WagerWeb warning for forum players

Irish Lumberjack · 01-06-10, 09:05 AM

Wow, that's bad! Thanks for the heads up!

1st and Ten · 01-06-10, 09:05 AM

Thanks Billy D. Never up to a book that offers 100% cash bonuses. Can't say WagerWebSucks didn't warn you.

teaserpleaser · 01-06-10, 09:16 AM

Thanks for the heads up

Mudcat · 01-06-10, 09:28 AM

For people who follow the industry, the news that WW cheats is a little less fresh than reporting that Sarah Palin will be a Vice Presidential candidate.

Better late than never but it's annoying. This most recent situation might have been avoidable if SBR just paid attention.

Bill Dozer · 01-06-10, 10:44 AM

Mud,
I think SBR and specifically Justin7 did a very good job documenting each complaint and doing it fairly. http://www.sportsbookreview.com/sbr/wagerweb/

I know you forecasted more problems and heard about some other issues through the vine but we can only do our work based on the facts and feedback. Based on that, we'll all have different opinions about how those facts should be interpreted.

HeeeHAWWWW · 01-06-10, 11:24 AM

Wagerweb are one of those books that simply don't accept the idea of people winning. Deposit, and they probably mentally put the cash in their profit column.

Ballpark · 01-06-10, 11:42 AM

I've had a couple of grand sitting at Wagerweb for a while. Haven't played there for ages because the odds are so poor.
What's the situation with these guys if you ask for your balance minus any bonus? Do they allow it or are you stuck until you meet rollover?

Bill Dozer · 01-06-10, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Ballpark

I've had a couple of grand sitting at Wagerweb for a while. Haven't played there for ages because the odds are so poor.
What's the situation with these guys if you ask for your balance minus any bonus? Do they allow it or are you stuck until you meet rollover?

We'll see if we can find that in their bonus rules.

jjgold · 01-06-10, 12:16 PM

I never liked the book

I always had them at C- or D.

robertg · 01-06-10, 12:27 PM

glad to say, wagerweb is one book I've never used. And after reading this,
I'll never be tempted.

to WagerWeb

Mudcat · 01-06-10, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Mud,
I think SBR and specifically Justin7 did a very good job documenting each complaint and doing it fairly. http://www.sportsbookreview.com/sbr/wagerweb/

I know you forecasted more problems and heard about some other issues through the vine but we can only do our work based on the facts and feedback. Based on that, we'll all have different opinions about how those facts should be interpreted.

Yeah I know. This just brought back some frustrating memories of a bunch of people trying to spread information of WW taking free shots at players, and not only did SBR not seem willing to listen, it was like Justin and robmpink had their arms locked and were running interference on WW's behalf.

I had one person who found SBR so suspicious, they sent me their complaint complete with supporting documents with instructions that Justin be kept out of it. I didn't know know what to do with it. At one point, I asked some mods at the time, BBD and Crazyl to just look over the info and post their opinions on what they were seeing. Nothing official - just what did they think? I was trying to do anything. They declined to even look.

I am cursed with a very good memory and could start linking threads and so on but suffice it to say it was just ridiculous. The SBR response had this blankness to it. Like, 'I am going to sit here at my desk with my head pointed straight ahead and unless some absolute proof of something enters my immediate vision in a pre-determined manner, everything is fine.'

I was just going to ask if there is finally a downgrade and I see that there is.

JoshW · 01-06-10, 01:16 PM

Ballpark here is the applicable rules. Looks like you are stuck with rollover:

Bonuses have to be played by the time any payout is to be requested. If, by the time of the payout, and, if the player has not yet played the bonus he will automatically loose the bonus + the winnings of the bonus; if it is FORFEITABLE, if the bonus is NON-FORFEITABLE, the payout will be declined until the player has met the rollover.
Every rollover required or volume required by WagerWeb, is to be played the amount of times decided at the time of the credit or beginning of the contest, the rollover or volume is twice the given amount if it is counted on the casino.

Bill Dozer · 01-06-10, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Mudcat

Yeah I know. This just brought back some frustrating memories of a bunch of people trying to spread information of WW taking free shots at players, and not only did SBR not seem willing to listen, it was like Justin and robmpink had their arms locked and were running interference on WW's behalf.

I had one person who found SBR so suspicious, they sent me their complaint complete with supporting documents with instructions that Justin be kept out of it. I didn't know know what to do with it. At one point, I asked some mods at the time, BBD and Crazyl to just look over the info and post their opinions on what they were seeing. Nothing official - just what did they think? I was trying to do anything. They declined to even look.

I am cursed with a very good memory and could start linking threads and so on but suffice it to say it was just ridiculous. The SBR response had this blankness to it. Like, 'I am going to sit here at my desk with my head pointed straight ahead and unless some absolute proof of something enters my immediate vision in a pre-determined manner, everything is fine.'

I was just going to ask if there is finally a downgrade and I see that there is.

I remember too. There was a complaint short on facts from a third party where you hoped SBR would question the sportsbook vs. collecting the relevant info from an accessible player.

bigblacktruck · 01-06-10, 01:30 PM

accepting all players?

Justin7 · 01-06-10, 02:02 PM

I always base decision on facts and law. Sometimes players don't like that. When players have no basis for a complaint and try to use the forums to press an invalid complaint, I try to fairly explain the book's position.

And if a book cheats, I'll call them out in an instant - although in this case, I had to confirm facts and try to get WagerWeb to act more responsible for lambasting them. In any dispute, my first concern is to get a player paid if he is owed, and that delays the resolution of many.

Dunder · 01-06-10, 02:10 PM

Sucks, the guy should be paid.
I assume that WagerWeb still choose to accept this type of correlated parlay via their software. If so, this is outright crooked.

siabdo23 · 01-06-10, 02:16 PM

pjesnik24 · 01-06-10, 02:29 PM

why not F rating?

frankthetank · 01-06-10, 06:19 PM

I remember a few years ago someone referred to them as "plager-web"

LOL

robmpink · 01-06-10, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by frankthetank

I remember a few years ago someone referred to them as "plager-web"

LOL

Once I lost a wager I placed with wagerweb. I was mad and I said " I hate you WagerSped

LOL LOL LOL LOL

BobHarvey · 01-06-10, 06:54 PM

Thanks Bill.

trixtrix · 01-06-10, 09:42 PM

dan just called me and berated me for 30 min, he made me sound like i was an accomplice of justin's and somehow i should feel like a crook for winning. he then proceeded to test me on my cp knowledge and pleaser knowledge and tells me that he knows for sure i was not the one controlling the acct.

what a nice guy.

1st and Ten · 01-06-10, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by trixtrix

dan just called me and berated me for 30 min, he made me sound like i was an accomplice of justin's and somehow i should feel like a crook for winning. he then proceeded to test me on my cp knowledge and pleaser knowledge and tells me that he knows for sure i was not the one controlling the acct.

what a nice guy.

r u kiddin us

trixtrix · 01-06-10, 09:53 PM

i'm too tired right now to add much to this report at this moment, other than i concur w/ justin's report and thank him for his time regardless of the outcome.

as for the roi pundits out there: i wagered roughly 95k in that timespan and won net 4.3k (not counting freeplay bonuses etc). so my original estimate of 5% roi was not far off. solve by inspection

patswin · 01-06-10, 10:31 PM

grade them an F

Vince Lombardi · 01-06-10, 10:46 PM

Thanks for the work that you guys do.

mr. leisure · 01-06-10, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by patswin

grade them an F

I concur

Jonah · 01-06-10, 11:15 PM

Where is Andy Pettite?

skrtelfan · 01-07-10, 05:34 PM

Agree that this deserves an F. There's no grey area here; this is outright theft.

robmpink · 01-07-10, 06:01 PM

Based on the way sbr grades they won't be a F. Keep in mind I did a run through of c or so rated books in the sbr grading area. There were around 20 or more that don't even work, they closed shop, etc. Yet SBR has them graded like everything is fine and dandy. This has been raised multiple times in posts but they do nothing. How credible is that?

Anyway, regarding this issue I have mixed feelings. Based on what I see posted here and the sbr/justin report it doesn't look good for wagerweb. Now that being said, possibly wagerweb has there own version that differs from SBR's. I would be interested in hearing it maybe, but it isn't any of my business.

robmpink · 01-07-10, 06:06 PM

Also, maybe someone involved could fill me in on this. So lets say he won 4k on cp, but they withheld 9k. Is that extra 5k they withheld (as sbr says without explanation) winnings that he earned with the cp winnings?

That is the only conclusion I could make.

durito · 01-07-10, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by robmpink

Also, maybe someone involved could fill me in on this. So lets say he won 4k on cp, but they withheld 9k. Is that extra 5k they withheld (as sbr says without explanation) winnings that he earned with the cp winnings?

That is the only conclusion I could make.

He first lost 5k playing parlays, then won 9k, for a net +4k. They took the 9k. Thieves, should be D-.

trixtrix · 01-07-10, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by robmpink

Also, maybe someone involved could fill me in on this. So lets say he won 4k on cp, but they withheld 9k. Is that extra 5k they withheld (as sbr says without explanation) winnings that he earned with the cp winnings?

no

Originally posted by robmpink

That is the only conclusion I could make.

i can think of a few more..

robmpink · 01-07-10, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by trixtrix

no

i can think of a few more..

That was the only justification I could see using their thought process. That doesn't mean it was right.

Anyway, it makes it more mysterious as to the reasoning why the extra 5k or whatever was held back. There has to be a reason in their eyes. If they didn't explain why then that doesn't make sense and is theft. Even if they said "he tried to screw us so we screwed him, it is an explanation. At the very least an explanation. Without that explanation it makes the matter worse. Maybe there is one and no one here posted it. Maybe there isn't one and that is messed up.