Ironic to be guilty of multi-accounting @ BOL. They practically encourage this as they allow accounts at Sister Books Sportbetting and Low Vig. Someone got greedy and was caught. And if you think the OP is a female, I have a bridge to sell you.
-
Comment -
Ok, I've done that.
And now I do not believe a thing you have said.
You ARE DEFINITELY a liar.
You lied about being innocent and you lied about what you claim Dave Mason said.
Seriously, I am not going to give away the details to help you next time... but do not bother trying again as you and your pals are so friggin clueless (or maybe just lazy?) that anyone could see what went on within seconds of looking at it.
.Comment -
"I don't get it at all whenever I hear people say something like this. $1,400 is nothing to sniff at."
Yes I should have clarified. Of course 1.4K is a significant amount. I should have clarified by stating that the initial gain of $100 USD is not worth blowing your very valuable BOL account for (assuming that if the person is a scammer they have one legitimate account that they ring-fence on IP and machine). It would not be worth the risk of blowing this valuable asset for $100 USD and a seasoned pro would know this.
Now if the seasoned pro created 10 false accounts for a gain of 10 x $100 = $1000 then maybe you could argue that is worth the risk. But I doubt this. For example - based on what you state in your post I very much doubt you would risk your valuable BOL account for a possible gain of a mere $1000.
"And yet we have guilty players come here all the time looking to use the platform to bully sportsbooks into compensating them"
Yes we have seen this on multiple occasions. I have very seldom seen it work. The sportsbooks are aware of this tactic and won't set precedents.
One recent contra case was at that sportsbook (can't recall the name but it was either C+ or B) where the players had some kind of connection re: BTC wallet and / or were being accused of syndicate / collaboration. There was also a threat by the sportsbook to invoke an anti-arbitrage term. That case worked out for the posters and they were paid. I do not think they would have been paid in the absence of the thread. This case was a rare exception but does show that threads can work. So my comment above is probably not correct - it actually would be worth investing time in a thread for 1.4K [as a scammer] even if the chance of success was only, say, 5%. I stand corrected on this point.
[But note that in this example the players were NOT scammers. They were honest. The success rate for the guilty would be much lower than 5% I would wager]
"or at least getting some retribution in the process. Sometimes, it's not just about the money but a sense of revenge"
True, but these motivations are irrational. The sportsbook is a company and does not care if some scammer does not like them. A seasoned pro who is trying to make money is unlikely to have these kinds of motivations
Finally - it looks like Optional has some new information that blows this whole case out of the water. Optional would not make these kinds of statements (see above) without irrefutable evidence - so the case is closed.
I do not think this thread has been a waste of time. In this case the OP was a liar and a scammer. But it is important to know that, if pressed, A+ bookmakers like BOL will present evidence to the intermediary (SBR) to prove their case. This is important and good for the integrity of the industry.Comment -
Optional, I understand you don't want to give details to help a con man construct an instruction booklet on how to scam........ but can you reveal what Dave Mason actually said as opposed to what the Scammer OP claimed Dave Mason said?Ok, I've done that.
And now I do not believe a thing you have said.
You ARE DEFINITELY a liar.
You lied about being innocent and you lied about what you claim Dave Mason said.
Seriously, I am not going to give away the details to help you next time... but do not bother trying again as you and your pals are so friggin clueless (or maybe just lazy?) that anyone could see what went on within seconds of looking at it.Comment -
Like I said on the previous page, OP pretending that they couldn't comprehend what BOL possibly thought they might have done wrong was the dead giveaway. We've been talking about this scam for 2 months, and OP still doesn't understand? People who are guilty are often overzealous in trying to project innocence. So they pretend they have no clue what is going on, to the point where they'd have to be mentally handicapped for it to be true.Comment -
Unrelated to the legitimacy of the claim, some comment on this thread was unnacceptable.
Ok, I've done that.
And now I do not believe a thing you have said.
You ARE DEFINITELY a liar.
You lied about being innocent and you lied about what you claim Dave Mason said.
Seriously, I am not going to give away the details to help you next time... but do not bother trying again as you and your pals are so friggin clueless (or maybe just lazy?) that anyone could see what went on within seconds of looking at it.Comment -
Well, overall this has been an interesting case.
Certainly the OP - a now proven liar and scammer - has done future, innocent parties no favours in terms of these future claimants being believable. Oh well - anything for a quick buck.
Kudos to Optional and BOL here - clearly BOL presented Optional with the required evidence and Optional was able to instantly deduce that the OP is a liar and a scammer. That is a good result for all concerned.Comment -
Would you feel the same way if "she" was a "he"?
Lucky it turned out those rude posters were correct and were simply attacking the scammer, not the gender as a whole.
And don't you agree that it might really show we have equality here when posters will treat men or women who scam just as rudely?
That's actual real equality and not fake politically correct BS masquerading as equality..Comment -
God Bless you O , you do great workComment -
I see in the thread title this was "resolved".
What was the final decision? And why is she banned?
Were her bets honored? I can't recall details but didn't she/he win some wagers outside the referral mess?
Was the call to keep all monies including the wagers she made that won?Comment -
Read the sentence under resolved...Or scroll up Optional sums it up..Comment
