truly how the money was won, there is 0 tactical advantage cory or cory's mom or whoever could have gained from winning 2 royals, yet heritage wants to deny-pay.

Shady as a 70s lamp if you ask me.

[HedgeHog]

Then why aren't you pushing for them to post a rule that wins AND losses by previously banned accounts are no-actioned and deposits are returned?

Or are you here to support players being freerolled?

Are you here to support banned players? You seem 100% focused on this freeroll issue and 0% on the more important banned aspect. It makes me think you're involved in a similar situation, and likely with Heritage. If Cory gets paid, so should you....right? I still say no. If you're caught sneaking back into a place, then you subject yourself to being freerolled. You violate a banning, you don't get to profit from it. I'm ok with that, even if means the offending party is freerolled.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Are you here to support banned players? You seem 100% focused on this freeroll issue and 0% on the more important banned aspect. It makes me think you're involved in a similar situation, and likely with Heritage. If Cory gets paid, so should you....right? I still say no. If you're caught sneaking back into a place, then you subject yourself to being freerolled. You violate a banning, you don't get to profit from it. I'm ok with that, even if means the offending party is freerolled.

I'm here to support fairness.

Of course, I'm focused on the freeroll. It's unfair. Everyone should be focused on it. That's the entire issue.

Since you don't seem to care about other players being freerolled, I hope you get your own dose of it someday. And hopefully, there are five posters like you sitting here supporting the books' "right" to freeroll you. Maybe then, you'll realize how wrong you are.

[HedgeHog]

I'm here to support fairness.

Of course, I'm focused on the freeroll. It's unfair. Everyone should be focused on it. That's the entire issue.

Since you don't seem to care about other players being freerolled, I hope you get your own dose of it someday. And hopefully, there are five posters like you sitting here supporting the books' "right" to freeroll you. Maybe then, you'll realize how wrong you are.

It's not the ENTIRE issue--there's the banning part you choose to ignore. What about the unfairness to the Book when a booted player tries to backdoor them? Likewise I hope you get burned by Heritage too when they discover you've bearded back in.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It's not the ENTIRE issue--there's the banning part you choose to ignore. What about the unfairness to the Book when a booted player tries to backdoor them? Likewise I hope you get burned by Heritage too when they discover you've bearded back in.

I have not ignored it. I'm perfectly fine with the cancellation of wagers as long as losing accounts are able to do the same.

What unfairness is there to the book? Booking more action?

I have not been banned from Heritage. This is bigger than Cory and it's bigger than Heritage. Sadly, you can't think beyond the current parameters of a case like this.

[raiders72001]

I have not ignored it. I'm perfectly fine with the cancellation of wagers as long as losing accounts are able to do the same.

What unfairness is there to the book? Booking more action?

I have not been banned from Heritage. This is bigger than Cory and it's bigger than Heritage. Sadly, you can't think beyond the current parameters of a case like this.

agree that it's bigger than Heritage/cory. It sets a precedent. If cory is paid, then there is no such thing as banning players and they are allowed to scam.

MFer- If cory gets paid will you send ray his dime since it's proof that you misinterpreted freeroll?

[Winner_13]

I guess its over.
Hes not getting paid

[prop]

Bully, stall, wait for it to blow over, nothing to see here, etc. I'm sure the mystery charity will enjoy the cash.

[cloverfield]

My side is still waiting to hear from Heritage's so-called expert. Heritage said it was going to take 3 weeks and we are now going into the 4th week.

From using my very quick searching skills it has been 3 weeks and 2 days since Heritage Insider initially said they contacted an industry expert. I believe it was a few days (maybe a week) after that when we were informed that it could be 3 weeks.

Now I know you are not one to stretch the truth or perhaps make something up..so I wanted to give you the above information in an attempt to make sure your name does not get sullied in the Sportsbook industry regarding making stuff up.

[cory1111]

From using my very quick searching skills it has been 3 weeks and 2 days since Heritage Insider initially said they contacted an industry expert. I believe it was a few days (maybe a week) after that when we were informed that it could be 3 weeks.

Now I know you are not one to stretch the truth or perhaps make something up..so I wanted to give you the above information in an attempt to make sure your name does not get sullied in the Sportsbook industry regarding making stuff up.

Thanks Cloverfield(Heritage Employee) for looking out for me, but I know what was said to me and as you can see from the date below I was told 3 weeks.








From: mike@heritagesports.com
To: cory26@msn.com
Subject: Our Position and Stand
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:30:27 +0000


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. We have a long history of doing this and we did this with you. We agreed to arbitration and we let you pick the arbitrator. We showed the good faith that has earned us our stellar reputation. Before we even saw Justin’s findings you were bad-mouthing us on the forums. It seems that your strategy is to threaten our good name in hopes we would settle with you. That’s not going to work Cory. We aren’t a first year company like Easy Street was. We have a long history of doing the right thing and not because we were threatened but because it was the right thing to do.

You told us you weren’t happy with Justin’s decision. Because of this we have contacted one of the nation’s foremost gaming experts and are paying him to review the case. He will want to speak to you and your mom. The problem is he is out of town for 3 weeks teaching a course in Australia. When we have his opinion we will share it with you and see where we stand. In the meantime it would show good faith if you would repair the damage you have caused on the forums. A post by you that Heritage is bending over backwards to seek a fair solution to both parties would be a good start on your behalf.

Either way we will contact you in 3 weeks. As per Justin’s arbitrated decision the amount of your deposits less any fees has been sent.

[prop]

So often the same, as long as you lose no problem, win enough and there's an excuse.

Check this out Allegedly Phil Ivey has £1 million transferred to the casino. Over 2 days and 7 hours of play beats them for £7.3 million. They are withholding it to do an investigation after already telling him the winnings would be wired. Details sketchy at this point. Supposedly has a previously banned player with him (though not sure for what), no marking found on cards, was recorded was betting £150,000 per hand etc. The numbers are not even massive. Will be curious if details come out what they might be. At least he has a legit company he can sue and take action against - but very similar story here less the not having much recourse in this one.

[shari91]

Shari I have real issue when a sportsbook will accept action continuously ie: deposits and has no issue when the account is losing, but all of a sudden when it's time to assess a cashout, the team starts to dig and actually determine who is placing bets or who's action it REALLY is. I think the most professional books determine their level of risk BEFORE any action is taken rather then the latter and if they need to refuse action they will. I really have zero respect for books who operate this way; it's 2-bit, it's slimey and it's not excusable, ever.

I think what is funny about all this is truly how the money was won, there is 0 tactical advantage cory or cory's mom or whoever could have gained from winning 2 royals, yet heritage wants to deny-pay.

Shady as a 70s lamp if you ask me.

I understand what you're saying. Ideally all books will determine their risk before you even wager but that's not reality. It's not reality if you're a scammer and it's not reality if they decide after a few bets that they don't want your action for whatever reason. But Heritage did payout after the first royal so that really erased any question that I may have had that they were aware of the connection of this account to Cory at that point.

There was a quote from Justin7's book (I think in this thread but maybe elsewhere): "Most sports books will not usually look for fraud until a player attempts to cashout. If a fraudster plays and loses his balance, the book wins with no risk. When the fraudulent player wins, the book investigates and does not pay the player. This puts the sport book in a free roll situation, where it can win the player's balance, but cannot lose."

I think if Heritage had flatout told Cory to piss off then this would apply. But Heritage risked not determining that the account holder was Cory's mum = winnings paid out as they were after the first royal; Justin7 ruling that the winnings go to Cory's mum; this industry expert ruling that the winnings go to Cory's mum; the UK arbitrator ruling that the winnings go to Cory's mum (should Cory decide to go with that option if the expert rules against him) and then at the end of it the money's still going to go to charity anyway even if everyone in the world rules in Heritage's favour. Heritage gains nothing here other than massive headaches regardless. People are going to firmly remain on either side and there's really not much that will sway them at this point. But I personally can't shake the belief that if you're banned and you're caught, then whatever happens is on you. If you get away with it, fair enough. But to expect to be paid when you're caught, astounds me. Call me a dumb chick, a square, an SBR employee sticking up for a book with a banner, whatever.

There's one silly UK book that banned me a few years ago - also with a banner here - because they mistook me for someone who had a clue what they were doing. I'm tempted every couple of months to see if I can get back in there because they're often slow to move tennis lines. But what's the point? They catch me and I'll be lucky to get my deposits back. I sure as hell won't be getting my winnings and I suspect (although I have no proof of this) they'd laugh if I asked for any of my losses to be returned. MF knows I respect him and his opinion and have for years now and I'm pretty sure Cory knows I've got the softest spot for him of any one on staff here. But I can't find one reason to support any of this at all.

[cory1111]

I understand what you're saying. Ideally all books will determine their risk before you even wager but that's not reality. It's not reality if you're a scammer and it's not reality if they decide after a few bets that they don't want your action for whatever reason. But Heritage did payout after









the first royal so that really erased any question that I may have had that they were aware of the connection of this account to Cory at that point.


Shari,
What astounds me is instead of doing your job, moderating this forum and being fair in giving infractions to other posters that say a lot worse than me, you are here posting lies. I will say it one more time, There was no payout after first royal flush. Did SBR have a phone conference with all their employees and Heritage, discussing that its UK on the final arbitration or nothing? You keep harping on this UK Shari, did your money hungry boss SBRJohn, promise you a bonus? Heritage never risked the winning with your co-employer Justin7, who suddenly took a hiatus. When it came time to the EZstreet case Justin7 was posting everyday, now he suddenly disappeared. Shari, how come you dont bring up that your co-employer Justin7(who you said wasnt paid off), showed zero proof that it was me playing. Now that I find astounding for someone who is not her employers side.



There was a quote from Justin7's book (I think in this thread but maybe elsewhere): "Most sports books will not usually look for fraud until a player attempts to cashout. If a fraudster plays and loses his balance, the book wins with no risk. When the fraudulent player wins, the book investigates and does not pay the player. This puts the sport book in a free roll situation, where it can win the player's balance, but cannot lose."

I think if Heritage had flatout told Cory to piss off then this would apply. But Heritage risked not determining that the account holder was Cory's mum = winnings paid out as they were after the first royal; Justin7 ruling that the winnings go to Cory's mum; this industry expert ruling that the winnings go to Cory's mum; the UK arbitrator ruling that the winnings go to Cory's mum (should Cory decide to go with that option if the expert rules against him) and then at the end of it the money's still going to go to charity anyway even if everyone in the world rules in Heritage's favour. Heritage gains nothing here other than massive headaches regardless. People are going to firmly remain on either side and there's really not much that will sway them at this point. But I personally can't shake the belief that if you're banned and you're caught, then whatever happens is on you. If you get away with it, fair enough. But to expect to be paid when you're caught, astounds me. Call me a dumb chick, a square, an SBR employee sticking up for a book with a banner, whatever.

There's one silly UK book that banned me a few years ago - also with a banner here - because they mistook me for someone who had a clue what they were doing. I'm tempted every couple of months to see if I can get back in there because they're often slow to move tennis lines. But what's the point? They catch me and I'll be lucky to get my deposits back. I sure as hell won't be getting my winnings and I suspect (although I have no proof of this) they'd laugh if I asked for any of my losses to be returned. MF knows I respect him and his opinion and have for years now and I'm pretty sure Cory knows I've got the softest spot for him of any one on staff here. But I can't find one reason to support any of this at all.

....

[cory1111]

I will save Heritage the time. We all know my mother wont put her deposits back in for a UK arbitration. Shari, we also all know why your boss SBRJohn,(who would only put 3k for a retainer in the EZ case), requested a UK arbitrator, he wants his deposit money back. If Heritage doesnt want to pay my mother, let them just come out and say it already and my side can take the steps to hopefully correct this.


THERE WAS NO PAYOUT AFTER THE FIRST ROYAL FLUSH. JUST LIKE THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT JUSTIN SHOWED IT WAS ME PLAYING.

[MonkeyF0cker]

agree that it's bigger than Heritage/cory. It sets a precedent. If cory is paid, then there is no such thing as banning players and they are allowed to scam.

MFer- If cory gets paid will you send ray his dime since it's proof that you misinterpreted freeroll?

Are you ever going to admit you're wrong and shut the fukk up? Is it enough that Justin even agrees with me?

Your ignorance is astounding.

There was a quote from Justin7's book (I think in this thread but maybe elsewhere): "Most sports books will not usually look for fraud until a player attempts to cashout. If a fraudster plays and loses his balance, the book wins with no risk. When the fraudulent player wins, the book investigates and does not pay the player. This puts the sport book in a free roll situation, where it can win the player's balance, but cannot lose."

[MonkeyF0cker]

There's one silly UK book that banned me a few years ago - also with a banner here - because they mistook me for someone who had a clue what they were doing. I'm tempted every couple of months to see if I can get back in there because they're often slow to move tennis lines. But what's the point? They catch me and I'll be lucky to get my deposits back. I sure as hell won't be getting my winnings and I suspect (although I have no proof of this) they'd laugh if I asked for any of my losses to be returned. MF knows I respect him and his opinion and have for years now and I'm pretty sure Cory knows I've got the softest spot for him of any one on staff here. But I can't find one reason to support any of this at all.

Why do you think casinos in AC and Las Vegas return losses to minors?

[HedgeHog]

I will save Heritage the time. We all know my mother wont put her deposits back in for a UK arbitration. Shari, we also all know why your boss SBRJohn,(who would only put 3k for a retainer in the EZ case), requested a UK arbitrator, he wants his deposit money back. If Heritage doesnt want to pay my mother, let them just come out and say it already and my side can take the steps to hopefully correct this

He ONLY gave you 3k? How much did you expect him to GIVE you? With statements like this, you come off as an ungrateful Azzhole.

[cory1111]

For all the people who think my mother's account was monitored from day one, here is just one email again to show otherwise. This email below is from May. My mother must of asked several times for her win/loss numbers in the casino, and has the emails to show it.

---

From: Heritage Sales <sales@heritagesports.com>
To: Helena H <hh@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: 84730
</hh@yahoo.com></sales@heritagesports.com>

Helena,
I am not always here and ask that emails be sent to customerservice@heritagesports.com for a faster response. I do understand your frustration with our casino, and all I can do is offer to close it when you request it. We would rather you play in our Sportsbook and have a good experience than continue to play in the online casino where you continue to have issues. Please keep in mind two things;
1. The speed of the game is much faster than in a normal casino. Playing 1 hour may be like playing a full day in Las Vegas.
2. When playing any online casino, the player should expect to lose 5% of what they wager.
Your lifetime with us is as follows ; hands played =32,052, Amount wagered 508,997 Amount Lost -15,439 this equates to a 3% hold which is a little better than the Industry standard of 5%.

You will receive your casino rebate on June 1^st (8% of net losses) and we hope you can understand that we are 1^st and foremost a Sportsbook. The online casino is only available because players request it. We would prefer to be judged on how we operate as a Sportbook and the quality of service we provide in that area. If you would like the casino closed, I will be more than happy to honor that request.

Thx John

[shari91]

I will save Heritage the time. We all know my mother wont put her deposits back in for a UK arbitration. Shari, we also all know why your boss SBRJohn,(who would only put 3k for a retainer in the EZ case), requested a UK arbitrator, he wants his deposit money back. If Heritage doesnt want to pay my mother, let them just come out and say it already and my side can take the steps to hopefully correct this.


THERE WAS NO PAYOUT AFTER THE FIRST ROYAL FLUSH. JUST LIKE THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT JUSTIN SHOWED IT WAS ME PLAYING.

Sorry you're right. She got paid out even before she hit the Royal. My mistake. I don't think that's beneficial to the point you're trying to make though. If they were trying to scam her or me or anyone else, why pay out at all? Why not just declare right then that they knew that she was connected to you? Because they were hoping she'd keep depositing? As I asked before and it was never answered... how many deposits did she even make after that payout was requested?

Why do you think casinos in AC and Las Vegas return losses to minors?

LV didn't pay that kid the million bucks... I know that because my parents drilled it into my head as an excuse for why they never took me to LV with them when I was a teenager. "No point going, you'll play even if we tell you not to and you won't get paid". That's how I remembered that bloody case. You'd know more about LV precedent now and I might be too tired to Google but we'll see.

As for AC though: AC has the right to detain minors - even without police showing up. Here's a case where they were fined over 100k but they didn't have to pay out anything to the kids. There's also a case here from 2010 where an AC casino seized the winnings from the minors. Only $2,315 but that cash had to be forfeited to the state - kids didn't get a penny.

Jersey law: The Casino Control Act (N.J.S.A. 5:12-119) prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from gambling in an Atlantic City casino or any simulcast facility. If an individual is convicted of underage gambling the penalty is a disorderly persons offense which is a criminal charge that becomes part of your criminal record. A conviction for underage gambling will also result in a fine of between $500 and $1,000 and the individual's driver's license will be suspended for six months. If the individual is under 17 and has not yet obtained a driver's license, the issuance of that person's driver's license will be postponed for six months.

In fact, if a parent or a person who has custody or control of a person under the age of 21 allows an underage individual to gamble, that person can be charged with a disorderly persons offense. N.J.S.A. 5:12-119(c).


The real issue with these underage gambling charges is there are no plea bargains offered by the State. Thus, the State requires the defendant to either plead guilty to the charge or stand trial.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Yes. I'm well aware that minors do not get paid winnings if they are caught gambling. However, they are also refunded losses. That is what I was asking about.

Why can nobody look past the face value of this case? There is quite a bit more here than one side of the coin.

Why should Heritage (or any other book) be allowed to confiscate winnings if they are not held to the same standard as the rules used to justify it? If they are allowed to confiscate winnings, they must allow losses to be recuperated.

No more freerolls.

[cory1111]

Shari,
I dont know how hard it is to comprehend this, but there was NO PAYOUT before any RF. All 53 deposits were sent before any RF was hit. Just because my mother requested that 3k 2 days before she hit the 2nd RF, doesnt mean it was sent out. Heritage probably didnt think my mother was going to hit the 2nd RF(thinking she would keep losing) so they probably had no problem taking the request of the 3k payout.