-
Comment -
-
Why the lies from the start from this SGC. There is more to this story. He or she sshould get nothing.Comment -
Who'd have thunk?
Are you saying that a top book would let anybody from anywhere sign up under someone else's name? Wouldn't that give bonus scammers a field day?
If a player knowingly provides wrong information when signing up, he puts himself at risk. The pink bettor proved to be a pathological liar, and is lucky to get her initial deposit back. (a sleaze book would have kept it). If a book could police that at the time of sign-up, great, but is that realistic?
In any case, kudos to SBR and BetEd for their integrity and objectivity. BetEd had suspicions that were hard to prove, yet SBR got to the bottom of it. Good stuff!Last edited by Dark Horse; 11-08-07, 06:46 PM.Comment -
I'm also inclined to give BetEd a look in the future. Vague rules or not, I think they handled this better than most books would have.
Hey, BetEd: how about a little promo for those who've been on your side?
Just kidding. (sort of)Comment -
Wow, I just read this entire 10 page thread and can honestly say that this was the closest thing to an episode of Melrose Place I've ever read on this board. Just completely captivating, yet at the same time, ridiculous to the point where I just wanted it to stop...
In my opinion, BetEd and SBR come away from this looking very good. BetED came on and not only clarified its stance on this particular instance, but also clarified its stance on "professional players" in general. Meanwhile, Bill and co. gave the original pink poster the benefit of the doubt until it was determined that she was in the wrong. Kudos to all involved (except for the pink poster, that is)...Comment -
I agree DH. She put herself at risk for lying right from the get go and she also had the nerve to call those who called her out other things. While I believe a woman from Minn was fronting this thing she did a horrible PR job. She was looking for sympathy not objectivity.Comment -
Not too happy about being right here; hate cheering against the player (really goes against the grain for me), but Beted deserves the call. Kind of like cheering for the Yankees...hate it ! Congrats Beted.Comment -
Now that all of this has come out I wonder if OldZig will disappear into the wood work.
Just wonderingComment -
still, you can say whatever, this whole episode still gives me a an unsatisfactory feeling. At the danger of sounding like a broken record, I'll repeat myself again: BetEd knew (or should have known) from the beginning this player was trouble and did nothing, most likely expecting the player too loose. They got their ass kicked by the player, and only then intervened.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the player should be paid in full, now fraud has been proven. BUT: A top book would have acted much earlier, avoiding this entire 10-page thread in the first place.
BetEd took a free shot at the players deposit ...... and is rewarded by posters here for the way it acted... I just don't get it.Comment -
I may just have missed it, but where are you getting the idea that they knew this player was trouble from the start? From my understanding, they only reviewed the case and found the account was opened in Costa Rica once the withdraw request was made. Obviously, if this is the case, they certainly should have a better system where they check where the account is being opened from before it's opened.
If this is already part of their system, then you are probably right and it does seem like a "free shot" scenario.Comment -
Apparently, you don't get it... The only thing I see as being troublesome was the initial agreement (if true) made by BetEd and purple poster to pay on installments of $1,500. Again, who knows if there is any truth to this statement. That said, I think BetEd came away looking good because A) they left it to SBR (a decidedly impartial third party) to handle as it deemed fair and B) came on the board to represent themselves while somehow not managing to attack the purple poster and also clarifying their position on a couple issues and though it could have been handled better in the beginning (as Dozer alluded to with the "better risk mngmt" phrasing) they ultimately were not scamming the player. Could it have been handled better? certainly. But given the circumstances, I feel like the player didn't get scammed and was untruthful from the get-go. Manipulative and untruthful, that is, and playing the sex card was just cheap.Comment -
From my understanding after speaking with a representative from BetEd. They didn't check and verify everything till the day after a payment plan was made with the player.
Bottom line is that they need to refine their rules more clear from that aspect, and step up their fraud prevention task force. Now I do agree that a top notch book would have never gave it a second though in regards to paying this player, and showing them the door.
noyb, You bring up a valid point in regards to the shot taking. However, shots were fired by both parties in this particular case.Comment -
ofcourse i can't be sure about this. that's why i wrote "knew (or should have known) from the beginning this player was trouble".
I can't be sure what kind checks BetED does and when , but if they only figured out there was something wrong with the IP of the player when it was withdrawal time, they have got a serious security leak.
(don't forget the player placed a large number of bets and managed to get up to a balance of no less than 19K, a book like BetEd won't have thousands of customers with these kinds of balances).
every idiot with a website can put in a IP-block quite easily, but BetED claims they can't because they wouldn't be able to do any maintenance themselves (being from CR). It was pointed out earlier in this topic this is a ridiculous argument and only goes to show BetED likes it best this way. Let the CR-player play, just don't pay him if he wins.Last edited by noyb; 11-08-07, 08:30 PM.Comment -
I think it's because I just flew through all 10 pages reading this and my mood went from "screw BetEd" to "Screw the player"... That's really oversimplifying the matter, but after getting to the end, that's how I feel. Now, letting the woman/man lose her/his initial $1,000 because of blatantly ignoring a rule that prohibits CR citizens from playing, well, I guess you're right in that there would be no issue had she just lost her grand. I'm still siding with the book due to the complete package of outright lies/manipulative material presented in the initial post. If purple poster would have simply posted under the "I bet, I won, I should be paid" premise, then I would have more sympathy, but the entire story, the purple writing, the absurd handle... It just makes it difficult for me to side, in any way, with the player here.Comment -
I hope not. I was his worst nightmare, but I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. In fact, when I called him on being involved with SGC, instead of being defensive he got downright angry--something you would expect from an innocent and accused person. Am I being too gulliblle...perhaps? A lot of coincidences with the CR connection, but again I can't prove anything. Let's give Zig a break; if wrong, it's on me.Comment -
End credits:
"The previous story was fictional. It was an unpaid advertisement by BetEd."Comment -
Comment -
They did do the right thing in regards to letting SBR arbitrate this matter, however I agree with your highlighted statement in regards to the entire situation.
They did tell me tonight that they will be revising their rules to make things more clear in the near future. Hopefully that will help prevent these types of matters from happening again, but I doubt it.
Comment -
BBD: You know as well as anyone else here whom have read this thread as well as many fraudulent player threads stating they have been robbed by a book. Players will always try em to hopefully pull one over on the book and when they get caught.. they will cry wolf.
Only in this case, he/she abused the color Magenta and brought in an innocent lil girl whom supposedly is in school!
So in reality of it, the book can have crystal clear rules on what's allowed and what's not and someone will still try to take a cheap shot!
Comment -
I want to know if she really went trick or treating with her daughter. can you look into this SBR?Comment -
SGC Issue Resolved
Again, we appreciate the support we've been given on this issue by SBR posters and staff.
Bill Dozer has bent over backwards to get to the bottom of this, and we thank him for that. We committed 100% to following his decision, and as he clarified in his post yesterday, he has now left it entirely up to our discretion. As a suggestion, he asked us to consider a partial payment, but has let us know that we are free to follow our own best judgment on this one.
Given the facts of this case, and the deceitful behavior of SGC, we will not be paying anything further to this player, the full refund is appropriate. We feel that we have acted in good faith throughout the entire process -- we were fully prepared to pay SGC's winnings if she could provide ANY evidence of her presence in Costa Rica. The only thing that was provided in return was a forged passport and an fraudulent story that was easily seen through by Bill Dozer.
No shot was intentionally taken on this player; we simply cannot catch all fraud, no book can, we can simply learn and improve. Had the fraud been detected earlier, we would have taken the appropriate action, whether she was winning or losing. While we cannot comment on specifics of our screening practices, we do fraud checks at several points, and it was the final check in our series that caught this one.
Needless to say, we cannot build a reputable business by taking shots at fraudsters, nor would we want to. Such entanglements come at a high cost: the negative PR, time spent on mediating, ensuring our point of view is presented properly, and diversion of focus from our core business is not worth it. However, we refuse to reward fraudulent behavior, and to simply "pay off" someone who has clearly taken the time and effort to circumvent the rules.
As we have put it to Bill, we feel giving any further credit to this player sets a dangerous precedent that rule-breakers and scammers are welcome, and can use SBR as a leverage to negotiate a settlement. This type of behavior devalues SBR's value as a forum for legitimate issues.
Fraud books and fraud players alike are detrimental to our industry, and with all respect to Bill, I would hope that an A-level book would not pay out in the same situation. If we're ever fortunate enough to be given that status, we would NOT change our standards simply for convenience.
It is regrettable that this situation happened in the first place, and we're taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again. We will post again next week on this thread to let everyone know exactly what we have done to ensure this.
Thank you SBR readers for your input. We invite you to visit us anytime, I hope you'll find us to be refreshingly different.
- betED ManagementComment -
Personally, I have absolutely no problem at all with this decision. "She" was a liar, a scammer, and took her best shot...And she failed, miserably. F**k her, would best sum up my feelings with regards to this case.
Having needed (And benefitted) from SBR's help in the past, it just bothers me that idiots like this have taken up valuable time and attention from SBR, thereby probably resulting in less time and attention to other legimate posters who have run into actual problems.
But hey...At least "she" got to spend quality time with "her" "daughter" on Hallowen, so all is well.....Comment -
Sad to see this one officially over.
Had some good laughs, also a nice bit of information about Beted, I still remain impressed with their handling of this ordeal. And none of this would have been possible without our favorite sexy gambling mom.
Comment -
Sean:
Good catch on deleting Beted's links. He wins this decision and uses his response as an opportunity to advertise. Unreal!Comment -
I hope BetEd are currently going through their customer base to establish any losing customers that they suspect as being "beards" so they can refund all their losing wagers.Comment
