[ProlinePlayer]

There is no way it works perfectly. They have these two disputes and they have their side of how they went down. In your dispute they promised us you would be paid or have already been paid. In the correlated bet dispute it was somehow taken to another mediator(OSGA) which ruled mostly in favor of the book.

We want the rating guide to reflect the safety and overall experience of playing there. This is probably a B rated book as far as current experience goes. It;s a D+ book because they have these lingering disputes which calls in question whether this is a safe place to play. Probably not the exact answer you would like to hear but that's how it works.

Well at least it's now out in the open. All the mods posts have been laying the groundwork for the shifting of blame. We are now at 'there are two sides to every story'.
How long before the it goes to trixtrix and smoke_o should take responsibility for their actions? trixtrix ignored repeated warnings and tried to scam them. smoke_o would have been paid but his uncooperative attitude made this undoable.
Then you'll have gone full circle from the original report which was clear and to the point. You labelled WagerWeb as guilty of outright theft. The excuses offered were rejected as self-serving and not relevant. Your report left no middle ground. How can you now be at 'they have their side of the story'?

But at least now the plan is clear. B+ by Christmas?

For years posters have suggested that SBR ratings can and are paid for. Although I have not always agreed with the verdict I continued to believe that SBR was doing it's reviews and ratings in an honest and open fashion.

Foolish I guess. This one is just a bit too obvious, even someone as trusting as myself can see what is happening here.

PLP

[trixtrix]

a "B+" site for players who don't know how to win, blacklist site for players who do win and do it within the rules, correct sbr?

and ps: i wouldn't bring up osga, that just make u guys look worse. we all know osga is just a shell company shill for any/alll offshore shops willing to pay for their stamp, even sbr on multiple occasion mentioned that osga is a non-reputable/unfair bias toward the player.

now, when they first stole my funds, i went directly to sbr, refusing to speak to osga even thought the "orginal" dan said he'd rather deal w/ osga b/c i know they were likely be sharply biased to the books. j7 ruled in my favor and for his write up reports read all of them on the first page of the thread.

then dan tells j7 he's only willing to deal w/ osga on this one and so sbr mod comes back to me and say hey it couldn't hurt to ask osga for mediation b/c maybe you get some funds back, BUT unless you get your full confiscation balance returned, this case will still be considered open by sbr...

so of course osga says wagerweb only have to make a partial 4k+ payment after speaking with dan part I or part II, i forget which. EXCEPT EVEN THAT AGREEMENT (THE ONE THAT WAGERWEB SWORE THEY WOULD ABIDE BY) was NEVER HONOURED, wagerweb first deliberately said they're slow paying me on the 4k+ then NEVER SENT ME A DIME in almost 3 Years! yea that's a resolution that bring in a lot of confidence

[robmpink]

So you people are implying SBR is now on the take for upgrading a book from blacklisted to d or d+?

[robmpink]

So you people are implying SBR is now on the take for upgrading a book from blacklisted to d or d+?

Trix, did you win by the rules?

[trixtrix]

so which is it??
btw: 3 years after these communications, amount received from wagerweb via either sbr or OSGA: 0$.
========================================

SBR John: In the correlated bet dispute it was somehow taken to another mediator(OSGA) which ruled mostly in favor of the book.
========================================

*trix*,

I have no idea how best to use OSGA. You've been screwed though, and I would do anything you can to recover whatever you can. If you have to sign something saying "this resolves all claims", do it and get your money. It won't close the SBR claim if you signed under duress.

Justin

========================================

From: *trix
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:26 PM


Hey Justin,

From the email below, it sounds like dan from wagerweb is offering to pay 4kish out 11k+ balance they owe me. I disagree w/ lot of what is said, from receiving any warning whether regarding pleasers and/or parlays (I did not), to size of my net winnings (was only 4kish from what I recall), to correlated parlays being illegal (they accepted them for other players), to the fact that they somewhat qualify a parlay as correlated or not (why is it so hard for people to understand correlation is measure of relativity rather than a binary switch, there is no perfectly in-correlated same game parlay, any parlay on the same event is correlated to some degree whether conversely or inversely so)

Regardless of the outcome, I am grateful for both SBR and OSGA's hard work on my behalf for free.

What is your advice to how to proceed forth currently?
========================================

[SBR_John]

Dear WagerWeb, settle up with these guys and we can all move on. Your lost revenue from potential customers who find this thread while considering whether to join your book should be motivation enough. If you need their contact info let us know. If you want us to mediate a payment plan you know how to find us.

[robmpink]

Dear WagerWeb, settle up with these guys and we can all move on. Your lost revenue from potential customers who find this thread while considering whether to join your book should be motivation enough. If you need their contact info let us know. If you want us to mediate a payment plan you know how to find us.

Did the guy with the banking issue, who says, old banking statements are costly, a few days ago, provide you proof he wasn't paid?

[Smoke_O]

Did the guy with the banking issue, who says, old banking statements are costly, a few days ago, provide you proof he wasn't paid?

Wagerweb never asked me for anything.

[prop]

Dear WagerWeb, settle up with these guys and we can all move on. Your lost revenue from potential customers who find this thread while considering whether to join your book should be motivation enough. If you need their contact info let us know. If you want us to mediate a payment plan you know how to find us.

This is a good post. It's so amazing how much the bad press must have cost them over all these years and rather than just settle they lie about having settled it. I don't get it, really so hard to understand.

[SBR_John]

I was never asked to provide any proof by SBR. I was told to do only 1 THING...and that was to NOT be in contact with Wagerweb. Thats what I did until May 2, 2012.

I think we should have a three way call with Justin, Dan and yourself if the parties are willing. We were told you would be paid, in the process of being paid or possibly were already were paid. If you are willing to have a three way call please PM Justin and reference this post.

[SBR_John]

Did the guy with the banking issue, who says, old banking statements are costly, a few days ago, provide you proof he wasn't paid?

Not that I'm aware of. I really don't want to discuss the details outside of saying we were assured this dispute was being taken care of. Hopefully it can be.

[Smoke_O]

Not that I'm aware of. I really don't want to discuss the details outside of saying we were assured this dispute was being taken care of. Hopefully it can be.

I will edit my post above and do the same.

[Smoke_O]

I think we should have a three way call with Justin, Dan and yourself if the parties are willing. We were told you would be paid, in the process of being paid or possibly were already were paid. If you are willing to have a three way call please PM Justin and reference this post.

Please dont take this the wrong way...but I have NOT been paid my $5k...Wagerweb said the initial $5k was frozen and with the help of Lou I was paid $2.5k and the other half likely to be paid to me. I have never received that nor have I received the "frozen" wire in question. So with that said please stop confusing readers by posting that I was paid. It has not happened and it has not been proven by Wagerweb...thus its hearsay and should not be mentioned in the matter. Lets try to stick with what we all know to be factual...Thanks

Also what will a 3 way conference call do for me at this point? Since May 2, 2012...I have periodically called Dan and in 4 months I have not reached him nor recieved a phone call back from him. Here are the list of excuses made by Wagerweb since August 2011.

- I was said to have a "beard", which makes no sense seeing how I was with Wagerweb for 6 years with no problems, every check sent to me was in my name to my home address. No rules were circumvented unlike other cases against Wagerweb.

-I was said to not be the owner of the email account that is on file which was shown to be false

-and now its said I have magically received the frozen wire in question. I have done my homework on international banking in the last year and have learned that a frozen wire would either be fully confiscated by the government or returned back to the sender....and thats if the sender fights to get the money back in the first place. In NO CASE would it be released to the receiver, since it would have been frozen by the intermediary bank and not allowed into the country.

So a 3 way call does what for me again? Wagerweb has taken their position of not paying me balance of $2.5k and are moving forward with a smear campaign against me. Yet they can't prove I was not paid...whereas I CAN PROVE I wasn't paid. Wagerweb has had a year to show anyone that I was paid and that it made it to my bank account...yet they haven't done so and they get upgraded.

[Bill Dozer]

Smoke-O,
They had reasons for why they feel you are in this situation. It didn't help your friend would call us and pretend to be you. Or that he would post on your behalf and get it wrong. It made it more suspicious ...that someone is motivated to collected a 2nd payment.

That doesn't matter at this point. Our last update was they were waiting on a report from the sender and talked of still planning on sending the funds if there weren't other things they could look at it to show you received if. Let us follow up early this week. The ball is in their court to ask you for something more or send again. Make sure you are representing yourself going forward if they need your help.

[lecubs28]

sbr can take them off the blacklist but i would still never play there until they give back the money they stole

[skrtelfan]

what's the excuse for why they aren't paying trixtrix?

[trixtrix]

j7: would you like to go on record?

[Justin7]

j7: would you like to go on record?

You shared some interesting things about your dispute today. I forwarded it on with my analysis, and it is being round-tabled.

You are obviously free to share my analysis on what you sent... But I think giving Dozer some time to absorb this new information is +EV.

[robmpink]

You shared some interesting things about your dispute today. I forwarded it on with my analysis, and it is being round-tabled.

You are obviously free to share my analysis on what you sent... But I think giving Dozer some time to absorb this new information is +EV.

What could be interesting after 2 plus years? Was the player not giving you the entire story when the dispute began?

[robmpink]

There is no way it works perfectly. They have these two disputes and they have their side of how they went down. In your dispute they promised us you would be paid or have already been paid. In the correlated bet dispute it was somehow taken to another mediator(OSGA) which ruled mostly in favor of the book.

We want the rating guide to reflect the safety and overall experience of playing there. This is probably a B rated book as far as current experience goes. It;s a D+ book because they have these lingering disputes which calls in question whether this is a safe place to play. Probably not the exact answer you would like to hear but that's how it works.

def agree with that.

[trixtrix]

What could be interesting after 2 plus years? Was the player not giving you the entire story when the dispute began?

yes, that rombpink doesn't have a second act

keep smoking them joints robbie, the more you post the more obvious how isolated and desperate you are gettting, petty enjoyment, but enjoyment nonetheless

[robmpink]

yes, that rombpink doesn't have a second act

keep smoking them joints robbie, the more you post the more obvious how isolated and desperate you are gettting, petty enjoyment, but enjoyment nonetheless

Ok trix, I'm not isolated or desperate. Like in any case, when new info surfaces after a few years, you wonder why, what it is.

If I feel the need to comment I will about this book. They have been great for me and many others. Hope u get whatever it is resolved to some degree, if valid.

[skrtelfan]

You are obviously free to share my analysis on what you sent... But I think giving Dozer some time to absorb this new information is +EV.

how can you tell people they are obviously free to share your analysis when you've sued several people for quoting you

[Justin7]

how can you tell people they are obviously free to share your analysis when you've sued several people for quoting you

I've never sued someone for quoting me, but I have given an infraction for lying about me

[robmpink]

I've never sued someone for quoting me, but I have given an infraction for lying about me

Justin, do you use SBR as a honeytrap to sue people?

[trixtrix]

rob, do you ever get tired of talking to yourself?

[prop]

Hello is there anybody out there?

[robmpink]

rob, do you ever get tired of talking to yourself?

Trixtrix/Prop/.......

[skrtelfan]

I've never sued someone for quoting me, but I have given an infraction for lying about me

not what people on forums say

[trixtrix]

Trixtrix/Prop/.......

awww how cute.. are you the one on the left or is that wagerweb?

[Justin7]

What could be interesting after 2 plus years? Was the player not giving you the entire story when the dispute began?

No, it was Wagerweb.

Wagerweb originally claimed that the player was warned either verbally via telephone, or via chat not to bet correlated parlays. The player denied that this occurred. Several years ago when I was handling this, I requested proof from Wagerweb that the player was warned. There should have been a telephone recording or chat log record. Wagerweb offered to produce it, but failed to.

In the last six weeks, Wagerweb added a new detail to defend its actions. It stated that an update of dsi had a bug in it, where if the book disabled in-game parlays, DSI would still allow first-half in-game wagers. Wagerweb produced a log of wagers, and a vast majority of the wagers were clearly first-half correlated parlays.

Trixtrix contacted me about Wagerweb's upgrade, understandably furious. He said that he could not bet CPs for some games (the really good ones). If this were true, it would suggest that Wagerweb was incorrect in its statement of a DSI bug. The wager log supported Trixtrix's version of what happened, and refuted Wagerweb's latest claim. There were no first half parlays that included a first-half spread of more than 13.5 (dog or favorite).

There are two things someone could infer from that. The first inference is that Wagerweb disabled in-game parlays (and h1 parlays) where the line to total ratio was especially good. I would guess from the wager log that any game with a full game line to total ratio of less than 1:2.5 was disabled. The other possible inference is that Trixtrix was disguising his play by passing on the best plays for longevity. I don't think this happened though -- he was playing both pairs of CPs for a given game, which is much more obvious than just playing the better CPs.

Another development in this dispute sounds bizarre. The manager of Wagerweb recently accused me of bearding with Trixtrix. To support this contention, the manager claimed that he (Wagerweb manager) and I had a telephone conversation several years ago. According to this conversation, Trixtrix and I area good friends and former roommates from college. Also, I could play CPs at Wagerweb because "I knew I would get paid." This contention is just batshit crazy. I asked for a copy of the telephone discussion, but it was never produced. I am familiar with Trixtrix as a forum poster, and when I helped him a few years ago with SBR. Outside of that I know very little about him.

Due to this last development, I tried to pretty much stay out of this discussion. If Wagerweb thought the money in dispute here was mine (it's not), I wouldn't be helping the player much by getting involved. I explained this to Trixtrix. At this point though, I don't think Wagerweb has any intention of revisiting this dispute, and Trixtrix is just screwed.

On a minor point, I dissent from Wagerweb's upgrade to D+.

[prop]

Justin thanks for awesome post. I have an entire file of these guys lies and they'll say anything and everything to justify their occasional thefts. Pathetic company.

[trixtrix]

i want to go on record as well on something else: sbr has recently started changing and for the significant worse, for example: i have created a single thread that outlined the entired wagerweb fabrications and lies and falsehoods against me and backed it up with full documentation. Located here http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/sportsbook...ything-p3.html: i bump that thread every now and then (read: every few weeks to a few months) so that newbies would be aware of their theiving ways, i don't spam the forum, i don't update/start multiple threads on the same topic daily and/or on an hourly basis.

that threads and my infrequent bump exists to remind newbies why you should not deposit into a scam book like this, before the wagerweb upgrade, no one said a thing other thanks for the reminder whenever i infrequently bumped it from sbr_mods, today i goto bump the thread, within 10 mins my bump post was deleted and the thread was unwound 5 posts from me, so that the last post in the thread made is in sept 12, this suggests: 1.) that wagerweb is becoming a sponsor book for sbr, and b.) sbr finds no other way to defend their tactics other than to hope to simply BURY the truth.. good going sbr: your 360 turn is fully complete

other than that, i'd appreciate if one of the vets can on a regular basis bump my thread for me and it wil be interesting to see why sbr would delete them. post them here http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/sportsbook...ything-p3.html

[trixtrix]

here is my full complaint letter in its entirety, ESPECIALLY NOTE POINT NINE (WHICH NEITHER WAGERWEB OR SBR_MODS HAVE EVER ADDRESSED:

======================================== ==========================Hi Justin,


I just received word from a friend (not sure why sbr and/or wagerweb did NOT try to contact me directly) that wagerweb is getting a ratings upgrade based partly on the fact that they're "trying" to resolve 3year old 11k+ theft case against me.


While I am confident in you Justin that you will make the personal and correct and just call, I would still like to make a few relevants points that perhaps you can share with the rest of the sbr mods in terms of the Wagerweb rating reconsideration:


1.) There has been no communication from Wagerweb to me for 3 Years! If they're truly a.) under new ownership and b.) interested in resolving old complaints, why did they not even contact me to hear my side of the story?


This calls into question whether they're truly interested in resolving old disputes.


2.) The "changing owner" and "looking at resolving old disputes" are character phrases that seem to sound significant yet is meaningless. An analogy is if USA elects a new president with a new budget plan, S&P will still NOT upgrade USA Treasury rating back to AAA, UNLESS they see the functional and desirable results that stemmed from the new policies. You don't get a free pass, just b/c a politician promised to do something new, that's just silly... as silly as giving a ratings upgrade based on the "promise" of the "new owner" who will look in to "old unresolved disputes"


This calls into question whether or not Wagerweb even need to resolve their old thefts or their new ones, if they keep on "change owners" every 2 months and then promise to "keep trying to resolve old thefts", will the upgrades keep coming until they are upgraded up to an A?


3.)wagerweb ownership whether "old" or "new" have repeatedly broken promises:
a.) to you (regarding providing proof that I was WARNED in regards to cps)
b.) to you in regards to how much they stole vs. how much NET in reality I won from cps
c.) to me in their own words that they will follow to the letter OSGA mediation decision
d.) to me in regards to sending the partial OSGA payment which even OSGA found to be rightfully mine.
e.) to sbr: in terms of communication with players in regards to resolving old disputes.


With this many irrefutable lies already, why do SBR believe the "new ownership looking to clear old disputes" etc is still not just another lie?


Seriously this calls into question a reasonable person's ability to detect when someone keeps on calling "wolf".


4.)How can any book just retroactively confiscating winnings (on top of stealing funds that has nothing to do with cps) 3 MONTHS after the last wager was settled, this is a clear example of a crap book looking to payout as little as possible after the football season and were looking for reasons to steal, otherwise any competent risk-management team would've intervened immediately.


This calls into question whether Wagerweb can ever turn into a solid book that will be looking for reasons to pay winners (ie: like solid books such as greek, bookmaker, pinny) or a ROGUE book that looks for reasons to STEAL (Betus, Oddsmaker, Cascade)


5.)In your own words from your wagerweb report 2 years back: "The player provided a wager log that shows he started betting on August 23rd, 2009. From August 23 to October 24th, 2009, the player put in numerous bets consisting of mostly correlated parlays. The player lost and made redeposits on September 26th, October 4th and October 17th, 2009. With each redeposit, WagerWeb reviewed his play and gave him deposit bonuses. At one point, the player was down $11,000 betting correlated parlays (which WagerWeb was allowing during the losing streak). The player did not move past even until October 24th, at which point he was showing a net win of $3752. Correlated parlays accounted for a net win of $4302."


This calls into question that Wagerweb never cared about Correlated parlays and such, just losers (of which they will grant re-up bonuses to) and winners (of which they will try any excuse to steal from).


THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION OF ENCOURAGING ME TO PLACE CPS WHEN I AM LOSING (BY OFFERING RE-UP BONUS) AND THEN WHEN I START WINNING WITH THEM, THEY STEAL THE ENTIRE BALANCE. DID WAGERWEB want cp action or not? if not: why did they not refund my losing cps and instead kept those losing parlay funds, plus offering me a re-up bonus?


6.)I wagered cps for over 3month, first losing then winning, then they froze my account for 2 month before stealing my funds, any claims that risk management which had (3 months to review my plays) and an audit (that takes 1.5 months) are obvious lies.


So is any type of software glitch argument: the software glitch existed for 3 months and they did not find it or care until 6 months later??


This calls into question both wagerweb's honesty, and competency.


7.) I stated this before, but I think it's enough to state it again: Reputable books look for reasons TO PAY (jamaica vs oscark case, bookmaker lost millions when they accidently allowed correlated if bets, Casino On Net craps game was hacked into so that a 7 cannot appear, and the hack allowed the players to win millions before the hack was discoverd, in all those instance the reputable books PAID).


ROGUE books look for reasons to NOT PAY. wsex keeps on denying they had money problems and the delay was on the processor end. oddsmaker send out bonus offers then retroactively steals the winners winnings if they happen to win. These are the similar tactics to what Wagerweb is doing, they're making up any excuses they can to NOT pay. This is in no way a book that deserved any kind of rating upgrade.


8.) Wagerweb have both the software and knowledge of how to use it block out correlated parlays, so this CANNOT be a sotware "glitch".

For example, I was able to parlay 1st Half: E. Michigan +9.5/Under 23, yet their software restricts me from parlaying 1st Half: Utah State -14/ Over 28. This demonstrates that they clearly knew about cps, and they have the ability to block out most of the +ev cps. (and they UTILIZE that ability to block out the more +EV CPs) So where is the software "glitch"?


So: a.) they had the software to set the restrictions on cps
b.) they had the knowledge on how to use the software and the restrictions to set blocking % threshold on cps
c.) they USED the software and knowledge and BLOCKED most of the +ev parlays, this was the same exact set up at the greek a few years back. olympic blocked out all the easy to spot cps, and allowed a few +10/under 24s on nfls, and if you win too much on them, they pay then restrict your limits. so wagerweb have absolutely no excuse on the "glitch" front.


That's what good books do: they limit but they PAY. Credibility in paying in the primary factor sbr ratings should be based on.


9.) Now onto wagerweb's scheming ways that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of allow cps at hand:


a.) what happened to my 1,732$ on my account after the initial confiscation, they even were allowing me to withdraw the amount, but the moment I brought the case to public scrutiny, they froze my and my balance. So no matter WHAT their argument is, they have no right to steal my remaining funds in their acct, so where is the 1,732$ of my funds that has nothing even to do with the argument at hand?


b.) How much do they admit to losing to me NET in cps over 2-3 months? They confiscated 9,578.60$, but when me and you went over the logs the net win was only $4302, so how can they back up the 9,578.60$ confiscation justification for NET cp winnings or not?, if so show us the proof/logs. If not, then where is the additional $5276.6 (9,578.60$ confiscated - $4302 actual net cp win) of my funds they stole? Which also have nothing to with the argument at hand, it's pure an accounting error on their part.


c.) Whatever happened to the 4k+ partial payment OSGA brokered for me and wagerweb, and which dan agreed to? I even have the email proof that he agreed to the amount will be sending it out shortly. Where are those funds? Those also have nothing to w/ the issues at hand (which as I understand it is about software glitches)


In the end, these additional sums they stole from my account never had anything to do with cps, they just did not want to pay it. So again, it's a book's credibility when making a payment.


10.) I guess the bottom line is: why would sbr be so interested in getting into bed with someone who cannot settle a small 5digit debt that's 3 years old and thus legitimately raise their ratings? This calls into the final question of whether or not they plan on stiffing sbr along with any additional players they recruit through sbr.

[Smoke_O]

No, it was Wagerweb.

Wagerweb originally claimed that the player was warned either verbally via telephone, or via chat not to bet correlated parlays. The player denied that this occurred. Several years ago when I was handling this, I requested proof from Wagerweb that the player was warned. There should have been a telephone recording or chat log record. Wagerweb offered to produce it, but failed to.

In the last six weeks, Wagerweb added a new detail to defend its actions. It stated that an update of dsi had a bug in it, where if the book disabled in-game parlays, DSI would still allow first-half in-game wagers. Wagerweb produced a log of wagers, and a vast majority of the wagers were clearly first-half correlated parlays.

Trixtrix contacted me about Wagerweb's upgrade, understandably furious. He said that he could not bet CPs for some games (the really good ones). If this were true, it would suggest that Wagerweb was incorrect in its statement of a DSI bug. The wager log supported Trixtrix's version of what happened, and refuted Wagerweb's latest claim. There were no first half parlays that included a first-half spread of more than 13.5 (dog or favorite).

There are two things someone could infer from that. The first inference is that Wagerweb disabled in-game parlays (and h1 parlays) where the line to total ratio was especially good. I would guess from the wager log that any game with a full game line to total ratio of less than 1:2.5 was disabled. The other possible inference is that Trixtrix was disguising his play by passing on the best plays for longevity. I don't think this happened though -- he was playing both pairs of CPs for a given game, which is much more obvious than just playing the better CPs.

Another development in this dispute sounds bizarre. The manager of Wagerweb recently accused me of bearding with Trixtrix. To support this contention, the manager claimed that he (Wagerweb manager) and I had a telephone conversation several years ago. According to this conversation, Trixtrix and I area good friends and former roommates from college. Also, I could play CPs at Wagerweb because "I knew I would get paid." This contention is just batshit crazy. I asked for a copy of the telephone discussion, but it was never produced. I am familiar with Trixtrix as a forum poster, and when I helped him a few years ago with SBR. Outside of that I know very little about him.

Due to this last development, I tried to pretty much stay out of this discussion. If Wagerweb thought the money in dispute here was mine (it's not), I wouldn't be helping the player much by getting involved. I explained this to Trixtrix. At this point though, I don't think Wagerweb has any intention of revisiting this dispute, and Trixtrix is just screwed.

On a minor point, I dissent from Wagerweb's upgrade to D+.

Excellant investigative work Justin7. Is there any update on my case?