why was hollywood sportsbook upgraded?

[Igetp2s]

HollywooSB,

What is your position regarding people who have Sportsbook or other Jazette accounts and also a Hollywood account? Would that be a problem at withdrawal time?

[RickySteve]

Absolutely disgusting.

[HedgeHog]

Hollywood should be a B- book, as should most Jazette books. They are under new management and offering great promotions these days.

3 years is a long time in this business.

This is the post that really got to me. I shouldn't have called you a shill because of it, but you are seriously deluded if you think this organization is worthy of a B-. Even the sharps that still play there realize that SB.com is a risky place to use and openly admit it. And you are also mistaken if you think that SB.com has had a clean record since their massive theft of three years ago. In addition to scattered thefts of clent funds, they have bounced checks as well--not exactly B level performance by anyone's standard. In fact, just recently (see below) they bounced another check. I understand why you play there, but kindly refrain from saying they are a decent book. Facts say otherwise.

6/16/2010 06:32 PM
Player vs sportsbook.com - account payment dispute
A sportsbook.com (SBR rating D-) payment dispute has been received. A player deposited $500 on May 6th and proceeded to increase his balance to $5,000. He requested a withdrawal of $2000 which was sent via check, the check bounced on June 7th. The player allegedly threatened to charge back his initial deposit after the check bounced. sportsbook.com then disabled his account. SBR is investigating the complaint.

[Halifax]

This is the post that really got to me. I shouldn't have called you a shill because of it, but you are seriously deluded if you think this organization is worthy of a B-. Even the sharps that still play there realize that SB.com is a risky place to use and openly admit it. And you are also mistaken if you think that SB.com has had a clean record since their massive theft of three years ago. In addition to scattered thefts of clent funds, they have bounced checks as well--not exactly B level performance by anyone's standard. In fact, just recently (see below) they bounced another check. I understand why you play there, but kindly refrain from saying they are a decent book. Facts say otherwise.

6/16/2010 06:32 PM
Player vs sportsbook.com - account payment dispute
A sportsbook.com (SBR rating D-) payment dispute has been received. A player deposited $500 on May 6th and proceeded to increase his balance to $5,000. He requested a withdrawal of $2000 which was sent via check, the check bounced on June 7th. The player allegedly threatened to charge back his initial deposit after the check bounced. sportsbook.com then disabled his account. SBR is investigating the complaint.

I know a guy who got $4,000 in reload bonuses confiscated by good ole' "John Scofield" at Sports.com in November 2009, less than a year ago. Scofield said that since he built his balance up so high, that he must have been a "pro", and thus didn't need the bonus anyway. So they're still randomly screwing people here and there ... they're just not doing the massive, multi-player confiscations like 3 or 4 years ago.

As far as the bounced cheques go, in fairness to Jazette, that's more of a processor issue ... inconvenient to the player(s) involved, yes, but not really a knock against Jazette. Shit happens with processors these days, and if the cheque bounces, you just have to grin and bear it and wait for a replacement cheque to be issued.

[Dark Horse]

And as far as any past confiscations as a result of SB decisions, we are sorry and honestly can’t do anything about it now… but we can assure you that nothing like that will ever happen again.

Anyway I hope that explains a little further

Not good enough, buddy.

Go F yourself.


SBR, how can you upgrade a book that has no intent of paying the money that it stole? This is your credibility on the line.

[ByeShea]

...the owners decided to bring in a veteran independent management team

(a.k.a. a fat man in his 40s who pops ecstasy like aspirin. He stays young by wearing Hawaiian shirts.)

[trixtrix]

let me get this straight hollywoodsb, you're saying you don't have any power to right the clear wrong done to the players in the past by your book and your master sb.com, but to trust you going forward that you would have enough integrity to stand up to sb.com in the future.

does that sum up your position about right?

so we as the players is to trust you with our money now, even though you admit we should not have trusted you with our money in the past and there's nothing you can do to make it right.. sounds logical to me..

sbr, my question in the op remains unanswered: how did these thieves deserve an upgrade to D+ in the first place w/ flimsy stances like this?

[Halifax]

let me get this straight hollywoodsb, you're saying you don't have any power to right the clear wrong done to the players in the past by your book and your master sb.com, but to trust you going forward that you would have enough integrity to stand up to sb.com in the future.

does that sum up your position about right?

so we as the players is to trust you with our money now, even though you admit we should not have trusted you with our money in the past and there's nothing you can do to make it right.. sounds logical to me..

sbr, my question in the op remains unanswered: how did these thieves deserve an upgrade to D+ in the first place w/ flimsy stances like this?

I think Dozer answered it in Post 24.

[Dark Horse]

I think Dozer answered it in Post 24.

Dozer said this:

The D+ acknowledges step 1 but is still on the blacklist. We are researching old player cases they can revisit. Anyone who has anything they felt was unfair over the last few years are urged to contact us. Hopefully this is the first of multiple upgrades.

And this is the Hollywood joker's reply:

And as far as any past confiscations as a result of SB decisions, we are sorry and honestly can’t do anything about it now… but we can assure you that nothing like that will ever happen again.

Anyway I hope that explains a little further

Consider that a straight answer.


They want people to give them another shot without cleaning up their own mess first. And all with the assurance that it was a one-time slip up; but without putting their money where their mouth is.

This SBR upgrade is premature, in my opinion. Why not wait to see if the improved management has any intention of paying the stolen money back? That's step 1. Improved management is not step 1.

[HollywoodSB]

Hello Iget2ps ...Actually there is no problem unless there is cross betting to circumvent limits or some other kind of fraud but yes you can have accounts with SB.com Hollywood, Jazzette etc with no issue especially with withdrawls. Again I want to stress that we are now actively engaged in running the site and will address any issues going forward.

[Dark Horse]

Why is a D book person allowed to post here in the first place? Free advertising? Don't they have to be B books?

[tommygun]

of course hollywoodsb dodged all the questions....

[Dark Horse]

of course hollywoodsb dodged all the questions....

What is not said is often as important as what is said.

What was not said:
"We are deeply sorry that previous management stole players funds. We take full responsibility and will not rest until everybody is paid in full. Going forward, we hope to rebuild our reputation and in time regain your confidence."

That is not where they're going. In fact, financial responsibility for the theft was directly dodged. That's a D book for ya.

[trixtrix]

for anyone who even thinks about depositing in hollywood sportsbook, take the precedence of betsportsweb

like hollywood, betsportsweb claimed they were turning over a new leaf; like hollywood, betsportsweb claimed they were honest and can be trusted to payout going forward; betsportsweb is now broke and stole all remaining funds, just like hollywood will be

where the similarity lies: like hollywood, betsportsweb REFUSED to take responsibility for paying back earlier player thefts, but claimed they will be honest going forward.. ONCE A SNAKE...

[Bill Dozer]

Hollywood is at D+. For it to move up further they will have to make players who were wronged during the sportsbook.com period whole again. That's a standard that all new book ownership has been held to. Players who were stiffed can't give privately owned books a pass when they change internally. Otherwise any bookmaker that wanted to stiff someone could say they sold it the day before.

SBR is familiar with this mgt team and we think they will perform much better than a D book. As bookmakers they have never made a decision to stiff a player. SBR and Hollywood will discuss further. We are hoping to be able to upgrade Hollywood again in the near future.

[Dark Horse]

It doesn't matter, Bill. They're two-faced no matter how you turn it. Even if they would agree to what you suggest, their initial decision was expressed loud and clear in this thread. So it would not be something coming from them. This is so basic that it shouldn't have to be explained to them.

[skrtelfan]

Don't forget the sportsbook.com pending futures cancellation. They announced they were leaving the US market shortly after the passage of the UIEGA and had to return all balances to US customers, and in the process canceled all pending futures and returned the risk amount. Then a couple weeks later announced that they were back in the US market and welcomed their customers reopen their accounts but didn't reinstate the futures. A friend of a friend had Detroit to win the AL at very nice odds at sportsbook.com and there were only two teams left in the AL playoffs at that point, and they canceled the wager and refused to reinstate it.

[RickySteve]

Don't forget the sportsbook.com pending futures cancellation. They announced they were leaving the US market shortly after the passage of the UIEGA and had to return all balances to US customers, and in the process canceled all pending futures and returned the risk amount. Then a couple weeks later announced that they were back in the US market and welcomed their customers reopen their accounts but didn't reinstate the futures. A friend of a friend had Detroit to win the AL at very nice odds at sportsbook.com and there were only two teams left in the AL playoffs at that point, and they canceled the wager and refused to reinstate it.

Wow, I had almost forgotten about that theft. I had big prices on Cardinals to win WS(they did) and Bears to win NFC & SB(lost SB) canceled.

[Ian]

As far as the Hollywood brand goes, this is an iconic brand that has been in business for 12 years or so and was A rated for most of those years..however yes the book was sold to Sportingbet.com for big money in 2006 before the passage of the UIEGA……Sportingbet went after the 2 best brands available in the US market at the time ….. sportsbook.com and Hollywood…… Sportingbet publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange, would not pay 8X earnings in cash for poorly run or “thieving” brands…

The sale was a testament to how both these brands were managed regardless of your personal opinions. Simple truth ………whether you believe it or not.

What most people don’t know and some think they know, is that the same owners who sold it for millions///… quietly bought it back for pennies on the dollar rather than let it get cast off to jazzette when the law went into effect a few months later…. And good for them ….. Of course at the time, they were prohibited from, and nervous about, making public statements about the buyback and just preferred to remain tight lipped as I am sure you can appreciate and let SB.com staff run the day to day stuff. But some might say the owners made a mistake by doing that, but the reality is that SB did a fine job for over 4 years…

But HW always maintained a separate CS staff and continues to do so and its financial strength has never been in doubt….nor is it now…

However, in April the owners decided to bring in a veteran independent management team to revive the brand to its former glory.

Our aim here now is to offer a new entertaining site with lots of bonuses and contests and a unique loyalty program ……..all completed.
And as far as any past confiscations as a result of SB decisions, we are sorry and honestly can’t do anything about it now… but we can assure you that nothing like that will ever happen again.

Anyway I hope that explains a little further

This post makes me far less likely to deposit with Hollywood in the future.

[1tarheelfan]

So many things change over a year or two. There are some new shops that haven't stiffed anyone but have had issues (Phoenix), and there are some old shops that have stiffed 3+ years ago but have had 3 straight solid years. I prefer the latter.

There is always the chance of getting stiffed. All I do is tell people my experiences at different books. When I say 'everyone should be playing at Book X', it is just a way of saying 'this is an underrated book'. I don't really care if other posters post up at Book X.

i dont know hedgehog ,but he's right about what books to play with.books that have been booking fo years that has very few complaints are the books that people should play at.people who have played at small books that have just started out are just asking for trouble.

[1tarheelfan]

Not good enough, buddy.

Go F yourself.


SBR, how can you upgrade a book that has no intent of paying the money that it stole? This is your credibility on the line.

when dark horse and chuck sims talk people listened.

[trixtrix]

in what objective reality can a new ownership taking over the existing company's ASSETS ONLY and IGNORE their LIABILITIES?

if indeed hollywood has been turned over to a new managment team, they're still on the hook for the companies existing debts and liabilities, that's coporate takeover 101.

i guess some can argue that the confiscations were a hidden cost/liability but that just means: 1.) new management did not look very hard before acquiring the label (the confiscation theft is up everywhere on google) and 2.) didn't perform the necessary due diligence before deciding to enter into the contract

[HedgeHog]

For Hollywood to have any chance at becoming a respectable Book again, they would have to break all ties with SB.com. Also they would need to resolve all theft complaints directly involving them. One such case is listed below and I wonder if Hollywood ever made it right:

4/2/2008 09:56 PM

hollywood Sportsbook (SBR rating D-) cancels player's $2000 winning wager
A hollywood player accidently placed a wager on the wrong team. He asked customer service if he could cancel the wager, was told that it was not possible, and was advised to wager on the other side of the match to eliminate the risk and "only lose the juice." The player waited until minutes before the game's start time and made a would-be losing wager on the other team. hollywood canceled the winning wager during the game. Despite wagering logs showing the book did unjustly cancel the bet after start time it denied the player's request to review the phone logs confirming the bet would stand. hollywood initially told the player it would investigate the matter in February but is no longer responding. SBR has added the claim to the list of pending issues filed by the Sportsbook.com Group's players. hollywood was acquired by Sportsbook.com in May of 2006.

[Ballpark]

HollywoodSB:

Your site states that 10% reload will be giving for all deposits of $100 or more.
But only 5% is giving automatically.
So which is it, 5% or 10%?

Thanks.

[jackkkk2009]

As far as the Hollywood brand goes, this is an iconic brand that has been in business for 12 years or so and was A rated for most of those years..however yes the book was sold to Sportingbet.com for big money in 2006 before the passage of the UIEGA……Sportingbet went after the 2 best brands available in the US market at the time ….. sportsbook.com and Hollywood…… Sportingbet publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange, would not pay 8X earnings in cash for poorly run or “thieving” brands…

The sale was a testament to how both these brands were managed regardless of your personal opinions. Simple truth ………whether you believe it or not.

What most people don’t know and some think they know, is that the same owners who sold it for millions///… quietly bought it back for pennies on the dollar rather than let it get cast off to jazzette when the law went into effect a few months later…. And good for them ….. Of course at the time, they were prohibited from, and nervous about, making public statements about the buyback and just preferred to remain tight lipped as I am sure you can appreciate and let SB.com staff run the day to day stuff. But some might say the owners made a mistake by doing that, but the reality is that SB did a fine job for over 4 years…

But HW always maintained a separate CS staff and continues to do so and its financial strength has never been in doubt….nor is it now…

However, in April the owners decided to bring in a veteran independent management team to revive the brand to its former glory.

Our aim here now is to offer a new entertaining site with lots of bonuses and contests and a unique loyalty program ……..all completed.
And as far as any past confiscations as a result of SB decisions, we are sorry and honestly can’t do anything about it now… but we can assure you that nothing like that will ever happen again.

Anyway I hope that explains a little further

I remember the old day that Hollywoodsportsbook was A+ rated as one of the top books in SBR before they were sold to sportingbet.com. Me & my friends really loved that site at that time. Because they have high limits for most major US sports and accepted professional players. I wish those days would come back in future.

[HollywoodSB]

The reload bonus is 10% but the site is loaded with many additional promotional opportunities.

[durito]

The reload bonus is 10% but the site is loaded with many additional promotional opportunities.

Like the possibility for jazzette to steal your winnings.

Pay the past confiscations or go away.

[trixtrix]

The reload bonus is 10% but the site is loaded with many additional promotional opportunities.

you have funds to offer new promotions to attract new post-up money but not to pay back the funds you stole?

nope no danger signs here..