BetOnline wager dispute - getting its own thread now

[middy]

Bump to the top every single day until he's paid out. Congratulations to Bet Online for spending more than 2 weeks as a laughable, disgusting, epic fail of a book.

Don't worry guys, "I'm confident this will be dealt with by the end of the day".

[RickySteve]

Like Carib saying they have a policy of theft and lying to SBR? "Clean record" roflcopter. They blatantly made fabrications to Lou.

If I pay you whatever you imagine Carib stole from you, will you never post here again?

[Bill Dozer]

Like Carib saying they have a policy of theft and lying to SBR? "Clean record" roflcopter. They blatantly made fabrications to Lou.

Yea, like Carib ya knucklehead. Youre too busy pointing fingers to realize we took them off the forum then and downgraded them back then.

[Thremp]

If I pay you whatever you imagine Carib stole from you, will you never post here again?

No. But you can s my d.

Yea, like Carib ya knucklehead. Youre too busy pointing fingers to realize we took them off the forum then and downgraded them back then.

Link to the newswire?

[Speed Kills]

Justin7 - May I assume that you are an attorney? Your use of phrases/terms like "four corners of the contract" and "motion for summary judgment (MSJ)" suggest that, at a minimum, you have a law degree (or some legal background).

As one of the aggrieved parties in this dispute (I am the Cal bettor) and also a lawyer, I feel it incumbent to respond to your post. While I don't do a whole lot of contract work, my recollection from law school is that the "four corners of the document" rule bars parol evidence WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the terms of the document are UNAMBIGUOUS. In such a case, neither party would be permitted to introduce additional evidence supporting his position, and the document would speak for itself.

In this case, however, the term, "championship" is most assuredly AMBIGUOUS. As such, parol evidence would clearly be admissible, and evidence like the timing of the bet (made in November), the fact that SEC East and West wagers suggest that these futures were premised on the regular season, and the market odds at the time the wagers were placed would all support both mine and the Syracuse bettor's positions. Therefore, I cannot agree with your determination that "from a strictly legal point of view BOL was correct". The introduction of admissible parol evidence clearly demonstrates that "legally," BOL was wrong to grade the wagers as losses.

Obviously, I have a vested outcome in this dispute, and by no means have presented this response to be disrespectful. I did, however, feel compelled to further articulate my position in light of the "legal argument". And, for the record, I do believe that a court would rule in favor of the players on summary judgment, as no reasonable jury could possibly find for BOL even when looking at the totality of the evidence in a light most favorable to BOL.

I would certainly welcome your response.

[NDIrish9]

body odor

[Justin7]

Speed kills,

Yes, I was a practicing lawyer for 10 years. I now sue only recreationally, and mainly bet on sports for a living (I've been "of counsel" for the last 6 years).

If your facts are the same, you are owed. The player is in the right.

My only point was that Betonline had a valid legal argument, even if it was one that would likely lose when other facts came out (I thought the "best" definition of Champion was the winner of the tournament).

I wish BetOnline would officially comment on whether they copied Greek's lines. If this occurred, and they just failed to copy the extra terms that Greek included in the wagering page.

I think the most likely explanation is BetOnline did a poor job copying Greek. Their prop guy had no clue which championship it was, made a guess, and later tried to justify the decision without understanding the odds or other aspects. If this is what happened, the initial decision was more a result of incompetence than malice.

That said, if BetOnline doesn't fix this or produce compelling facts, they will quickly lose the assumption of an "innocent mistake".

[Chris@thegreek]

Odds were stolen off our site, maybe next time they should take the disclaimer I use or hire someone to do their own odds


Player is right in this case, this is a example why players should play at A+ books, we payed out these bets over 1 month ago

[HedgeHog]

Hard to believe a B+ Book could F-up so badly. Every one knows the proper action except BOL (Beware our Lines).

[middy]

Hope everyone's having a lovely Sunday. This has still not been resolved and so here's another bump to remind everyone that Bet Online is scamming its players and refuses to pay out future bets.

Have a nice day!

[BigdaddyQH]

Why would a book not simply state that a wager is to win the "Regular Season Championship" or the "Tournament Championship"? How simple is that? Now without taking sides in this issue, the fact that books intentionally leaves open to debate exactly what defines a Conference Champion, leave themselves open to this sort of scrutiny by the people in here. It is rather easy to see why people would question this.

By the same token, the bettor has to be aware of exactly what he/she is wagering on. If there is ANY question, they MUST address the issue BEFORE they wager. If the wording is ambiguous, ASK. Get a specific reply. Print it out. Then you would have undisputable and irrefutable evidence backing your dispute.

I wager in Vegas 99% of the time. It is so simple. You pay for your wager, and immediately collect if you win. If their is any misunderstanding about what you are wagering on, or if you make a mistake, the books simply cancel the wager. If I have any questions about exactly what I am wagering on, I ask, and always get an answer. There is not legitimate reason why offshore books can not adopt the same attitude. All wagers should be specifically spelled out. Having said that, I do want to congratulate Chris at the Greek for running an above board operation. They are one of the very few operations that I would consider doing business with.

[skrtelfan]

Call it sloppy on my part, but I try to get all the facts, even in cases that look easy.

What facts could possibly take the book 3+ weeks to produce? They have yet to explain why they'd offer SEC regular season odds and other conference tournament props in the same prop with the same wording.

[skrtelfan]

I don't follow you. I said on page one the player made a good case for himself. That was one of the strongest points. If it wasn't addressed BetOnline wouldn't be paying him $6,000? BetOnline isn't fast but they have never cheated a player or ignored mediation.

It took SBR over 2 weeks to address the issue and it's now 3 weeks and BOL was still insisting they were right as of a couple days ago. To say his case was merely "good" understates the issue. There's absolutely no grey area here and any book that takes more than a day to play the player deserves no higher than a D rating.

[skrtelfan]

On more than one occasion, I have reviewed what looked like a "slam dunk" case. Things stated by a party are frequently false. If I am working a dispute up, I don't accept anything as fact until both parties have at least seen the claims, and had a chance to respond.

What could possibly justify BOL taking 3 weeks to verify that they did offer SEC division odds as part of the same prop?

Yes, and from a strictly legal point of view, Betonline was correct.

In that case, from a "strictly legal point of view" they could grade every ticket a loser, grading Syracuse tickets losers saying the bet was for the Big East tournament and grade West Virginia tickets losers saying the bet was for the regular season.

[middy]

Hope everyone's having a nice Monday. As for me, I'm off to Hooters for all you can eat wings and scantily clad ladies. Just had to stop in before I left to bump that BET ONLINE IS A CRAP, SCAM OF A BOOK THAT STILL HASN'T PAID OUT A FUTURE WAGER ON ONE OF THE MOST OPEN AND SHUT WAGER DISPUTES IN RECENT MEMORY.

Have a nice day!

[LT Profits]

My only point was that Betonline had a valid legal argument, even if it was one that would likely lose when other facts came out (I thought the "best" definition of Champion was the winner of the tournament).

And isn't the fact that the word "Championship" needs further defining enough to deem the wording ambiguous?

Anyhow, it should be obvious that the bet was for regular season only when you combine the facts that they offered wagers on Divisions and that the odds they cloned were regular season odds at the Gteek, which already paid out Syracuse as the winners.

[big joe 1212]

If you look in Syracuse's trophy case, they have the trophy "2010 Big East Conference Champions"

If you look in West Virginia's trophy case, their trophy says "2010 Big East Tournament Champions"

If you look on the Big East website, it claims Syracuse as the "Big East Champions", and W.V. as the "tournament" champions!

Case closed!

PAY THE PLAYER YOU THIEVES!!!!

[big joe 1212]

Odds were stolen off our site, maybe next time they should take the disclaimer I use or hire someone to do their own odds


Player is right in this case, this is a example why players should play at A+ books, we payed out these bets over 1 month ago

[mtneer1212]

I wonder how much they would have to pay out on Syracuse versus how much this is costing them in bad publicity? Even if they finally pay, the damage is done.

[MBENZ]

Players in question must have gotten the ole"shut up on the forums or you get nuttin"message.

[HedgeHog]

Is BOL's decision final? If so, drop their rating to the D-range with the other bums that selectively stiff.

[sam b.]

Hey everyone. I'm pleased to say that yesterday we were paid in...well, not full, but close. Our accounts were credited for the amount of the WIN, but they did not credit back the amount of the initial stake. I sent a PM to Bill about it and he said it was an oversight from a non-wagering manager. When the case manager gets back from Easter holiday, it will be taken care of. Many thanks to everyone at SBR and at Peep's Place. There's no question that, without their involvement, we would have never been paid. They got our compliant past the front line of clerks, supervisors, managers and directors and in front of the decision makers. They took their time, but ultimately made the correct call.

I would say that I look forward to wagering on basketball conference futures again next year, but my limits on all props and futures were "reduced" to $1 back in December and have not been restored...

[LT Profits]

Sorry it took so long sam but good for you!

[mtneer1212]

Good for you. But still bad business. I almost reupped with them because of their "new BetOnline" management...... but now..... nah

[Tomato]

I would say that I look forward to wagering on basketball conference futures again next year, but my limits on all props and futures were "reduced" to $1 back in December and have not been restored...

So what you are saying was that this was a bunch of crap?

Guys

There's little I can say to re-assure you that this isn't BOS in any way, shape or form... but it isn't.

It's a NEW BEtOnline. There has been a change in shareholders and a new executive team put in, including myself as CMO, one of the world's TOP linesguys who's not afraid of taking almost ANYONE's action, a super solid CTO who was one of the first in the online sportsbook business and a top notch CFO who can make sense out the chaos we've bought into/inherited/uncovered.

And we have Clive as CEO, the ONE GUY who stood up for BOS' players while all the shit came down. The one guy who stayed and worked and fought to get players paid. That BoS turned into a Ball of Shit is true--Clive was the one guy who stayed to sort it out. Ask Calvin. Ask Mickey. Ask Luke. HE didn't take your money then--and we're not doing it now. We've got a much longer term view.

Hence we HAVE removed the reduced limits on EVERYBODY in the book. The nonsense of "make up figures" and "wait screens" ALL GONE. 100%. And we're launching dime lines for MLB.

I've been working with these guys for 6 months now. I've personally met the owners and know and trust them. We all share the same vision--offer a book with great prices and superior service and, over time, we'll have a decent margin and make some cash. Bill and Shannon have met all of us, and we're in the process of getting with all of the key forums and other sports sites.

We WILL disagree on points, as we are now disputing a futures call with a player. That happens in this business, especially when you have smart guys on both ends. Will we occasionally disappoint? Count on it--shit happens outside of our control and none of of us are happy. But we'll sort it

But will we consistently and persistently work to be a new, exciting, fun, viable option for sports bettors? That you can bet on.

I signed on 'cause these guys aren't amateurs who got lucky, they're NOT the guys from the streets who came online; they are seasoned experienced online industry vets from around the world who came together to service the most exciting sports betting market in the world. That's why I signed up and moved my family over and hung onto the rollercoaster of change the past few months.

You ALWAYS have a choice. With us you have one more. Prefer to take your cash out and sit on the sidelines for now and see how we do? No worries, come on back anytime, your choice. Want to play with us and work with us to make the best book on the planet? You're input is always welcome, we will listen. We won't always be able to act on everything--the exec team is very focused on the US hence no ewallets... we're chasing mainly square action so no book-to-book...YET. But these elements of the offering will evolve.

And when you request your payout, we will always pay.

Alex

[onthewhat]

Two questions:

1. Mississippi State won the SEC West Regular Season but did not win the Conference Tournament. How did BetOnline pay out for this wager?

2. If these odds were for the conference tournament championship, why did BetOnline take them off the board when the season started, whereas books keep NCAA Tournament Futures on the board all season and adjust the odds as they see fit? Wouldn't they have just kept the Big East Tourney odds on the board and adjusted them on a day-by-day basis?

[tomcowley]

Hey everyone. I'm pleased to say that yesterday we were paid in...well, not full, but close. Our accounts were credited for the amount of the WIN, but they did not credit back the amount of the initial stake. I sent a PM to Bill about it and he said it was an oversight from a non-wagering manager. When the case manager gets back from Easter holiday, it will be taken care of. Many thanks to everyone at SBR and at Peep's Place. There's no question that, without their involvement, we would have never been paid. They got our compliant past the front line of clerks, supervisors, managers and directors and in front of the decision makers. They took their time, but ultimately made the correct call.

I would say that I look forward to wagering on basketball conference futures again next year, but my limits on all props and futures were "reduced" to $1 back in December and have not been restored...

This means BoL is manually crediting people who complained.. and very likely still ****ing over everybody who didn't. If they'd regraded the prop in their system, it should get such things correct automatically. Sportsbook software is so ****ing awful that such a thing might be impossible, but SBR should ask about other ticketholders.

[big joe 1212]

I still will not play there again! Unless it is free contest money

[middy]

Paid out but not given his stake back? Are we pretending this is done?

Congratulations to Bet Online on their ongoing failure to properly pay out a future.

[big joe 1212]

Two questions:

1. Mississippi State won the SEC West Regular Season but did not win the Conference Tournament. How did BetOnline pay out for this wager?

2. If these odds were for the conference tournament championship, why did BetOnline take them off the board when the season started, whereas books keep NCAA Tournament Futures on the board all season and adjust the odds as they see fit? Wouldn't they have just kept the Big East Tourney odds on the board and adjusted them on a day-by-day basis?

This question continues to be ignored because they don't have an answer!

[kisado]

Simply horrible.

[Speed Kills]

Sam B...Has your stake been refunded? I cannot yet send a PM because I have not made the requisite number of posts required in this forum, but just wanted to check because it was my understanding that BOL was going to manually refund our original stakes today.

[gman2114]

Confusion still reigns.

[vitalyo]

Paid out but not given his stake back? Are we pretending this is done?

Congratulations to Bet Online on their ongoing failure to properly pay out a future.

LOL . Way to go to grade a winning wager .

Our accounts were credited for the amount of the WIN, but they did not credit back the amount of the initial stake.When the case manager gets back from Easter holiday, it will be taken care of.

Yeah the desision to give a player his initial stake back has to come from manager . WTF .April's fool joke ? What's next ? Bet Online is gonna start their own trend on how wrong it is to give a player his stake back .

[sam b.]

UPDATE: 1.) My original stake has not been credited as of Monday morning. 2.) My check request on 3/26/10 says "paid" under My Payouts History, but I have not received it. They have until Friday to meet their 2-10 business day commitment, but previous checks from BOL were received by now. 3.) My limits for all props and futures remain one dollar. 4.) There is no option online to request a bank wire withdrawal.