[BankrBIG]

lol..get Michael Avenatti to represent too right

That's not really funny, with US LEGAL books popping up, there will be no reason to gamble with these unregulated sites and risk not getting paid.

[jjgold]

Not that I care - Milwaukee Mike one of the dumbest posters in the forum missing the point again - youwager has very low payout limits on their accounts for bitcoin. Bank Wires are difficult and not the preferred method for most customers for a variety of reasons - no one intelligent would run their balance up to 77k at a book that limits customers to 1-2k a day in bitcoin transfers.

The best part of this thread is listening to meathead mike getting destroyed by most responding.

great post, no idea how these clowns leave so much money in books but a lot get caught because they are scalpers and bonus whores and the one side keeps winning and then they are fukked

Risks of bonus and scalping also, anything can happen to large amounts of money anywhere but banks that are FDIC insured

[Kaabee]

So he's smart enough to make a captcha defeating bot but dumb enough to not check it for 3 weeks? Riiiigggghhhhhhtttttt

[BankrBIG]

I think there was a similar issue with one of the US sports book that also does poker recently. They held a large amount of money and wouldn't pay this guy, so he went and paid computer experts to DDoS the site on their busiest booking days. The site ended up paying after being down for a couple weeks, it costed them millions.

[pavyracer]

This is why the offshore business is dying. A Vegas book will hand you the cash of your winning bet within minutes the game is over whether it's a $5 win or a $50,000 win. They offered you a line , you placed your bet on that line, it doesn't matter if the line moved before, during the bet or after the bet. When you handed them cash they accepted full responsibility of the placed bet.

[JoeCool20]

Joecool- You call people out for not reading the threads before commenting and then you comment on what I said obviously without reading the thread. None of what I said is speculation or a guess. It's mapped out entirely for you but I suppose you can't connect the dots.

Just when I think you can't be any more mindless you go ahead and respond like this.

LOL So now you say you AREN'T "guessing" at what happened when you really have no idea?


I think your own comment goes perfectly right here on that!


"Just when I think you can't be any more mindless you go ahead and respond like this."

[HedgeHog]

Broke loser can't pick a winner in any sports, he probably bets 5 bucks a game at Bovada like you

To say Downsouth is a broke loser shows your ignorance. He and I have competed in sportsbook sponsored contests that require a minimum $500-$1000 deposit to qualify. We don't always agree but he's a straight shooter.

[cristianbet]

Geez, back in the days, S-books would defend by limiting the account to 1€/bet/max but at least they paid.
Now I see they can invoke any reason and be safe not to pay because no one can't do shit against it.

From my point of view, these S-books would not ask for any proof or verification as long as you lose. But the minute you start winning hell breaks loose.

Op I can tell you from my experience your mistake here was that you didn't withdraw earlier and let your balance grow that big
Hard to believe you'll get that money

[HedgeHog]

great post, no idea how these clowns leave so much money in books but a lot get caught because they are scalpers and bonus whores and the one side keeps winning and then they are fukked

Your point might be valid if the OP was scalping with subpar Books, but we're talking about A+ Youwager, an SBR sponsor. Suspected scalping is not a reason for them to steal a player's funds, if in fact this is what occurred. This is especially true for A+ sponsor books that pay you to defend their improper conduct.

[thomorino]

To say Downsouth is a broke loser shows your ignorance. He and I have competed in sportsbook sponsored contests that require a minimum $500-$1000 deposit to qualify. We don't always agree but he's a straight shooter.

Fuk off

[JoeCool20]

Geez, back in the days, S-books would defend by limiting the account to 1€/bet/max but at least they paid.
Now I see they can invoke any reason and be safe not to pay because no one can't do shit against it.

From my point of view, these S-books would not ask for any proof or verification as long as you lose. But the minute you start winning hell breaks loose.

Op I can tell you from my experience your mistake here was that you didn't withdraw earlier and let your balance grow that big
Hard to believe you'll get that money

Great post man.

I think you have hit on the MAIN thing here about we players sending money overseas to strangers, and then "Hoping" they don't cheat us if we win.

The point is, that they CAN and COULD cheat us ANYTIME they want to, and we can't do a damn thing about it!


I truly hope I never send another dime to strangers in a foreign land and then "hope" they are "honest" and they don't cheat me!!


I can't wait until we get sports betting in the South, (At least more Easterly than Mississippi.)


That way if I'm dumb enough to think I can beat it, at least I'll know they won't try to cheat me out of it!

[aljack]

Let this be a lesson to everyone - Essentially when you deposit into these kinds of account, with these kinds of sportsbook operators, that are not regulated by any laws in your country - you are basically just dealing with a 'back of the pool hall' type bookie - only difference is that you have to pay upfront rather than betting on credit and paying or getting paid a % of your balance each week.

I went up $1000's on a local bookie in my area, and he was unable to pay me. What can I do about it ?? Absolutely nothing. I could slander the guys name, I could take matters into my own hands and try to collect myself, but I have no recourse of any type of civil or criminal action against the bookie.

Thankfully I didn't pay him a cent over the time I was with him, and thankfully prior to getting ripped off, I took the guy for almost $10k.

So you live and learn. There is nothing you can do if you are betting into a system that is corrupt and unregulated.

This is the very basis of the reasoning for legalization, not just in America - but all across the world.

[HedgeHog]

Fuk off

Right back at you, Morono. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

[VegasPackerFan]

For what it's worth, I was able to withdraw all of my funds from Youwager (have to say these posts made me nervous about payout issues). Just received the final payment today. I'll monitor how they handle this issue and the other about bitcoin payments going to wrong people. If they do the right thing, I may play with them again. Until then, plenty of A rated books to play with.

[milwaukee mike]

For what it's worth, I was able to withdraw all of my funds from Youwager (have to say these posts made me nervous about payout issues). Just received the final payment today. I'll monitor how they handle this issue and the other about bitcoin payments going to wrong people. If they do the right thing, I may play with them again. Until then, plenty of A rated books to play with.

how do we know what the right thing is? are we going to take as gospel the word of someone that said they had a couple 2k bitcoin payouts go to the wrong address, when those were their only posts at sbr, and then their account was closed at youwager for an undisclosed reason?

you've been paid fine, i was paid fine, business as usual

[VegasPackerFan]

how do we know what the right thing is? are we going to take as gospel the word of someone that said they had a couple 2k bitcoin payouts go to the wrong address, when those were their only posts at sbr, and then their account was closed at youwager for an undisclosed reason?

you've been paid fine, i was paid fine, business as usual

The right thing in my mind would be to address these issues with SBR and make some kind of statement about what happened. Do you really think these people created accounts and made up stories about bitcoin payments going to the wrong address?

[BankrBIG]

how do we know what the right thing is? are we going to take as gospel the word of someone that said they had a couple 2k bitcoin payouts go to the wrong address, when those were their only posts at sbr, and then their account was closed at youwager for an undisclosed reason?

you've been paid fine, i was paid fine, business as usual

What you mean the right thing? Even with "cheating," its still a gamble, not guaranteed to win anything. Fair is fair, they accepted the wager, they need to pay it out. Pay the man and give him the boot, standard industry procedure.

[Thunderground]

How much was in the account before he was limited to $1 wagers?

[downsouth]

Any statements here recently that may be posted somewhere else?

[Optional]

Any statements here recently that may be posted somewhere else?

No news as yet.

[milwaukee mike]

What you mean the right thing? Even with "cheating," its still a gamble, not guaranteed to win anything. Fair is fair, they accepted the wager, they need to pay it out. Pay the man and give him the boot, standard industry procedure.

agree with that in regards to the 77k, unless there is a lot more to the story... i was referring to what the right thing was in regards to those bitcoin payouts going to the wrong address, until we get some clarity it's a "he said she said" story... there are scammers all over

[RoyBacon]

agree with that in regards to the 77k, unless there is a lot more to the story... i was referring to what the right thing was in regards to those bitcoin payouts going to the wrong address, until we get some clarity it's a "he said she said" story... there are scammers all over

Agree with Mike's past few posts.

Btw, I see MyBookie has the same verbage about robo play.

Just wanted to chime in to say the penalty for robo play, account confiscation, does not fit the crime. The penalty should be account closed and the balance sent. This is not like casino bot play on a +EV casino game chewing through a roll over. Not even close.

I wish the OP would some day explain the bot play. Is it a scalp out strategy with a BetFair type or what? If it is, I tip my hat to the fugger.

[milwaukee mike]

Agree with Mike's past few posts.

Btw, I see MyBookie has the same verbage about robo play.

Just wanted to chime in to say the penalty for robo play, account confiscation, does not fit the crime. The penalty should be account closed and the balance sent. This is not like casino bot play on a +EV casino game chewing through a roll over. Not even close.

I wish the OP would some day explain the bot play. Is it a scalp out strategy with a BetFair type or what? If it is, I tip my hat to the fugger.

i don't think it would involve scalping, just max betting the side with value (a stale youwager line when it has moved elsewhere, and/or a moneyline that is now +ev)

[Optional]

Agree with Mike's past few posts.

Btw, I see MyBookie has the same verbage about robo play.

Just wanted to chime in to say the penalty for robo play, account confiscation, does not fit the crime. The penalty should be account closed and the balance sent. This is not like casino bot play on a +EV casino game chewing through a roll over. Not even close.

I wish the OP would some day explain the bot play. Is it a scalp out strategy with a BetFair type or what? If it is, I tip my hat to the fugger.

I agree with that in principal.

But if it is your book and the player has flat out denied bot use.

He and his friends have tried to smear your name all over forumville saying you are lying.

What would you do after being forced to spend the hours needed to work out exactly what strategy the bot was using and document how it is un-human?


Just say, oh well, you were lying but we will now consider your appeal that our terms should not apply?

Especially when you have a rule this clear about bot use;

"Winnings from accounts that are accessed by robots will not be honored. Any device, whether it is a script, program, robot, etc. that is used to access our website to 'scrape lines,' place wagers, or engage in any other automated activity will be viewed as cheating. "




Readers will hopefully learn from this experience that if you come to SBR for help, we are your advocate, tell us the truth and we will do the best we can for you.

If this guy had done that he could explain everything and argue from a point of honesty about the YW response. Assuming he has used a bot of course.

[Thunderground]

I agree with that in principal.

But if it is your book and the player has flat out denied bot use.

He and his friends have tried to smear your name all over forumville saying you are lying.

What would you do after being forced to spend the hours needed to work out exactly what strategy the bot was using and document how it is un-human?


Just say, oh well, you were lying but we will now consider your appeal that our terms should not apply?

Especially when you have a rule this clear about bot use;

"Winnings from accounts that are accessed by robots will not be honored. Any device, whether it is a script, program, robot, etc. that is used to access our website to 'scrape lines,' place wagers, or engage in any other automated activity will be viewed as cheating. "




Readers will hopefully learn from this experience that if you come to SBR for help, we are your advocate, tell us the truth and we will do the best we can for you.

If this guy had done that he could explain everything and argue from a point of honesty about the YW response. Assuming he has used a bot of course.

What would you do if 77K was on the line? Would you not slate your argument in your favor, just as the book is doing?

The original SBR without any doubt would have gone to bat for this player. You have not even presented a case why he should not be paid, yet take the book's side (more or less).

The book's rule also stated that the account would be immediately closed. Immediately. Per your own earlier quote of that rule. This did not happen.

How much was in the account when he was limited to $1 wagers?

[Optional]

What would you do if 77K was on the line? Would you not slate your argument in your favor, just as the book is doing?

The original SBR without any doubt would have gone to bat for this player. You have not even presented a case why he should not be paid, yet take the book's side (more or less).

The book's rule also stated that the account would be immediately closed. Immediately. Per your own earlier quote of that rule. This did not happen.

How much was in the account when he was limited to $1 wagers?

I believe we are in bat for him Thunderground.

I'm not directly involved and haven't been given any inside information. Was just pointing out the bad fighting position he puts himself and SBR in if it turns out he has been lying about the bot use from the start.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I agree with that in principal.

But if it is your book and the player has flat out denied bot use.

He and his friends have tried to smear your name all over forumville saying you are lying.

What would you do after being forced to spend the hours needed to work out exactly what strategy the bot was using and document how it is un-human?


Just say, oh well, you were lying but we will now consider your appeal that our terms should not apply?

Especially when you have a rule this clear about bot use;

"Winnings from accounts that are accessed by robots will not be honored. Any device, whether it is a script, program, robot, etc. that is used to access our website to 'scrape lines,' place wagers, or engage in any other automated activity will be viewed as cheating. "




Readers will hopefully learn from this experience that if you come to SBR for help, we are your advocate, tell us the truth and we will do the best we can for you.

If this guy had done that he could explain everything and argue from a point of honesty about the YW response. Assuming he has used a bot of course.

Why are you saying the book would be smeared for implementing their own policy? Is it because the policy is completely criminal? The book doesn't get smeared if they don't have a confiscation policy that should NEVER be enacted and simply pay and boot the player. There should be ZERO additional work for a book that has made the decision to confiscate someone's entire account according to their policy. Clearly, they SHOULD have already proven the existence of bot use prior to the player's complaint and it should already be documented somewhere. Why on Earth would they ever need to accumulate more proof if they already have enough to make their decision?

It doesn't appear too many people here are in tune with what it would take to implement a bot that would be capable of bypassing CAPTCHA verification. It's not just something you turn on with the flip of a switch on a bot that you've coded without ever having seen it on the account before. If the player was even capable of implementing some AI algorithms for defeating CAPTCHA, it would (at a minimum) require the coder to place several wagers manually in order to implement that code in their bot. Clearly, the player would notice that they have $1 limits at that point. If, as some have opined, the existence of an arbitrage bot was real, I'm not sure how someone would be able to arb out of $1 wagers at most books since the hedge would often be below minimum wager amounts. If anyone is going through the trouble of coding up a bot to place wagers, surely they would give themselves some transparency in what the bot has wagered and at a minimum fire off an email alerting the player to the wagers that were placed successfully. Is someone sane going to keep their bot running after seeing $1 max wagers?

[TheMoneyShot]

Here's what I don't understand....

As a client....

Just follow the damn rules. Why would you put yourself in a position like this? If there is a rule that says.. "No bots allowed." Why would you break the rules and use a bot?

It just doesn't make much sense to me.

The book has you by the ballz now.

[Optional]

Why are you saying the book would be smeared for implementing their own policy? Is it because the policy is completely criminal? The book doesn't get smeared if they don't have a confiscation policy that should NEVER be enacted and simply pay and boot the player. There should be ZERO additional work for a book that has made the decision to confiscate someone's entire account according to their policy. Clearly, they SHOULD have already proven the existence of bot use prior to the player's complaint and it should already be documented somewhere. Why on Earth would they ever need to accumulate more proof if they already have enough to make their decision?

It doesn't appear too many people here are in tune with what it would take to implement a bot that would be capable of bypassing CAPTCHA verification. It's not just something you turn on with the flip of a switch on a bot that you've coded without ever having seen it on the account before. If the player was even capable of implementing some AI algorithms for defeating CAPTCHA, it would (at a minimum) require the coder to place several wagers manually in order to implement that code in their bot. Clearly, the player would notice that they have $1 limits at that point. If, as some have opined, the existence of an arbitrage bot was real, I'm not sure how someone would be able to arb out of $1 wagers at most books since the hedge would often be below minimum wager amounts. If anyone is going through the trouble of coding up a bot to place wagers, surely they would give themselves some transparency in what the bot has wagered and at a minimum fire off an email alerting the player to the wagers that were placed successfully. Is someone sane going to keep their bot running after seeing $1 max wagers?

Because SBR didn't agree they had enough evidence in the face of the players denial?

And agree the CAPTCHA part is pretty much irrelevant.

The betting analysis is what is required. If there was no bot activity after that time it seems unfair to take money he was allowed to bet based on previous known activity.

As far as the guff about your theory on the $1 bets. Maybe read the damn thread properly before going on the attack with your assumptions.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I read the thread, genius. Did you?

He told me they were so sure of the automated bettor they put a captcha on my account. I pointed out that I kept betting through their captcha and that it showed I wasn’t using an automated bettor. YouWager’s own “evidence” disproved their position. He told me he didn’t know how I could use an automated bettor with their captcha.

The next day the YouWager manager emailed me 72 bets I had placed for $1 and $3 from May 23^rd 2018 to June 14^th 2018 which was his “proof” I used an automated bettor and the reason YouWager would confiscate $77k from me in October. Again, his own “proof” seems to undermine his position. The bets he emailed me took place during normal day time hours, when a person would be awake, and there was no rapid fire plays that maybe a fast computer could place.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Because SBR didn't agree they had enough evidence in the face of the players denial?

And agree the CAPTCHA part is pretty much irrelevant.

The betting analysis is what is required. If there was no bot activity after that time it seems unfair to take money he was allowed to bet based on previous known activity.

As far as the guff about your theory on the $1 bets. Maybe read the damn thread properly before going on the attack with your assumptions.

So a book confiscates a player's entire balance based on their "proof", SBR didn't have enough proof, and you're here defending the book at every turn and complaining that they have to do more work. LMFAO.

What a joke.

[Optional]

So a book confiscates a player's entire balance based on their "proof", SBR didn't have enough proof, and you're here defending the book at every turn and complaining that they have to do more work. LMFAO.

What a joke.

I'm just here explaining the situation.

Sure, if I didn't work here of course I wouldn't be dumb enough to say anything the angry mob does not want to hear.

But that doesn't mean I am being unfair or unreasonably bias one way or the other.

Go ahead and attack my actual words but telling me what I think and then attacking that is a bit rough Monkey.

I can see both sides of the arguments here. ;-)

[HedgeHog]

The Bot rule, much like the recreational player rule, is a catch 22 ploy that D Books use to steal funds from winning players. Only this time it's an A+ Book. Youwager should pay the balance and close the account.

[JoeCool20]

For what it's worth, I was able to withdraw all of my funds from Youwager (have to say these posts made me nervous about payout issues). Just received the final payment today. I'll monitor how they handle this issue and the other about bitcoin payments going to wrong people. If they do the right thing, I may play with them again. Until then, plenty of A rated books to play with.

LOL You do know the reason these books are "A rated" don't you?

It doesn't mean that they won't lie or cheat you if you win, it just means they paid the most to get the A rating!

[hudnutter]

I agree with that in principal.

But if it is your book and the player has flat out denied bot use.

He and his friends have tried to smear your name all over forumville saying you are lying.

What would you do after being forced to spend the hours needed to work out exactly what strategy the bot was using and document how it is un-human?


Just say, oh well, you were lying but we will now consider your appeal that our terms should not apply?

Yes, clearly the only option for YouWager is to rob the player blind. I'm sure that will be good for business. A good long-term strategy for building their brand.

The only problem is, YouWager had already made the decision to rob the player, BEFORE he posted anything about it. So your timeline is a little bit off there.

But hey, I like this "Let's imagine" game. "Let's imagine you tried to steal $77k from a player and he goes public with it," is a good one. Here's a couple more hypotheticals:"Let's imagine you're a gambler looking for a new site to play at."So you see this one called YouWager, their site looks alright, the bonus is decent, and they're rated "A" at a big review site. You decide to look a little further. You find there are several complaints on the forum. They stole several thousand dollars from a player, and it's not really clear why. Seems kind of shady. Let's look further. Oh, there are several other players that are saying their withdrawals got sent to somebody else. Oh and another player has not received any withdrawals in several weeks, even though he is owed around $30k. It's been two or three weeks and none of it has been resolved. The review site has an appartent employee who is "not taking sides" on something that looks pretty clear to have a right side and a wrong side. So, let's imagine you were thinking of sending money to this sportsbook. Let's imagine you had other options as well. Let's imagine some of the other options also had sites that look nice. And even better bonuses. They also have "A" ratings. And this other site doesn't appear to over several people several thousands. Would you deposit to this "YouWager" site? Or would you try a different one?Fun game.

Let's keep playing.Let's imagine another of your options was a state-run casino. Let's imagine you don't really trust that online sportsbook review site anymore, since they gave an "A" rating to a sportsbook that seems to be stealing from several players. Let's imagine you are just gambling for fun and don't want to get your money stolen, nor do you want to have to wait for weeks and hope that the online review site will help you. Let's imagine you didn't exactly interpret their behaviour as helpful in those complaints you read about at that top-rated site. Do you think you would send your money to an online sportsbook to the guy who told you on the phone, "Don't worry, we are SBR rated A," with a thick Spanish accent? Or would you just go down the road, where you talk to an American, they have laws and regulation to make sure they don't steal your money? Can you imagine that that might be a better option for you, in this hypothetical?

Can you imagine how SBR not making a sincere effort to help players in a timely manner could simply drive American gamblers to state-run options?