[Patrick McIrish]

But it is. No Book puts out college hoops "tourney" odds in November. Next consider that BOL copied The Greek's prop. Further, The Greek paid out on regular season champions as they should have. Plus some of the props were on divisions which can only mean regular season. This is not black or white. It's about green ($$$). SBR would be all over any non-sponsor Book that tried to pull this BS. It's one of the easiest disputes to resolve if you're objective.

Hate to say it but it's starting to look this way. BOL absolutely getting defiant about paying out, smugly mocking anyone that tries to reason with them. An SBR employee coming out and almost coddling this clown on one of the more obvious "disputes" I've seen in years. Last one I can remember was BOS (Clive's old place by the way) when they stole money by regrading wagers up to 6 months prior. Losing wagers weren't touched but if you had winners they were suddenly losers. And they didn't budge, they laughed at the RX and other forums when they tried to push for mediation. Of course a shortwhile later they stiffed the world and hasn't looked back yet. This is very similar behavior, maybe GrandSlam was right, BOS management (and now BOL management) had some role in the decision making process when they kept all the player's money.

It's one thing to make a mistake, books do it all the time. It's how you act afterwards that reveals what kind of place you are dealing with. Either this book is monumentally stupid or they are corrupt, not sure which is worse. The worst part is players won't get the hint, employees will come out and spin this (like what has already happened) and talk back up the place and they will stay as a B+. That way if they run for the hills with the money again John can say "well at least we've never had an A book stiff the players before". Very disappointing Justin, didn't expect that post but maybe I should have. Moving on before I get banned but this dog and pony show is the worst I've seen in a while. Well I can see both sides have a point here....

[Justin7]

But it is. No Book puts out college hoops "tourney" odds in November.

Are you arguing that Betonline is too smart to do this ?

re: copying odds... Did they? Probably. I don't know though, since this hasn't been addressed. I'd love to talk to Betonline's guy to figure out how he set odds on the conference tournament. If they did copy it, that weighs heavily in favor of the player... But they haven't admitted (or responded) to that allegation yet.

Ideally, any wager should stand on itself. You should be able to tell if a wager wins without looking at other books or other wagers.

If the only fact you knew was that the player bet "will Syracuse win the Big East Championship", it is not slam dunk. There are other facts that will likely be developed, but you are looking at things outside the contract/wager. Don't get me wrong - the player deserves to get paid unless Betonline provides some amazing new developments... But if a lawyer can make a valid argument (and Betonline has done this by the definition of Big East Champion, and disregarding all other circumstantial evidence), it is not 100% black and white.

[HedgeHog]

Hate to say it but it's starting to look this way. BOL absolutely getting defiant about paying out, smugly mocking anyone that tries to reason with them. An SBR employee coming out and almost coddling this clown on one of the more obvious "disputes" I've seen in years. Last one I can remember was BOS (Clive's old place by the way) when they stole money by regrading wagers up to 6 months prior. Losing wagers weren't touched but if you had winners they were suddenly losers. And they didn't budge, they laughed at the RX and other forums when they tried to push for mediation. Of course a shortwhile later they stiffed the world and hasn't looked back yet. This is very similar behavior, maybe GrandSlam was right, BOS management (and now BOL management) had some role in the decision making process when they kept all the player's money.

It's one thing to make a mistake, books do it all the time. It's how you act afterwards that reveals what kind of place you are dealing with. Either this book is monumentally stupid or they are corrupt, not sure which is worse. The worst part is players won't get the hint, employees will come out and spin this (like what has already happened) and talk back up the place and they will stay as a B+. That way if they run for the hills with the money again John can say "well at least we've never had an A book stiff the players before". Very disappointing Justin, didn't expect that post but maybe I should have. Moving on before I get banned but this dog and pony show is the worst I've seen in a while. Well I can see both sides have a point here....

At the risk of being banned with you, SBR did have an A range Book (rated A or A-) that stiffed many players including myself--BetCascade. They are still stealing $$$ with their deposit only operation. As far as Justin is concerned, he was just being diplomatic--very tough position to be in if you value your job. And for BOL, they can't possibly be that stupid. They're looking for a reason to justify stealing. JMO.

[Patrick McIrish]

At the risk of being banned with you, SBR did have an A range Book (rated A or A-) that stiffed many players including myself--BetCascade. They are still stealing $$$ with their deposit only operation. As far as Justin is concerned, he was just being diplomatic--very tough position to be in if you value your job. And for BOL, they can't possibly be that stupid. They're looking for a reason to justify stealing. JMO.

Yeah I know, I think there were a few others as well, just quoting something John had said recently. As for Justin I have respect for his work, that's why I was surprised. Just my opinion of course but this is a public rating system, you want to preserve the integrity of what goes on. Some (like myself) might think if he comes off that way on a case this 1-sided what's his call going to be when a book actually has a point? That post makes me wonder. If you're going to coddle a book because you want to be decent with them I'd do it privately and call a spade a spade out here in the public forums. Anyway moving on, thanks for listening.

[HedgeHog]

Are you arguing that Betonline is too smart to do this ?

re: copying odds... Did they? Probably. I don't know though, since this hasn't been addressed. I'd love to talk to Betonline's guy to figure out how he set odds on the conference tournament. If they did copy it, that weighs heavily in favor of the player... But they haven't admitted (or responded) to that allegation yet.

Ideally, any wager should stand on itself. You should be able to tell if a wager wins without looking at other books or other wagers.

If the only fact you knew was that the player bet "will Syracuse win the Big East Championship", it is not slam dunk. There are other facts that will likely be developed, but you are looking at things outside the contract/wager. Don't get me wrong - the player deserves to get paid unless Betonline provides some amazing new developments... But if a lawyer can make a valid argument (and Betonline has done this by the definition of Big East Champion, and disregarding all other circumstantial evidence), it is not 100% black and white.

However, we know many other facts, including divisional odds being offered that refer to the regular season. I don't recall the SEC East and SEC West having separate tourneys. I also look at Olympic (The Greek) paying out on regular season Champs and they originated the props. When you look at the situation in its entirity, the resolution is simple. But of course you know it, too.

[Justin7]

However, we know many other facts, including divisional odds being offered that refer to the regular season. I don't recall the SEC East and SEC West having separate tourneys. I also look at Olympic (The Greek) paying out on regular season Champs and they originated the props. When you look at the situation in its entirity, the resolution is simple. But of course you know it, too.

These may develop into facts (which clearly favor the player).

I guess the dissent serves me right for commenting on a case I am not handling.

[NDIrish9]

eat it, BO

[Stumpage]

This still hasn't been settled in the player's favour?

Amazing.....To be honest, this thread is quite disheartening to someone who has been with SBR for a long time. You guys have done absolutely fantastic work, at no cost to those like myself, but at the risk of echoing many other knowledgeable folk in this thread, this should have been taken care of some time ago.

Not that I'd ever play at BOL in any event (Durito's experience alone would insure that), but this can only be hurting them overall.

[skrtelfan]

These may develop into facts (which clearly favor the player).

These "may develop???" These facts have been known for over two weeks! There's no further investigation necessary to "develop facts." Add me to the list of people completely baffled that this is taking so long. This isn't an issue of a grey area where the player has dirty hands and there are issues of IP address or multiple accounts or whatever to straighten out. The player just placed a freaking bet at market odds! It's ridiculous to even worry about "what would someone think if they only saw the Syracuse bet" when there's plenty of other evidence like how they offered SEC division odds, how the Greek graded it, etc.

[Bill Dozer]

It's taken longer than all parties would like but we talked with mgt. and expect the player to be credited for the win amount today. BetOnline believes the "champion" to be at the highest level but regardless of what they intended realize it wasn't clear.

[middy]

Bump...every single day until this has been resolved.

How many days has it been since SBR was "confident" there'd be a resolution at the end of the day?

This would be laughable if it wasn't so scary.

[edit] - Just saw Bill's post as I did.

[mtneer1212]

You ignored the most obvious point. Why would they offer a line on the SEC's individual divisions rather than the overall SEC tournament if they meant for these wagers to be for the entire tournament?

.....any reasonable person would assume those odds were for the regular season since the SEC was broken down into divisions.

This is the most criminating evidence against BOL's argument.

[big joe 1212]

I will not use BOL again any time soon!

[Peep]

Good job Bill, BOL. Correct call.

[skrtelfan]

It's taken longer than all parties would like but we talked with mgt. and expect the player to be credited for the win amount today. BetOnline believes the "champion" to be at the highest level but regardless of what they intended realize it wasn't clear.

And what's the highest level of the SEC, the individual divisions or the SEC tournament?

[JoeVig]

Would like to see this go to the player, and then the wording needs to be unambiguous in the future when posted by the book.

[skrtelfan]

Since all this book does is copy props from other books, I'm sure they'll be ambiguous again in the future in cases where the book originating the line has something in their rules covering whatever loophole and BetOnline doesn't.

[HedgeHog]

How about dropping BOL a grade each day they don't make this thing right? Today, they're a B+, tomorrow a B, Sunday B-....and so on.

[bluefish]

How about dropping BOL a grade each day they don't make this thing right? Today, they're a B+, tomorrow a B, Sunday B-....and so on.

A bunch of fricken idiots they have there. Pea brains trying to justify their stupidity.

[sam b.]

It's taken longer than all parties would like but we talked with mgt. and expect the player to be credited for the win amount today. BetOnline believes the "champion" to be at the highest level but regardless of what they intended realize it wasn't clear.

Been refreshing my balance every 15 minutes since Bill posted this earlier. Still nothing. Thanks everyone for keeping this thread alive. Some of the more recent posts have really summed up my feelings on this whole ordeal.

[cubswin]

I had the same bet with the same wording and was paid weeks ago. Anyone who plays at this book must like to get robed. To even try to dispute that it was a season bet is laughable

[Patrick McIrish]

Nice work Bill, glad this is taken care of, props.

[joe361]

Did BOL offer props for winning any of the conference TOURNAMENTS after the regular season ended?

[joe361]

It's taken longer than all parties would like but we talked with mgt. and expect the player to be credited for the win amount today. BetOnline believes the "champion" to be at the highest level but regardless of what they intended realize it wasn't clear.

In a power conference like the the Big East it's more prestigious to win the conference championship than be the tournament champion.

Quote form the Big East web site:

"BIG EAST CHAMPIONS!
Syracuse won the conference regular-season championship outright for the second time in school history on Tuesday with an 85-66 win against St. John’s. The Orange’s other outright regular-season crown was in 1990-91. Syracuse will be the top seed in next week’s BIG EAST Championship at Madison Square Garden. The Orange will play at 12 p.m. on Thursday, March 11 in the quarterfinal round."

[MBENZ]

It's taken longer than all parties would like but we talked with mgt. and expect the player to be credited for the win amount today. BetOnline believes the "champion" to be at the highest level but regardless of what they intended realize it wasn't clear.

BetOnline



Joined: 01-07-09
Posts: 28
betpoints: 64
Message Me

Challenge Me



He's here.. and I have been following this and dealing with it behind the scenes.

Aside from this player, we've had ZERO others complain--and we had plenty of others on the bet.I'll look into it, and these other allegations, and get back to you.Alex



Bill,What about these plenty of others that had the same bet and Speedkills at OGD?Are they also being taken care of too?Noticed your statement said "player" as in singular.

[BET THE HOOK]

Alex fixed my problem and will get this done for you too man. He really is trying to change the books image for the better. On a side note Stella is the best CS rep they have there. They need a few more of her. My dispute is settled several times over if you know what I mean.

[skrtelfan]

If he was trying to change the book's image he wouldn't drag his feet on paying a player when it's a slam dunk in the player's favor. For whatever reason Justin, Bill, and BetOnline have all refused to address the issue that in the same prop with the Big East and Pac 10 champions, they also offered a prop on the two SEC divisions, which are regular season champions, rather than the SEC tournament, which makes it very obvious the Big East and Pac 10 props were meant to be regular season props. Yet BetOnline still drags their feet and Justin talks about "more evidence coming in." What additional evidence do you need??? This should have been resolved in the player's favor weeks ago.

[Justin7]

Justin talks about "more evidence coming in."

Call it sloppy on my part, but I try to get all the facts, even in cases that look easy.

[vitalyo]

Call it sloppy on my part, but I try to get all the facts, even in cases that look easy.

Good job SBR !Think independently, to collect objective information, analyse it, and use it as the basis for making independent decisions.

[Bill Dozer]

For whatever reason Justin, Bill, and BetOnline have all refused to address the issue that in the same prop with the Big East and Pac 10 champions, they also offered a prop on the two SEC divisions, which are regular season champions, rather than the SEC tournament, which makes it very obvious the Big East and Pac 10 props were meant to be regular season props.

I don't follow you. I said on page one the player made a good case for himself. That was one of the strongest points. If it wasn't addressed BetOnline wouldn't be paying him $6,000? BetOnline isn't fast but they have never cheated a player or ignored mediation.

Good job SBR !Think independently, to collect objective information, analyse it, and use it as the basis for making independent decisions.

Thanks vit. When all parties are open to discussing there is usually a good outcome.

[Patrick McIrish]

Call it sloppy on my part, but I try to get all the facts, even in cases that look easy.

Despite your facetious comment I don't think anyone would begrudge you doing that. Most the commentary (at least mine) was from the public statements you and BOL were making. If you are gathering facts, gather them and then speak decisively once the call has been made. Encourage BOL to do the same during that part of your investigation. What started to look bad IMO was a book (vastly overrated in the first place) dead wrong on this issue yet out here defiantly saying things like any 8 year can see that we are right. Meanwhile you were telling us you could see "both sides of this one". Sounded like more than fact gathering to me, sounded like the spin machine was warming up.

That said I have to admit I don't remember EVER disagreeing with a decision from Dozer. Not saying I've seen them all, might have been some I missed but I do think you guys eventually get it right. It's just when books that are rated higher than they should be the lip service is much different from the employees then when it's a book rated much lower than they should be. You have your favorite$. Had this been a nonadvertiser that you guys were not high on I have a feeling the tolerance level would have been nonexistant. Next time one of these nonSBR books are dead wrong on a dispute I want to see if you can "both sides" of that one.

[Justin7]

Next time one of these nonSBR books are dead wrong on a dispute I want to see if you can "both sides" of that one.

See my dissent on the Wagerweb. See my dissent on an earlier Betonline case.

On more than one occasion, I have reviewed what looked like a "slam dunk" case. Things stated by a party are frequently false. If I am working a dispute up, I don't accept anything as fact until both parties have at least seen the claims, and had a chance to respond.

Meanwhile you were telling us you could see "both sides of this one".

Yes, and from a strictly legal point of view, Betonline was correct. From a rational, fair and equitable point of view, Betonline would lose in court. But for them to lose, you would have to introduce facts that were outside the disputed wagering ticket. Any time you are looking "outside the 4 corners of the contract", you are introducing shades of grey.

Try this one: my legal standard for "black and white" is that one party would win on summary judgment, or get judgment on the pleadings. If it's not that clear, both sides need the chance to present and rebut facts.

[Patrick McIrish]

Fair enough. I don't want to argue for the hell of it, was just trying to give you one man's opinion. I respect you want to gather facts first, nobody questioned that. I just suggested that maybe wait until you are done investigating before responding out here. I think smart lawyers usually refrain from trying their case in the media, for good reason. Either way your points have been noted, appreciate the discussion. Glad the players will get their money, good job SBR.

[Bill Dozer]

That said I have to admit I don't remember EVER disagreeing with a decision from Dozer. Not saying I've seen them all, might have been some I missed but I do think you guys eventually get it right. It's just when books that are rated higher than they should be the lip service is much different from the employees then when it's a book rated much lower than they should be. You have your favorite$. Had this been a nonadvertiser that you guys were not high on I have a feeling the tolerance level would have been nonexistant. Next time one of these nonSBR books are dead wrong on a dispute I want to see if you can "both sides" of that one.

Books that are rated low are low for a reason. If we get a third Wagerweb complaint about canceling bets or stealing bonuses in a month there is going to be a different approach than a book that has never cheated a player...mostly because the complaint for the low rated book is not unique and often a rinse and repeat. When those lesser books want to discuss, the approach changes.

So, in that sense you are right. Advertisers are treated differently. Where you are wrong is saying that they are treated differently BECAUSE they are advertisers. SBRforum only accepts quality sponsors with clean records.

[Thremp]

Like Carib saying they have a policy of theft and lying to SBR? "Clean record" roflcopter. They blatantly made fabrications to Lou.