BetEd owes me 19k, says they will pay 1k.

[dwaechte]

Just read over the thread. I'm not buying the pink story, at all, but hadn't picked this up before. So to be fair:



That may be so, but that could never be a reason not to pay someone. Merely to not accept further bets. The fact that you include it in an argument over payment is somewhat disturbing.

What exactly in your view is professional betting? You yourself set the limit on bet size, so the only other qualification would be that the player would win too much. Are you suggesting that a player who wins too much may not be able to collect those winnings? Or that a player who is deemed professional -in retrospect- may be held to a different standard when it comes to pay-out?

There was no need at all to include this point in your presentation. Your mention of it suggests it did play a part in your evaluation of this case.

I agree that in normal cases including this is a little troubling, but I have a feeling that was included because of the suspected nature of this particular case. If this is indeed another sportsbook in CR attempting to place bets, I personally think that would certainly be an extremely OBVIOUS case of professional betting and a very calculated, blatant one at that. Not to mention, if they were fooled into accepting the bets on the basis of this being totally good natured, and it turns out the bets were a part of a syndicate or that the account was being funded by another book on behalf of SGC, it's hard to take the stance that they should simply stop taking the bets but still payout all prior ones.

I have a feeling that's why that statement was included. If they regularly use that as an excuse towards mid-level or even somewhat high end players who are simply placing bets for themselves, then I would completely agree with you.

[Bill Dozer]

I agree that in normal cases including this is a little troubling, but I have a feeling that was included because of the suspected nature of this particular case. If this is indeed another sportsbook in CR attempting to place bets, I personally think that would certainly be an extremely OBVIOUS case of professional betting and a very calculated, blatant one at that. Not to mention, if they were fooled into accepting the bets on the basis of this being totally good natured, and it turns out the bets were a part of a syndicate or that the account was being funded by another book on behalf of SGC, it's hard to take the stance that they should simply stop taking the bets but still payout all prior ones.

I have a feeling that's why that statement was included. If they regularly use that as an excuse towards mid-level or even somewhat high end players who are simply placing bets for themselves, then I would completely agree with you.

Taking into account how weak Ed's rules are it really doesn't matter if the player got off a plane and walked into Pinnacle and had linesmen advise her on who to bet and when. What matters is if the player is who she says she is and authorized a deposit in her name. If she did not, and had lost, the book faces things like charge backs and reports of theft to processors. The book has the right to know who they are booking to and when you click the "I agree" button you are signing your name. If Sexy G is the person who signed up she should be paid right away.

The "professional" rule has always been a joke that some books use as a deterrent. Impossible rule to apply.

[Dumb_lucK]

The "professional" rule has always been a joke that some books use as a deterrent. Impossible rule to apply.

I think when a book mentions such a rule as "Professional players" are not allowed, I would think it's more on the lines of, you will be booted out and account closed.

A more so, ha ha you got us now be on your way and don't try it again, not so much the "We're not going to pay you because we were sleeping at the wheel".

This case though just seems more so BS in the sense that it's been posting for quite some time and no docs have been sent in yet? As multiples have said.. if I was waitign on 19k my documents would have been emailed moments after I was asked to produce them. And if it was in a safe deposit box (passport) You would have had it in 24 hours, not this overly questioning "Why" BS questioning when someone offers their help!

SGC continues to post long threads to quote and state how she doesn't care if we think she's a chick or not.. SGC here's some advice! IF you have the kind of time to read the post and respond to users disbelieving your unrealistic story, then you have the time to scan your docs and email them in or fax them to Bill and his crew! Stop screwing around and get it done or stop whining about it!

[Dumb_lucK]

Hedge: Just a heads up.. my posts have boosted up from this thread but I am no way affiliated with SGC or anyone else on the defending end of SGC.. I"m rooting the book on this one until proven wrong by SGC if it's possible

[betED]

betED Clarification

We appreciate the debate and feedback we've received on this issue, and thank everyone who has contributed.

We would like to clarify our stance on the following item:

Our prior post indicated that professional betting is against our terms, and many SBR members took issue with this, and rightly so, since this would seem to provide a catch-all reason to deny a payout. We apologize for the confusion. We simply reserve the right to limit or close accounts that we determine to be following syndicate or professional betting patterns. If such an account is closed, all winnings would be immediately paid out to the player. This policy would never constitute a condition for withholding winnings, as many SBR readers have correctly pointed out, and was inappropriately referenced.

We are listening. The suggestions put forth by SBR members will lead to policy and system improvements at betED to eliminate confusion and to ensure trustworthy, fair play. All feedback is welcome and appreciated.

- betED Management

[SexyGamblerChick]

The documents have been sent to betED and Mr. Dozer.

Just waiting to hear back from them.

Thank you again to everyone who contributed to this forum in a positive light.

Thank you also to betED, who seemed to work with me and SBR.

[MrX]

BetEd,

Thanks for posting. It is surprisingly rare for book representatives on here to be coherent and well-spoken.

[Bill Dozer]

The documents have been sent to betED and Mr. Dozer.

Just waiting to hear back from them.

Thank you again to everyone who contributed to this forum in a positive light.

Thank you also to betED, who seemed to work with me and SBR.

SGC,

This is not what was asked for. Is there a number where I can reach you by phone?

[Dark Horse]

What a surprise.

[HedgeHog]

And so it continues...

[betplom]

Back to Photoshop to make the necessary corrections.

[SexyGamblerChick]

Phone # is emailed out

[jstblaze]

this is amazing....

it has been so clear throughthis thread, what SGC need to provide.

how is it, that the one whos money is supposedly on th eline, 20K, which is significant enough, for this supposed single mother, is the only one who doesnt understadn what needs to be sent in?

i cant even beleive this is beign taken seriously, but at the same time appreciate the forums efforts to make sure one way or the other, this is offically handled.

this is crazy!

[Bill Dozer]

Phone # is emailed out

okay, nothing in yet. Feel free to PM as well.

[HedgeHog]

Anybody else hearing the Jeopardy music as we await SGC to get this sorted out? I'll take lying cons for $1000, Alex.

[betplom]

Anybody else hearing the Jeopardy music as we await SGC to get this sorted out? I'll take lying cons for $1000, Alex.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!

For those that are acronym impaired:
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fukking Ass Off!!!!!!!!!

[SexyGamblerChick]

All you guys are so funny. You all question if I am a woman, well you all sound like a bunch of girls if you ask me.

Private message sent with phone # Mr Dozer

[dwaechte]

SGC,

This is not what was asked for. Is there a number where I can reach you by phone?

Haha. As others have said, what a surprise.

I'm new to this, and certainly don;t mean to be on the side of books, but in this case, after reading 8 pages of threads, logic sent me towards the side of the book.

Thank you Bill for your reponse to my previous post. Your arguments were logical and accpeted.

Also, thanks to BetEd for proving to be a coherent and logical book. Though I doubt you would approach non-public matters in the same way as you have approached this SBR case, [I] can only judge you on what I know, and deem you to be a solid management group based on your reactions to this case.

Good luck to both parties, and I hope the rightful one ends up getting the decision in their favour.

[dwaechte]

I'm drunk right now so my apologies for the typos,

[prop]

Great response by BetEd.
Thanks.

[chano]

BetEd has gone up a few points with me. Great Job BetEd !!

[curious]

We appreciate the debate and feedback we've received on this issue, and thank everyone who has contributed.

We would like to clarify our stance on the following item:

Our prior post indicated that professional betting is against our terms, and many SBR members took issue with this, and rightly so, since this would seem to provide a catch-all reason to deny a payout. We apologize for the confusion. We simply reserve the right to limit or close accounts that we determine to be following syndicate or professional betting patterns. If such an account is closed, all winnings would be immediately paid out to the player. This policy would never constitute a condition for withholding winnings, as many SBR readers have correctly pointed out, and was inappropriately referenced.

We are listening. The suggestions put forth by SBR members will lead to policy and system improvements at betED to eliminate confusion and to ensure trustworthy, fair play. All feedback is welcome and appreciated.

- betED Management

The problem I have with this is you can define "syndicate or professional betting pattterns" to mean anything you want. For example, SBG Global and Bet Royal (owned by SBG) define a "professional betting pattern" as "Amount of money won exceeds amount of money lost". They stole $30,000 from me because I subscribe to a handicappers pick service and they claim that following a paid pick service constitutes a "syndicate".

Now, you would have a lot more credibility if you define what you mean by "syndicate or professional betting pattern" in a way that is unambiguous and easy to declare "yes, this betting pattern definitely meets the criteria". I will be very surprised if you can do that.

Curious

[Dark Horse]

What it means is that if you win too much you will get the boot, but will get paid.

They seem straightforward enough to me. A world apart from horror stories of people accepting a bonus that locked in their money, only to have their limits cut to a few dollars per bet if they won too much. How would that work for someone with, say, a 600K rollover?

[20Four7]

Curious, there is a big difference between a book cutting your off/slashing your limits and paying, and those who close your account and steal your money. A book, like any other business can choose it's customers and deal with those they want. I have an issue when the book (like SBG) says your a professional or your a syndicate and steals your money. They should pay you out say get the fvck out of here and don't come back. If you come back using a fraud account then steal your money.

I do not have a beted account but this thread has shown me they might be a book I'd consider. I just thing it's no surprise the SGC hasn't posted at all in the last 12 hours or so.

[HedgeHog]

24-7 is dead on. The professional clause is one an A or B Book will use to boot you, but pay your balance. The D or F Book, aka Sportsbook.com or SBG, will use it as an excuse to boot you and steal your money. Beted is making every effort to stay in the former category. Curious, let the SBG thing go, at least you got a bailout, and it's coloring your opinion...pink in this case.


PS I opened a nominal account at Beted for $500 today. Not as dramatic as typing in pink, but I am willing to put my money where my mouth is (plenty more room there though--should have sent a few grand).

[Bill Dozer]

SexyG has admitted to not being in CR to open the account or placing the first batch of wagers.

[HedgeHog]

SexyG has admitted to not being in CR to open the account or placing the first batch of wagers.

So, in your opinion, where does this leave Beted. IMO, they are now in a lose-lose situation. If they get the OK from SBR to not pay, many others are going to say Beted waited and took a shot at bets that were otherwise okay (not bad lines). No real winners here.

[atakdog]

Shocker, that. But I guess the brains behind the operation did go to the trouble of finding a woman in Minnesota?

This whole fiasco is making BetEd look so good -- has it occured to anyone that the book itself may be behind the whole thing? I know, it's a bit far-fetched, but look at the great publicity...

(Incidentally, I obviously disagree with Hedgehog: this is not lose-lose. No one who reads this thread with anything like an open mind will think BetEd out of line for denying payment on an account that the nominal account holder now admits was set up fraudulently, and presumably in violation of Costa Rican law.)

[Stumpage]

So first we have "Sexy" stating the following:

"My mom did send the funds and say she was me. Nothing I can do about that."

She admits that lie outright, and now comes her admission to Bill in the post above that she was in fact not in Costa Rica, after stating repeatedly that she was and chastising those who believed she was lying.

So I have to ask: Is SBR still committed to assisting this joker? It would seem to me that there are enough honest players who legitimately require assistance. Surely no further time and effort is going to be wasted on this lying scammer.....

[SBR Lou]

SexyG has admitted to not being in CR to open the account or placing the first batch of wagers.

Did she try to finesse that point with you over the phone, perhaps counting on you feeling sorry for her? Badly misplayed hand from the start.

[Stumpage]

Guess that'll put an end to the "Pink Font Support Campaign".....

[HedgeHog]

Shocker, that. But I guess the brains behind the operation did go to the trouble of finding a woman in Minnesota?

This whole fiasco is making BetEd look so good -- has it occured to anyone that the book itself may be behind the whole thing? I know, it's a bit far-fetched, but look at the great publicity...

(Incidentally, I obviously disagree with Hedgehog: this is not lose-lose. No one who reads this thread with anything like an open mind will think BetEd out of line for denying payment on an account that the nominal account holder now admits was set up fraudulently, and presumably in violation of Costa Rican law.)

A-Dog: Somewhat far-fetched to be thinking a B- Book would intentionally bring this negative attention upon itself for a mere 19k. Also, there are many intelligent posters in this thread, who basically say so what-- if the bets did not involve bad lines, pay her regardless of where the bets originated (a fair point). So I repeat, Beted does not win here, even if they get to keep SGC's winnings. Their reputation is tarnished regardless.

[SBR Lou]

Their reputation is tarnished regardless.

I disagree HedgeHog. She did not place a number of those bets herself, and has already admitted lying to us from the start.

BetED has come off well in my opinion, clarifying their policy toward professional action and taking the time to address this issue with us. I feel more comfortable now about their operation based on their involvement here and willingness to let Bill arbitrate.

[Bill Dozer]

So, in your opinion, where does this leave Beted. IMO, they are now in a lose-lose situation. If they get the OK from SBR to not pay, many others are going to say Beted waited and took a shot at bets that were otherwise okay (not bad lines). No real winners here.

We told BetEd that a top book would have paid the player from the start. Ed needs better risk mgt. and a better set of rules.

As we tell players, when a bettor tries to get over on a book, he/she puts him/herself in a risky position and may not be paid if there are profitbale results.

It's easy to guess what happened in this case. A person with a CR sportsbook used a beard to place bets with his CR neighbor. Books don't appreciate that and it would be a tough sell to ask Ed to pay the person who avoided walking down the street to ask if it was OK to bet there.

My suggestion to Ed was to tally up the winning bets placed in Minnesota after the batch in CR which would be voided. Recalculate the wagers based on if the $1000 deposit happened prior to those bets. So, if the first bet was for $1300 and it won, it only counts as a $1000 risked bet. This might have been the result if the player came in and said, "hey, I had a friend place bets for me and he was in CR. I went on to bet 30 more bets in Minnesota".

This was only a suggestion and BetEd will deal with the account balance, which derived from fraudulent activity, as they see fit.

It as good to see BetEd keep an open mind and take part in discussion with the board. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for all parties.

[HedgeHog]

I disagree HedgeHog. She did not place a number of those bets herself, and has already admitted lying to us from the start.

BetED has come off well in my opinion, clarifying their policy toward professional action and taking the time to address this issue with us. I feel more comfortable now about their operation based on their involvement here and willingness to let Bill arbitrate.

I couldn't agree more, heck I opened a small account there today, but I'm just saying it's not a win in the PR dept for Beted. The bets that were made haven't been shown to be bad lines, so Beted may get to keep these otherwise legit winnings (seen as taking a free shot). I'm just playing Devil's Advocate; I certainly don't want this cheat from Minny to collect!