DCSC - get a "D" from SBR - time for an upgraded rating.

**JohnnyC** · 02-27-10, 02:05 PM

they need to take ewallets

**mikeyg** · 02-28-10, 11:17 AM

Very nice book for canadian players

**Bill Dozer** · 02-28-10, 11:48 AM

Players will likely have an experience better than D like betplom, but they stole money early on from sharp guys...citing pyramid bonus use which is a made up term WagerWeb first added in their rules but never enforced. The rating assessments will be fewer when a book won't revisit.

**AimingHigh** · 02-28-10, 12:33 PM

I've had a search, but can't find any info to clarify what "pyramid bonus abuse" is. Can anyone clarify? Just wondering if it's something a regular player can do by mistake, if it's a bush league excuse, etc.

**aggie** · 02-28-10, 01:33 PM

Bonus Pyramiding

Taking deposited funds plus bonus and wagering the entire amount on a single event. Upon winning, taking your entire balance and wagering on a single event. This being repeated until meeting rollover requirements and withdrawing the money. Upon withdrawal, you will receive your deposited money and winnings on the deposited money.

Example:
Deposit: 1,000Bonus: 150Balance: 1,150
1st wager 1,150 to win 1,150
2nd wager 2,300 to win 2,300
3rd wager 4,600 to win 4,600
New balance 9,200
The breakdown of this balance is $8,000 from the deposit and $1,200 from the bonus.Withdrawal amount will be $8,000 and forfeiture of the $1,200

**AimingHigh** · 02-28-10, 02:32 PM

Thanks aggie.

But there's no advantage to such "pyramiding" is there? It seems a bit like the martingale roulette system, which doesn't work. Couldn't any bet lose, and then, if it was one of the later bets, you'd lose a heck of a lot? Maybe I'm missing something?...

**Bill Dozer** · 02-28-10, 02:43 PM

forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/22087-scammed-betwho.html

**Bill Dozer** · 02-28-10, 02:44 PM

1/8/2007 07:43 PM
WagerWeb (SBR rating B-) confiscates $2038 from account holder.
The sportsbook deducted winnings from a $750 free-play bonus as well as winnings subsequently accumulated using those funds. A cash bonus of $500 and winnings accumulated using those funds were also confiscated. WagerWeb gave the player a 50% sign-up ’bonus package’ ($500 cash and $750 free-play) with the stipulation of a 10x roll-over (wagering the bonus and deposit ten times). The book’s Fraud Manager informed the player that his wagers equated to what the book classifies as "Bonus pyramiding". This rule allows the bookmaker to review the account history of a winning customer to see if the betting style shows the user risked his/her balance + bonus repeatedly until the roll-over was met. The player’s account history shows that he did not wager his entire balance until the roll-over was met. SBR will address this issue with management tomorrow.
Update: Wagerweb states that despite the explanation given to the player, other factors in the decision involved fraudulently operating multiple accounts. SBR has asked Wagerweb to remove the pyramid rule which is nothing more than a subjective description of player activity.

**magnavox** · 02-28-10, 02:47 PM

Martingale Roulette System does not work for one main reason -- every bet is -EV. Apart from that major flaw it's just a system and can easily work, just as any other "system".

**BillPaxtonsGhost** · 01-14-13, 11:08 AM

I think these books should be bumped up to at least c grade, I have not had a problem with them, its one of the best books that you dont use an e wallet for

**eastern2** · 01-14-13, 11:41 AM

SBR ratings don't mean a damn thing - a bad rating means they don't pay off Dozer and Walker

**Bill Dozer** · 01-14-13, 05:07 PM

There was a confiscation a lot of years ago. They said they took $1,700 because the player "was sharp" and came in on $100 for $100 promo meant for rec players. We don't get any feedback from their users typically so it's hard to say they have been behaving since. No complaints since then.

**Bill Dozer** · 01-14-13, 05:15 PM

This looks like another old one
forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/22087-scammed-betwho.html

**bostonboss** · 01-14-13, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Players will likely have an experience better than D like betplom, but they stole money early on from sharp guys...citing pyramid bonus use which is a made up term WagerWeb first added in their rules but never enforced. The rating assessments will be fewer when a book won't revisit.

hey bill..just cause they dont pay you for a high grade like betislands doesnt mean its a D book.

**Dunhill** · 01-14-13, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

There was a confiscation a lot of years ago. They said they took $1,700 because the player "was sharp" and came in on $100 for $100 promo meant for rec players. We don't get any feedback from their users typically so it's hard to say they have been behaving since. No complaints since then.

So what's the difference between this book and wagerweb? Wagerweb used every excuse possible not to pay trixtrix and even went as far as accusing Justin7 of using trix as a beard. Yet that book gets upgraded and this one doesn't.
I don't care about any of these books, just curious about your grade upgrading process.

**Miz** · 01-14-13, 08:24 PM

My favorite part of this thread is how nobody gives SBR's ratings any credibility.

**bostonboss** · 01-14-13, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Miz

My favorite part of this thread is how nobody gives SBR's ratings any credibility.

ive played at several low rated books by SBR never had a problem....after the bet islands fiasco id never trust sbr...

**erickvivar** · 01-14-13, 09:08 PM

The book i played with is a D book, came before BI, zero complaints, still out there, still zero complaints, never got an upgraded rating. Reason? probably they did not pay what SBR asked for.

Trust SBR ratings, never done it and I'm sure almost everyone here never will.

**Miz** · 01-14-13, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by bostonboss

ive played at several low rated books by SBR never had a problem....after the bet islands fiasco id never trust sbr...

Exactly. I plan to continue bringing up betislands about 1-2 times a week to keep the fraud fresh in everyone's mind. SBR... what a joke

**bostonboss** · 01-14-13, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Miz

Exactly. I plan to continue bringing up betislands about 1-2 times a week to keep the fraud fresh in everyone's mind. SBR... what a joke

i played at sbg global for 10 years...cashed out quite a bit........never once was there a problem with payouts...many were good size 4 figures......sbr grades them as d/f calling them scammers and how they "stole" money from sharps....(sbg global never paid them for the grade) unlike bet islands....who really did stiff people and steal....but to that bill dozer says suck it up...take the loss...and be a man....he is one of the biggest frauds in all of the internet.....i had no money with bet islands ever.....but his responses and sbr's stance on that topic and others have really showed us their true colors and motive.

**Bill Dozer** · 01-15-13, 05:04 PM

Their D+ to WW's C- seems proportionate to me. Everyone should make their own rating based on what factors matter to them.

Originally posted by Dunhill

So what's the difference between this book and wagerweb? Wagerweb used every excuse possible not to pay trixtrix and even went as far as accusing Justin7 of using trix as a beard. Yet that book gets upgraded and this one doesn't.
I don't care about any of these books, just curious about your grade upgrading process.

TrixTrix found a hole/angle and exploited it. He knew he wasn't supposed to be able to bet what he bet and his odds of losing, even over a small timeframe, were almost nil. (To summarize: Bettors couldn't do correlated parlays in full game. He found that you could bet them in halftimes/quarters which is much more correlated and impossible to lose and for a book to stay in business offering them. He ran up his balance playing that bet). That said, the software let him do it. He could have lost money at least in week 1. No one was home in WW risk management or in the wagering stage to catch him before he started cashing out. SBR told WW they took the bets and should pay him and to not was short sighted.

Before these issues hey started at B-. WW was upgraded to C- because they paid everyone with a bonus dispute and resent funds on a dispute where they believed a player was paid already. WagerWeb was trying to contact TrixTrix to discuss. Hopefully something positive comes of it.

We have not heard from any DCS site since they confiscated the winnings. I'm not sure how a player would find them unless someone turned em on to the book locally.

**Bill Dozer** · 01-15-13, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by bostonboss

i played at sbg global for 10 years...cashed out quite a bit........never once was there a problem with payouts...many were good size 4 figures......sbr grades them as d/f calling them scammers and how they "stole" money from sharps....(sbg global never paid them for the grade) unlike bet islands....who really did stiff people and steal....but to that bill dozer says suck it up...take the loss...and be a man....he is one of the biggest frauds in all of the internet.....i had no money with bet islands ever.....but his responses and sbr's stance on that topic and others have really showed us their true colors and motive.

SBG stole money from posters here including Nicky Santoro and poster Curious. It's well documented what happened at SBG back then when your balance got high during down months.

Ive never said that.

Its insensitive to defend SBR ratings in a time when people got hurt by a decent rated book. Folks were acting as if it was inconceivable, for a book that is 5th spots down on anyone's rating scale, to fail. It's happened three times in about 13 years. If you decide to stay with top books only, it's once in 13 years.

As we've said, players should create their own ratings. Some who insist on playing yet can't accept this outcome, can at least choose books who have been around 15 years instead of 2.

**nicabet** · 01-15-13, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Their D+ to WW's C- seems proportionate to me. Everyone should make their own rating based on what factors matter to them.

TrixTrix found a hole/angle and exploited it. He knew he wasn't supposed to be able to bet what he bet and his odds of losing, even over a small timeframe, were almost nil. (To summarize: Bettors couldn't do correlated parlays in full game. He found that you could bet them in halftimes/quarters which is much more correlated and impossible to lose and for a book to stay in business offering them. He ran up his balance playing that bet). That said, the software let him do it. He could have lost money at least in week 1. No one was home in WW risk management or in the wagering stage to catch him before he started cashing out. SBR told WW they took the bets and should pay him and to not was short sighted.

Before these issues hey started at B-. WW was upgraded to C- because they paid everyone with a bonus dispute and resent funds on a dispute where they believed a player was paid already. WagerWeb was trying to contact TrixTrix to discuss. Hopefully something positive comes of it.

We have not heard from any DCS site since they confiscated the winnings. I'm not sure how a player would find them unless someone turned em on to the book locally.

WOuld you like me to go through the lies individually in this post or did you want to just retract it all?

**MonkeyF0cker** · 01-15-13, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Their D+ to WW's C- seems proportionate to me. Everyone should make their own rating based on what factors matter to them.

TrixTrix found a hole/angle and exploited it. He knew he wasn't supposed to be able to bet what he bet and his odds of losing, even over a small timeframe, were almost nil. (To summarize: Bettors couldn't do correlated parlays in full game. He found that you could bet them in halftimes/quarters which is much more correlated and impossible to lose and for a book to stay in business offering them. He ran up his balance playing that bet). That said, the software let him do it. He could have lost money at least in week 1. No one was home in WW risk management or in the wagering stage to catch him before he started cashing out. SBR told WW they took the bets and should pay him and to not was short sighted.

Before these issues hey started at B-. WW was upgraded to C- because they paid everyone with a bonus dispute and resent funds on a dispute where they believed a player was paid already. WagerWeb was trying to contact TrixTrix to discuss. Hopefully something positive comes of it.

We have not heard from any DCS site since they confiscated the winnings. I'm not sure how a player would find them unless someone turned em on to the book locally.

Well, Bill, there's the TINY fact that you're UPGRADING them when you KNOW they have stolen funds from a player and have not made good on it. Why don't you save the upgrades for when/if they actually pay trixtrix?

You're saying that you won't upgrade SBG for stealing years ago, but you will with WW. That seems to be a contradictory stance. It doesn't appear to posters that SBR would rule in trixtrix's favor today (and they're likely correct.. going by your justification above). That becomes a MAJOR problem with many posters here.

**Dunhill** · 01-15-13, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Their D+ to WW's C- seems proportionate to me. Everyone should make their own rating based on what factors matter to them.

TrixTrix found a hole/angle and exploited it. He knew he wasn't supposed to be able to bet what he bet and his odds of losing, even over a small timeframe, were almost nil. (To summarize: Bettors couldn't do correlated parlays in full game. He found that you could bet them in halftimes/quarters which is much more correlated and impossible to lose and for a book to stay in business offering them. He ran up his balance playing that bet). That said, the software let him do it. He could have lost money at least in week 1. No one was home in WW risk management or in the wagering stage to catch him before he started cashing out. SBR told WW they took the bets and should pay him and to not was short sighted.

Before these issues hey started at B-. WW was upgraded to C- because they paid everyone with a bonus dispute and resent funds on a dispute where they believed a player was paid already. WagerWeb was trying to contact TrixTrix to discuss. Hopefully something positive comes of it.

We have not heard from any DCS site since they confiscated the winnings. I'm not sure how a player would find them unless someone turned em on to the book locally.

Well, I don't post a lot around here because I'm horrendous at betting. But I do READ this forum a lot.
If you'd go back to the old threads about wagerweb you'd see that this wasn't exactly what sbr was thinking a year ago. Everyone ruled in trix's favor, the book was downgraded accordingly from C- to D(WagerWeb (SBR rating C-) confiscation of $9578.60 determined to be theft.) They ignored both SBR and OSGA rulings (osga ruled to pay only a partial 4k amount which wasn't won on correlated parlays) and dragged this on an on with all kinds of excuses. Now when you started to upgrade them and opened those cases that in the past were determined to be theft, they again did everything they could not to pay out trix.
Only that this time you were on wagerweb's side and pretty much ignored anything and anyone that said otherwise (even the formed moderator J7). I really can't understand how, after the BI disaster, can you stand by a book that openly steals from players and ignores SBR's and OSGA's rulings. But at least, unlike BI, everyone knows about WW's reputation.

P.S. Banning trix didn't magically made all these problems disappear. Tell them to pay him and maybe someday their rep will go up. Unless their PR department thinks it's a good idea to have their rep tarnished on every sportsbetting forum just to save a couple of bucks.

EDIT:

Originally posted by trixtrix

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

**BackDoorCover** · 01-15-13, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Dunhill

I really can't understand how, after the BI disaster, can you stand by a book that openly steals from players and ignores SBR's and OSGA's rulings. But at least, unlike BI, everyone knows about WW's reputation.

Simple. WW check cleared. Something had to replace the money SBR <s>stole from its posters</s> earned in BI affiliate fees

**Justin7** · 01-17-13, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

TrixTrix found a hole/angle and exploited it. He knew he wasn't supposed to be able to bet what he bet and his odds of losing, even over a small timeframe, were almost nil. (To summarize: Bettors couldn't do correlated parlays in full game. He found that you could bet them in halftimes/quarters which is much more correlated and impossible to lose and for a book to stay in business offering them. He ran up his balance playing that bet).

Wagerweb's initial story was that "this was a glitch". Wagerweb claimed that during time period, an ASI upgrade had an error. When they disabled in-game parlays, the ASI error still enabled them for the first half. This story was fabricated and false.

Many full-game (and first half) parlays were disabled. Wagerweb disabled both full-game and first half correlated parlays for the best bets. If you review Trixtrix's wagering history, you'll find the best games, the parlays were simply not made. For example, If Ohio State -40/over 48 were available during the period when he was wagering, there was neither a full-game nor a first half parlay made. If I remember correctly they removed all full-game and first half parlays if the line to total ratio was less than about 2.0. Trixtrix chose not to place full-game parlays, because the EV on first-half CPS is much higher than full-game. He made no effort to camouflage his play whatsoever -- in many games, he was playing both h1 dog/under in one parlay, and h1 fav/over in another.

A more accurate version would be: Wagerweb knew that some correlated parlays were bad. Those were disabled for full-game and first-half. When they, like many bookmakers realized the profitable range for correlated parlays was greater than they realized, they simply lied to seize the player's money, claiming an ASI error allowed these.

**sneak-a-peak** · 01-17-13, 05:16 PM

Hey Justin, How about one last video here for us?

**skrtelfan** · 01-18-13, 02:28 PM

justin's last paragraph is exactly right. because they banned certain parlays, the parlays he bet were allowed by the software and acceptable. if the rule is no correlated parlays they could void stuff like packers -6 to over 51 as those two bets are very slightly correlated. not nearly correlated enough to show a profit betting blindly but there is a very slight correlation. so if you bet packers to over and it lost feel free to ask for a refund but you wont be getting it.

**Bill Dozer** · 01-18-13, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Wagerweb's initial story was that "this was a glitch". Wagerweb claimed that during time period, an ASI upgrade had an error. When they disabled in-game parlays, the ASI error still enabled them for the first half. This story was fabricated and false.

Many full-game (and first half) parlays were disabled. Wagerweb disabled both full-game and first half correlated parlays for the best bets. If you review Trixtrix's wagering history, you'll find the best games, the parlays were simply not made. For example, If Ohio State -40/over 48 were available during the period when he was wagering, there was neither a full-game nor a first half parlay made. If I remember correctly they removed all full-game and first half parlays if the line to total ratio was less than about 2.0. Trixtrix chose not to place full-game parlays, because the EV on first-half CPS is much higher than full-game. He made no effort to camouflage his play whatsoever -- in many games, he was playing both h1 dog/under in one parlay, and h1 fav/over in another.

A more accurate version would be: Wagerweb knew that some correlated parlays were bad. Those were disabled for full-game and first-half. When they, like many bookmakers realized the profitable range for correlated parlays was greater than they realized, they simply lied to seize the player's money, claiming an ASI error allowed these.

Yes, they have implied it was a software error. I don't see a difference in the two posts except that I don't recall in our last conference call, concluding that they had turned co-parlays off for some games and not others. Regardless, the claim by them is the same that they "didn't intend to offer co-parlays on parts of games" and while we all agreed he couldn't lose over time, it's not an excuse not to pay.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 01-18-13, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Yes, they have implied it was a software error. I don't see a difference in the two posts except that I don't recall in our last conference call, concluding that they had turned co-parlays off for some games and not others. Regardless, the claim by them is the same that they "didn't intend to offer co-parlays on parts of games" and while we all agreed he couldn't lose over time, it's not an excuse not to pay.

Then why are you upgrading them?

**nicabet** · 01-18-13, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Yes, they have implied it was a software error. I don't see a difference in the two posts except that I don't recall in our last conference call, concluding that they had turned co-parlays off for some games and not others. Regardless, the claim by them is the same that they "didn't intend to offer co-parlays on parts of games" and while we all agreed he couldn't lose over time, it's not an excuse not to pay.

You are backtracking after being called your for your complete fabrications in your last post.

Same game side/total Parlays were blocked at WagerWeb up to a certain amount on all periods (Games, 1h,1q). The same way they are at Pinnacle/Bookmaker. There is no magic level where these pass from +ev to -ev, the level of correlation they are williing to accept is up to the bookmaker. Not that Pin/Bookmaker/Greek all have different cutoff levels.

If the book is going to block -14 over 24 and not -7 over 17 then that is clearly a decision they have thought about in advance.

These parlays are far from the automatic win you ascertain in your first post. They've lost over entire football seasons recently. This isn't parlaying +3 and +150, it's a slight edge. Taking the money is no different than books going back and taking money from teasers players that bet when 3 teamers paid +180. Those were +ev bets too. I bet you guys could steal a ton more money that way.

**touchback** · 01-18-13, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by nicabet

You are backtracking after being called your for your complete fabrications in your last post.

Same game side/total Parlays were blocked at WagerWeb up to a certain amount on all periods (Games, 1h,1q). The same way they are at Pinnacle/Bookmaker. There is no magic level where these pass from +ev to -ev, the level of correlation they are williing to accept is up to the bookmaker. Not that Pin/Bookmaker/Greek all have different cutoff levels.

If the book is going to block -14 over 24 and not -7 over 17 then that is clearly a decision they have thought about in advance.

These parlays are far from the automatic win you ascertain in your first post. They've lost over entire football seasons recently. This isn't parlaying +3 and +150, it's a slight edge. Taking the money is no different than books going back and taking money from teasers players that bet when 3 teamers paid +180. Those were +ev bets too. I bet you guys could steal a ton more money that way.

SHARP... buddy. Like to see you around more Nica. You know your sh1t and obviously got connects or were around when this went down. You still in the biz...

**Justin7** · 01-19-13, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Yes, they have implied it was a software error. I don't see a difference in the two posts except that I don't recall in our last conference call, concluding that they had turned co-parlays off for some games and not others. Regardless, the claim by them is the same that they "didn't intend to offer co-parlays on parts of games" and while we all agreed he couldn't lose over time, it's not an excuse not to pay.

They did not imply it was a software error; WW stated it as a fact.

The difference: if there was an ASI software error, Wagerweb had a legal defense. If WW's claim were correct, and the ASI update screwed up, WW did not intend to offer an h1 CP that Trix took. If instead, WW did not understand CP EV, and chose to offer it, and did nothing for weeks about it, WW had no defense to Trixtrix's claim. There are other implications as well to WW's claim, but the goal is to resolve this dispute, and focusing on things outside that scope will be negative.