Bill Dozer and WW vs BJ

[magnavox]

Bill Dozer went ahead and publically assured Scotty, that BJ will remain A+ book regardless of their decision on those horse racing dupes. With WW it has been much to the contrary.

I would like to see some opinions on this matter of very similar cases. Don't you think, that BJ eventually paying made SBR look like fools and "forced" them to downgrade WW just to save some of their credibility?

[eric dy]

No. I disagree. From what I have read it seems like Bill Dozer and SBR worked with BetJam and took care of the customer. Seems like this is their purpose in life and they should be commended versus this ridiculous post.

In addition, I would assume Bill Dozer and SBR are working with WagerWeb to try to come to a mutually agreeable decision.

It appears that comparing BetJam to WagerWeb is like comparing apples to oranges.

[magnavox]

It's not like apples to oranges, I'm talking about the principals here. And you read wrong, as both Bill & John were against the player being paid in full from the start.

[Thremp]

I think SBR is shady on this biz.

[BigBollocks]

WW shouldn't pay that man a penny. I didn't think BetJamaica had to either, but could see the player's case in that one. I NEVER thought I'd be on this side, but SBR has turned into a site for scammers, shot takers, and small timers. Everytime SBR doesn't rule for the player, every two bit poster with less than 100 posts comes out of the woodwork calling for Bill, John, or Justin's head. SBR really needs to evaluate who they are out to assist, and not burn bridges with books backing up players in fraudulent cases...

[Dark Horse]

Just not true. The cases that are made public here by SBR invariably show that each is weighed very carefully; without the oversimplification behind this thread.

[Bill Dozer]

We have taken second looks before and we have disagreed publicly with A rated book decisions before. Shortly after my initial email to the player we had a new conclusion and we talked with Scotty about why. We had more information about the situation supporting that it was not as simple as a glitch in race software allowing the player to break a rule. BetJam wanted to get it right and take responsibility. There is no need to make a statement when a book is open to new views. A site may want to be perceived as influencial by taking the player's position when they understand the tide is about to turn but that's not something needed when in a mediating role.

In Wagerweb's case, they have admitted fault and initially said they were leaning towards a compromise. They admitted to knowing that bets can be taken in that manner but don't like how the player took advantage and are using what he did through the life of his account to label him as someone undeserving of his entire balance. Wagerweb is seeking assistance from us on software configurations and rules but won't take any responsibility for what happened thus far. WW claims they have a rule on past-posting which is evidently selectively applied. Had they had a rule stating that any player who bet after the official start time is eligible to have their wager no-actioned, including losers refunded, that would be an applicable rule. WagerWeb is either ignorant to how NFL bookmaking is handled or they want their cake and to eat it to.

The downgrade is the result of this and other minor complaints. We have some new complaints to address monday.

[SBR_John]

Mag you are certainly wrong about us being against the player in the BetJM case. From the facts we had early on it looked like a case of circumventing limits. BetJM made an oversight in that case.

Why would you say we would never downgrade BetJM? We have in the past over less, I think it was chronic server issues.

Otherwise, thanks for the comments.