 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
SCAM - BetOlimp - Stay away
They voided all bets I placed on this match: http://www.oddsportal.com/soccer/swi...amax-df4X5bDr/
saying it was a bad line but it wasn't because many other books had same line, almost no odds movements from opening to kickoff
I played bets at 8 other books on that match and they all paid out.
Obviously BetOlimp wasn't happy with the result.
Those scammers even deleted my bet history but I made screenshots before so let's see what their licensor, MGA, will say about it.
These threads against BetOnline every single day isn't making them look so good.
Better read the thread title againOriginally Posted by TheMoneyShot
Oh!Better read the thread title againI thought the word you used was slang for them. My bad.
These European books have some weird names. I think my favorite is assoplay.com
this is a swiss cup soccer game that finished 21-0 and you consider it normal?
So what?this is a swiss cup soccer game that finished 21-0 and you consider it normal?
A professional team from 2nd tier played against an pure-amateur team from 9th league, which is the bottom tier in the Swiss football league system. Result isn't a surprise in any way.
Oh!
A wild final score shouldn't void the bet and if other books carried the same line, paid out, and it wasn't a bad line, then the book's position looks a little shaky.
Any news on the 21-0 final? There must be another reason it may have been voided.
fartbet !!!
I thought you were making a joke and I googled fartbet and there actually is a book called that. Hilarious.
21-0 lol didnt know there was such a thing.
I didn't know there was such a thing as you. Unfortunately there is.
Final reply from MGA: http://i.imgur.com/khe4r3B.png
I assume you pointed out the other books and odds movement? (or lack of it)
I guess they don't care that if a book detects this after the event they should pay out at the correct odds.
MGA are a joke.
Sure. It's a waste of time to discuss with them.
they say it's ok to void bets after the match because of terms and conditions that are unfair, what a joke
condition #2 says they can void a bet if it can be arb'd somewhere else... so i guess players are supposed to check every other sportsbook in the world and make sure there isn't a 1 cent arb on it
Dear Mr Kassar,
My name is Brad Scott and I work with SBR (sportsbookreview.com) assisting players to resolve disputes with sportsbooks.
Mr Sxxxxxx has approached us with this particular problem and your response.
I am not certain if it was made clear that Betolimp voided this bet after the result of the match was known.
In that case I think you should agree that fair industry practice is to re-value incorrect odds to what would have been correct at the time the bet was struck, rather than outright void bets after the fact.
Whilst SBR support the argument that players need to make themselves aware of the terms they agree to, in this case applying the term in this manner is clearly not the fair or proper outcome..
I hope you may be to take another look at this one and possibly encourage Betolimp to follow fair industry practice in cases like this?
Regards,
Brad Scott
****************
Last edited by Optional; 09-12-17 at 01:34 PM. Reason: removed email address
Dear Mr. Scott,
It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Kris escalated this one to me.
I have reviewed Mr. Sxxxxxx’s case and in this light I would like to clarify that the MGA Player Support Unit’s remit is purely mediatory, essentially the same kind of work you carry out. When it comes to cases relating to unfair terms, the appropriate entity to deal with such matters is the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA).
In my personal capacity, I am in agreement with your view on how such bets should ideally be handled and indeed many operators choose to settle this way however based on the terms agreed to by the player with this particular operator, we cannot influence the way betolimp.com conduct their business on that level. We are only able to impose where the Remote Gaming Regulations have been breached.
I am aware that this was not the response that you were hoping for but I am confident that you will understand our position as a regulator. Mr. Scott, since you contacted us, I would like to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to work and collaborate on any matters you feel will add value to the industry seeing the we both have the same matters of interest at heart.
Warm regards,
Kev
Kevin O'Neill
Player Support Manager
T +35625469000
A Building SCM 02-03, Level 4, SmartCity Malta, Ricasoli SCM1001, Malta
E support.mga@mga.org.mt W www.mga.org.mt
the appropriate entity to deal with such matters is the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA).Those are my favorite statements.In my personal capacity, I am in agreement with your view on how such bets should ideally be handled and indeed many
MGA says: I agree with you. The sportsbook acts in a wrong way. But we are not the right authority to deal with that kind of issue. Please contact another authority.
They said I agreed to the terms. That means, if a sportsbook wants to acquire a license from MGA the terms and conditions the sportsbook offers their customers are not relevant. So customer protection seems not to be an issue for MGA at all.
What about deleting my bet history? Where do I find that term at betolimp.com?
I actually think this is quite a positive response from the MGA,
It appears they see themselves in a far less pro-actively regulatory role than most of us have imagined.
I have been quite critical of the MGA myself but at least now we see that they do understand our position but merely do not see themselves in a position to make orders as we thought.
I don't think this is the end of this yet Lonnie. Let it play out with your agent and the MCCAA. We might be able to actually effect some meaningful change here.
I don't know. It's always the easiest way to say 'i'm not responsible' when it comes to solving problems.
Did you ever hear of that "Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority"?
Neither I heard of them nor did I read anything about them in the context of sports betting.
Of course I will contact them and put all energy in it to clarify this issue but I'm not optimistic at all that I'll get even a response from them.
I don't see this as a progress. I'm rather shocked the MGA does not care about companys' ToS at all.
I suggest leaving it to your agent to contact them first Lonnie. It sounds like he is making progress.
And no I have not heard of them but I am not surprised now he tells us the situation. A similar body would rule on these things in the Australian market too. Although the NT regulator there 'acts' more like they have actual regulatory power themselves.
So 7 weeks gone. Let's see what we achieved:
MGA referred me to MCCAA Malta Consumer Affairs Authority. MCCAA said that "the ordinary protocol is to contact the European Consumer Centre of your country of residence". So I contacted the ECC Germany. ECC Germany required many documents including a power of attorney. I sent them the documents but did not hear back from them for 4 weeks. When I asked the ECC about the current proceedings they answered "we have forwarded the case to ECC Malta and wait for a reply". ECC Malta is basically the same institute like MCCAA, in other words ECC Malta referred me to ECC Germany who referred my query back to ECC Malta. No idea how this makes sense.
Anyway, today I got the final response* from ECC Germany:
Summary:Dear sir,
Our colleagues from the European Consumer Center Malta inform us that they have received feedback from the company "BetOlimp".
The company is not willing to participate in the out-of-court dispute resolution we offer. It is only willing to respond to requests from the MGA (Malta Gaming Authority).
If you already have a final negative answer in the proceedings from MGA, the possibilities of out-of-court dispute settlement are exhausted.
Of course you can now turn to a lawyer.
I am very sorry that I can not tell you otherwise.
Many Thanks,
Best regards
Sincères salutations
Yours faithfully
Karolina B. Wojtal, LL.M. (Brugge)
Qualified lawyer / Lawyer / Juriste
Tel. +49 7851 991 48 0
www.cec-zev.eu
MGA -> MCCAA -> ECC Germany -> ECC Malta -> ECC Germany -> MGA
But MGA says "We are not responsible"
__________
*Original text:
Sehr geehrter Herr xxxxxxx,
unsere Kollegen vom Europäischen verbraucherzentrum Malta teilen uns mit, dass sie eine Rückmeldung von dem Unternehmen „BetOlimp“ erhalten haben.
Da Unternehmen ist nicht bereit an der von uns angebotenen außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung teilzunehmen. Es ist grundsätzlich nur bereit, auf Anfragen der MGA (Malta Gaming Authority) zu reagieren.
Sollte Ihnen auch in dem Verfahren vor der MAG bereits eine endgültige, negative Antwort vorliegen, sind die Möglichkeiten einer außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung erschöpft.
Selbstverständlich können Sie sich jetzt noch an einen Anwalt wenden.
Ich bedaure sehr, Ihnen keine andere Mitteilung machen zu können.
Vielen Dank,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Sincères salutations
Yours faithfully
Karolina B. Wojtal, LL.M. (Brügge)
Volljuristin/Lawyer/Juriste
Tel. +49 7851 991 48 0
www.cec-zev.eu
Zentrum für Europäischen Verbraucherschutz e.V. www.cec-zev.eu
Europäisches Verbraucherzentrum Deutschland www.evz.de
Just when I was about to make a deposit, I find this thread. Thank you for ruining the 50% reload bonus offer up to 250 e, with only a 1750 e wagering requirement
But better safe than sorry.
Reply With Quote
