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

[operaman]

Cheating books need to be punished, but even though we are players we should make sure the books have ways of making money or we won't have any books to play at.

I am suprised so many support the OP as he has already lied to us many times. As soon as anyone lies to me the bar for me to side with them goes way up.

SBR needs to be fair with the books just as much as with the players. This case at this point reeks like somthing in Denmark!

I personaly think it is OK for a book to countershoot anyone.
If a cheater is allowed to take shots and then get off with no monitary penalty then all they have to do is find a new identity and take the returned money and start all over again. If the t&c stated that no one from CR
was to play at the site then all bets from CR should be voided and subsequent wagering on winnings voided also.
We need to punish the shot takers so bonni and service still exists for the honest players.

If it were a case of a reasonabe mistake the book should be required to be generous, but this is not the case. The OP has made that apparent.

There is nothing wrong with a book freerolling a shot taker, because that is in the interest of the INDUSTRY as a whole.

Who do you think pays for theft from merchants? hint:not the merchants.

[noyb]

i couldn't disagree more with your entire post.

I am suprised so many support the OP as he has already lied to us many times.

first of all, you have no proof whatsover the OP is lying. you might strongly believe this is the case, but you have no proof (and even if the OP is not a woman, but an old fat guy who hoped he would get more sympathy from us this way, where's the relevance with regards to the case before us???)

There is nothing wrong with a book freerolling a shot taker, because that is in the interest of the INDUSTRY as a whole.

who really is the shot taker here? the book knew (or should have known) from the beginning the person that signed up here appeared to be from CR -> they did nothing, since they expected the bettor to lose, like they almost always do. that's their right, but imo they also at that time give up their right doing something about it at a later time when it better suits them.
unfortunately, the bettor turned out to be a winner, and then (and only then) did the book cry foul.

these kinds of practices are no better than any bettor taking a shot, it's very difficult to see how anyone would side with the book in these kind of matters.

[noyb]

we should make sure the books have ways of making money or we won't have any books to play at.

call me naive, but i always thought books were supposed to make money through good bookkeeping, not make money by ripping people off when one actually wins.

[curious]

Cheating books need to be punished, but even though we are players we should make sure the books have ways of making money or we won't have any books to play at.

I am suprised so many support the OP as he has already lied to us many times. As soon as anyone lies to me the bar for me to side with them goes way up.

SBR needs to be fair with the books just as much as with the players. This case at this point reeks like somthing in Denmark!

I personaly think it is OK for a book to countershoot anyone.
If a cheater is allowed to take shots and then get off with no monitary penalty then all they have to do is find a new identity and take the returned money and start all over again. If the t&c stated that no one from CR
was to play at the site then all bets from CR should be voided and subsequent wagering on winnings voided also.
We need to punish the shot takers so bonni and service still exists for the honest players.

If it were a case of a reasonabe mistake the book should be required to be generous, but this is not the case. The OP has made that apparent.

There is nothing wrong with a book freerolling a shot taker, because that is in the interest of the INDUSTRY as a whole.

Who do you think pays for theft from merchants? hint:not the merchants.

I don't know what a shot taker is. If an online sportsbook offers a line and a customer offers to place a bet at that line and the bet is accepted, the bet must be graded and paid if it is a winning bet. PERIOD.

If a book doesn't want a certain type of bet then they can reject it.

[Doug]

I don't know what a shot taker is. If an online sportsbook offers a line and a customer offers to place a bet at that line and the bet is accepted, the bet must be graded and paid if it is a winning bet. PERIOD.

If a book doesn't want a certain type of bet then they can reject it.

A shot taker might:

Bet a bad line like +11.5 instead of +1.5
Have multiple accounts at one book
********** losses
etc.

If this case is as presented, then Beted deserves a D-

[Skankdog]

This sounds like a bullshit excuse for not paying you. If they want to cut the account, that is fine, but pay the money, if you lost the money I am sure they would not refund it. Just a lame excuse for not paying. I hope Beted does the right thing, but after seeing this, I would not think so.

[HedgeHog]

I really want to hear BetEd's side of this, especially since they are rated B-. I have no dealings with BE, but I can't see them risking their decent rating over one "lucky" bettor. How do you turn 1k into 19k in less than half a season with the type of system they claim to be using. Something shady was taking place and I'd lay odds on it. Perhaps SBR will share the details of this case once investigated.

[operaman]

i couldn't disagree more with your entire post.



first of all, you have no proof whatsover the OP is lying. you might strongly believe this is the case, but you have no proof (and even if the OP is not a woman, but an old fat guy who hoped he would get more sympathy from us this way, where's the relevance with regards to the case before us???)



who really is the shot taker here? the book knew (or should have known) from the beginning the person that signed up here appeared to be from CR -> they did nothing, since they expected the bettor to lose, like they almost always do. that's their right, but imo they also at that time give up their right doing something about it at a later time when it better suits them.
unfortunately, the bettor turned out to be a winner, and then (and only then) did the book cry foul.

these kinds of practices are no better than any bettor taking a shot, it's very difficult to see how anyone would side with the book in these kind of matters.

Yes true, it is not certain he is lying.
It is relevent that the op is almost certainly lying to us.
If he is a man and told the sportsbook he was somone else this is a violation of their terms.

The reason he is presenting himself as a woman is because the account was set up as a woman's account. NOT because he wants sympathy from us!

It seems that it is an important element in punishing the possible perps to do security checks at the point of withdrawl. If all checks were done at the beginning it would reward the perp yet have no real effect on the honest player.
Maybe the cheats deserve better treatment, but personaly I
don't care about a cheats remaining rights on a money level.

Being a cheat is not the worst thing in the world and if that is what you need to do to get by more power too ya, but don't come crying to us when you get caught.

[Skankdog]

HedgeHog,
if the person is right, which we are not sure of, It comes down to this. Would they have paid the 1k back. For them saying they would pay 1.5k per week instead of paying the whole amount makes me wonder about the whole thing.

[Bill Dozer]

The story sounds odd. The bookies in CR often use people to bet for them elsewhere and BetEd is a good target...a weak rule and recreational-player lines.

But, we don't rely on convincing back stories when taking a complaint.

The book has a rule saying the player can't be "from Costa Rica" which leaves a grey area for someone traveling. As JC said, if the player loses that money he doesn't get it back.

All the travel docs should be available. I would like to see BetED give this player the opportunity to provide all travel docs and passport stamp proving she was a traveling resident of Minnesota. If so, pay her and say good-bye. If the player is lying like many of you believe this will be the last time we hear about this.

[SBR Lou]

Well this poster is obviously someone who knew exactly what they were doing. Or they were acting as a puppet to some friends back home who already had accounts at BetEd. Maybe they think Bill will be more inclined to help if they feign naiveté or write in pink.

[curious]

Well this poster is obviously someone who knew exactly what they were doing. Or they were acting as a puppet to some friends back home who already had accounts at BetEd. Maybe they think Bill will be more inclined to help if they feign naiveté or write in pink.

I guess I am naive. I don't get what you mean by "knew what they were doing". The book offered a line. The player bet that line. The book accepted the bet. The bets could have just as easily been losers. So, what is your point?

[HedgeHog]

S-Dog: If this story pans out then, as Bill D says, pay her the 19k. But there are so many red flags. She has her mom set-up the account in Minnesota. What Mother is going to front $1000 for gambling for her struggling, single parent daughter. She couldn't wait until she returned home, a week later, and start her successful system; she just had to make those first 7 bets in Costa Rica? She says BetEd agrees to a payment plan , but this is a B- Book w/o any apparent money problems --so why not just pay her in full to go? Also, she wraps this entire whopper of a tale into a pretty pink package as the hopeless damsel in distress to see how many gullible guys are out there. Color me skeptical.

[Rollins08]

This story sounds shady, but the bottom line is that if this person picked the winners they should get paid. We all know had she lost, she never would have gotten the money back. I'm tired of people acting all high and mighty. Everytime someone has a complaint all of a sudden everyone else is a bunch of choir boys. It seems like no scam was involved with the actual placing of the bets. Pay the man/women the money.

[SBR Lou]

I guess I am naive. I don't get what you mean by "knew what they were doing".

They are obviously an experienced player, nothing wrong with that. Then no need to sell this dumbed down/novice soccer mom image as if it will help resolve their situation.

"To be honest this is the first sportsbook that I have ever signed up with. I am a 29 year old single mother of one and I was more than thrilled to know that I had almost 19k in this account and could not stop thinking about the things I was going to buy."

[pokernut9999]

Bet ED did try to screw gryzonka out out of his soccer winnings same time last year. They had a max payout of 1500 then which is kind of crappy for a book.

[curious]

This story sounds shady, but the bottom line is that if this person picked the winners they should get paid. We all know had she lost, she never would have gotten the money back. I'm tired of people acting all high and mighty. Everytime someone has a complaint all of a sudden everyone else is a bunch of choir boys. It seems like no scam was involved with the actual placing of the bets. Pay the man/women the money.

We don't really know what happened. One problem I have with these sportsbooks is their use of the word "scam". If a book offers a line and I offer a bet and the book accepts the bet, what could I possibly do that can affect that? Regardless of who I am, where I am, how many accounts I have, etc, etc, nothing else I do will change the offer/acceptance of the bet. These accusations of "scam" are just a way to get out of paying winners.

The one exception I can see here is if this person is fronting for a Costa Rican national, or if this person is a Costa Rican national. But, even if she is fronting for a Costa Rican national, is that really a "scam"? How is the books business where I get the money I bet with?

[curious]

They are obviously an experienced player, nothing wrong with that. Then no need to sell this dumbed down/novice soccer mom image as if it will help resolve their situation.

"To be honest this is the first sportsbook that I have ever signed up with. I am a 29 year old single mother of one and I was more than thrilled to know that I had almost 19k in this account and could not stop thinking about the things I was going to buy."

Well, she never said she was a novice, she said this is the first sportsbook she signed up with, how do you know she hasn't been betting with a local book for 10 years. I think the comment about being a single mom of 1 is more about what the money means to her than an indication of being a novice. I think some here jumped to a conclusion: "female=novice" but I don't see where the poster actually said anything like that.

[bigboydan]

All the travel docs should be available. I would like to see BetED give this player the opportunity to provide all travel docs and passport stamp proving she was a traveling resident of Minnesota. If so, pay her and say good-bye. If the player is lying like many of you believe this will be the last time we hear about this.

That was one of the first things I mentioned when I first spoke with one of their representatives late last night Bill.

[JC]

They owe the money, period.

Someone down in CR should send them $1000, lose it, and then see if they refund it. They might at this point, it would still be cheaper than paying $19,000. So maybe not the best idea.

It's so frustrating, all of the shenanigans some of these shit books play.

[Skankdog]

Sounds like a dishonest person playing with a dishonest book.LOL Sounds like they were ment for each other. I will just stick with Legendz myself, that way if I win 50k, I know I am going to get paid as soon as I ask for it.

[operaman]

This story sounds shady, but the bottom line is that if this person picked the winners they should get paid. .

Bill is doing the right thing and it would be unfair to
not give the OP the virtual "day in court".
Didn't mean to imply they don't have the right to make a case.

It is not true that picking the winners is enough. The book has a right to say they don't want a certain type of customer and if someone poses as someone else that is grounds not to pay. If a book only wants to take bets from people who own a ship, with a wooden leg ,and a patch over their eye that is the choice of the establishment.

[operaman]

They owe the money, period.

Someone down in CR should send them $1000, lose it, and then see if they refund it. They might at this point, it would still be cheaper than paying $19,000. So maybe not the best idea.

It's so frustrating, all of the shenanigans some of these shit books play.

So JC, you are saying if the person making the bets is not the person who is registered to the account they should be paid?

[OldZig]

I'm New Here but this is retarded

I'm new to the forum, been reading it for awhile but first post. This seems like a retarded situation. The only thing that BetED should need is proof of residency from the person who opened the wagering account. Regardless of the situation, if she placed the bets, if she signed up for it for someone else to place the bets, if she had her crack dealer postup the money, or her mom, or her 2 year old, BetED took the bets. Are they a book or theives? If they are worried about her having multiple accounts or being used by someone with multiple accounts check the IP addresses (they obviously have the ability to do that). The only thing in their rules they are relying on is a note that says they don't accept residents of Costa Rica, well if she shows she's a resident of the United States then I think that question is more-or-less solved. Shut her account down and pay her the money. But trying to find your way through a loophole because someone who had a clue went and got an account and handed your ass to you is not how a B- book should act and I think everyone here can agree with that.

If you read through the BetED rules they've basically set it up so that if they don't like you 'for whatever reason' they don't have to pay you. And books don't like winners. I repeat that they should check the IP address for multiple accounts to be sure this lady isn't being used as a shill for a syndicate but if it turns out negative and she sends a copy of a drivers license they should pay her or they should go to an F on the ratings. What's next, BetED discovers that it's illegal to bet online in the US and says that is a reason not to pay her also?

OZ

[Rollins08]

It is not true that picking the winners is enough. The book has a right to say they don't want a certain type of customer and if someone poses as someone else that is grounds not to pay. If a book only wants to take bets from people who own a ship, with a wooden leg ,and a patch over their eye that is the choice of the establishment.

Your right to say that the book holds the right to pick who they take bets from, but they accepted this person as a customer and took there $1000. They can kick her out now, but not before they pay what she won. We know she would not have gotten it back had she lost the first two bets. Doesn't the book have any obligation to pay if the bets were made fair? After all they could have done more research before they took on the customer, why only figure out this problem when the person requests a payout?

[JC]

So JC, you are saying if the person making the bets is not the person who is registered to the account they should be paid?

No, that's not what I am saying.

I don't think we have seem proof of that. It may not be possible to prove it.

If the passport shows she was in CR, I think that sels things in the player's favor.

[forex]

Cheating books need to be punished, but even though we are players we should make sure the books have ways of making money or we won't have any books to play at.

books are 'supposed' to be brokers no?

thats a ridiculous comment 'we should make sure the books have ways of making money'

[OldZig]

But JC, why does it even have to be taken to that level. The rules are horribly unclear on BetED but it would seem to me if she showed proof of residency in the US she should be fine. Who is BetED to monitor peoples travel plans. Deposit made from US, almost all bets placed in US, seems pretty clear. They should do what any other normal company does and ask for a drivers license and a utility bill. The conversation has totally been warped, lady played fair and BetED doesn't want to pay, it's as simple as that.

[operaman]

Any of the OP supporters ( even Old Mr. 1 post) want to offer a line and limit on the travel docs being sent to the book?
We could have some fun on this one.

[Justin7]

But JC, why does it even have to be taken to that level. The rules are horribly unclear on BetED but it would seem to me if she showed proof of residency in the US she should be fine.

I agree. If they don't want people traveling to Costa Rica to bet (as they intended due to Costa Rican law) they should have said that.

As is, if she's a US resident, she should be paid.

[curious]

Your right to say that the book holds the right to pick who they take bets from, but they accepted this person as a customer and took there $1000. They can kick her out now, but not before they pay what she won. We know she would not have gotten it back had she lost the first two bets. Doesn't the book have any obligation to pay if the bets were made fair? After all they could have done more research before they took on the customer, why only figure out this problem when the person requests a payout?

I like way YouBet does it, you have to give your identification before you can fund your account. They have a three step process.
1. Sign up
2. Fax in your documentation
3. Fund your account

[OldZig]

Wow, baggin' on the new guy (look my Post Johnson is longer than yours)! I wouldn't send them the travel documents, I would tell them to go F*** themselves. This is about the principle of the matter. I'm in the industry and if I saw someones account go from 1k to 19k I think I would look at it before they asked for a payout. Is it this girls fault that the company runs stupid lines and can't track an acct obviously beating their brains in?

[HedgeHog]

Any of the OP supporters ( even Old Mr. 1 post) want to offer a line and limit on the travel docs being sent to the book?
We could have some fun on this one.

Proper Docs Sent +1200

No proper Docs -1600 (includes counterfeit docs sent)



Prop Limit: Just your 2 cents worth.

[JC]

I think the player should be paid if everything they have said here is true.

[operaman]

Proper Docs Sent +1200

No proper Docs -1600 (includes counterfeit docs sent)



Prop Limit: Just your 2 cents worth.

Ill take those odds (-1600) (max bet), but was hoping some of the believers, shills, ghosts of pinky, would offer something better with a little higher limit. You are worse that bet3.65.