BetJamaica dispute

[bigloser]

Players usually side with players. .

This is not the case. On this forum, too often, players will side with the book. In particular where an A book is concerned.

[Cutter]

yeah,

we have a problem.

the rules were in effect while he was losing as well.

this was only a problem for the book when a wager was WON.

you really can't see the problem here?

Pay the man!

putting up sticky messages on the login screen stating rules now gives the books power to freeroll customers for their managerial inadequacies.

Malice or Ignorance is what BetJamaica is guilty of, either way, pay the man on the 1000 horse winner!

this isn't about players siding with players and players siding with A rated books. It is about competency in critical thinking. Anybody capable of higher understanding can see clearly that the player should be paid.

[custer]

Due partly to my curiosity, and partly from the fact that good friends of mine think very highly of Scotty, I took Scotty up on his offer and called him this morning.

Despite the way this looks, Scotty wants to do the right and honorable thing here, whatever that turns out to be. He has not made up his mind yet, as he's still in the process of gathering information. This is a closer decision than it appears. It is highly likely that the account in question has not been completely honest with BetJamaica or us on the forums. If in fact this can be proven to be the case (it has not, thus far, by my knowledge), that would serve as circumstantial evidence towards this rule breaking being malicious. Furthermore, we have been led to believe that Oscark could have made this same bet elsewhere. This is not necessarily the case. If in fact the extra $500 bet at BetJamaica could not have been bet elsewhere, it furthers a case of malicious intent.

I don't believe that any of us, especially Scotty, has the information needed to make the right decision at this point.





My opinion:

Reasons for not paying a bet that has already been decided and had a reasonable chance of losing:

1) The bet bypassed a clear and specific rule.

I don't believe this is the case here. The popup message did not specify that the limit restriction was meant for both sports and horses, and enough respected bookmakers separate their racebooks from their sportsbooks for limit purposes that it is reasonable that a person could assume a limit restriction was made for one but not the other. As this account only made sports bets (zero horse bets) before the limit restrictions, it is reasonable that the account holder could have assumed that the limit restriction was only meant for his sports' bets, not his horse bets. I don't believe a case to not pay in this situation can be made for this reason.

2) The player maliciously broke a rule set forth by the bookmaker, and in so doing robbed the bookmaker of expectation. It is for this reason that a case can be made not to pay the account for the bet. However, for not paying to be the correct and honorable decision by this reason, there has to be reasonable proof that the intent of the rule breaking was malicious AND that the player was gaining expectation from the bookmaker that he wouldn't have gained without breaking the rule. To make the decision not to pay, reasonable proof of both these conditions (malicious intent and gaining expectation) must be found.

So far, the 3 main points that I feel point toward paying being right:

1) The message did not specify horses. It was reasonable for someone to think that the nickle limit did not apply to horses, as he had not previously made a horse bet and many books separate limits on the 2 (Pinnacle for one).

2) The player likely could have made the over limit bet at the same price at another book. If he could have made the same bet elsewhere, that is circumstantial evidence supporting a case that he did not have malicious intent. Why purposely break BetJamaica rules if he could have achieved the same end result (the player betting x amount on the horse, in total) without doing so? This is a point that could get overturned with more information. If he has indeed been limited by other books, it may be reasonable to assume that he couldn't have bet x amount on the horse without breaking BetJamaica rules, in which case the bypassing of the rules was likely malicious.

3) The bet was at fair odds. BetJamaica, like all other bookmakers, pays horse bets based on closing track odds. Most bookmakers would have happily booked the bet. Therefore the line was fair. If the line was fair, the player did not gain expectation from the bookmaker. However, if it can be shown that the player did knowingly have an expectation on the bookmaker (He's a proven large horse syndicate who bets the bets the very maximum amount out of the pool, or that he somehow manipulated track odds in this instance), then he should not be paid. In my opinion, the combination of the player both having that expectation and it being somewhat provable is a very, very remote chance.

[groovinmahoovin]

Might as well put my LVA response here too:

Don't forget there's already a fair bit of circumstantial evidence against BetJamaica here, namely that Scotty lied about the warning the player received, repeatedly claiming that it said "Strict nickel limits" when the word "strict" never appeared (and he claimed the "strict" phrase to indicate that it was meant to apply to races, craps, slot machines etc), plus, Scotty gave the poster's real name and other identifying information to the Shrink without the player's permission.

Another key point is that other posters on the forums have reported having their horse limits lowered, indicating that the software can be configured as such. If that's the case, why wasn't the software configured to lower Oscar's limits if the limit was meant to apply to horses?

[diglett]

Awhile back during breeders cup, he was here giving away 20 bills to bet on the breeders cup, when posters acknowledged and thanked him, he was always here to take his cudos.

Now when the shit hits the fan he's a complete no show.

Sorry to bring this up again, but I had a minor dispute involving this promotion. I can't argue that their decision not to pay me (as I did not bet on the Breeder's Cup) was wrong, but will say that I don't like their position of not responding to inquiries and asking bettors to "Call Scotty" instead of simply explaining their policies from the start.

In my case, it was only after a declined withdrawal request, weeks of ignored emails and an SBR inquiry that I got the invitation to call Scotty, who politely erased my winnings. I'm not sweating it, but I guess I expected more based on the A+ rating.

[Gary_Philly]

Well it looks like the Shrink has done a 180 here.

And Scotty is gonna do the right thing.

That's great news.