Rating thoughts: what if Sportsbook.com...

**Peep** · 11-08-10, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

started treating all players fairly. What if they did everything by the book going forward, and followed SBR's recommendations... But, they never fixed the older complaints (like the correlated parlay seizures from earlier).

How would you rate them, if this situation developed and lasted for several years?

Same as an SIA or a Bet365. They would have to boot/limit to coverup their lack of knowing how to set/move a line.

**Arilou** · 11-08-10, 02:26 PM

That would depend on the historical track record of books in similar situations. Have there been many similar ones? What has happened to those books over time?

I'm assuming they should be a few notches lower than they would otherwise be, but should still move up. A long period of good behavior has to strongly predict future behavior, and it's easy to imagine a situation where regardless of what you think of their past behavior it would be effectively impossible for them to properly resolve those complaints now and with a sufficiently long period of time it wouldn't worry me too much as a player.

**katstale** · 11-08-10, 02:30 PM

C+ if the old complaints were not resolved.

**sharpcat** · 11-08-10, 03:35 PM

They do offer more betting options at higher limits than a majority of the books in the business if they proved that they could be trusted moving ahead they could easily be a top book.

**Ian** · 11-08-10, 03:38 PM

If you must move them I wouldn't go higher than C-, but I personally wouldn't move them at all. Just because there aren't any outstanding complaints doesn't mean they aren't doing shady stuff.

For example, last spring on one of the sites that uses the sportsbook.com software I placed a bet on Michael Katsidis to defeat Kevin Mitchell in a boxing match. Apparently I wasn't the only one to back Katsidis because the line moved heavily in the weeks following my bet. Then, out of the blue, my bet was canceled. The site had made a typo on the date of the fight, so long before the fight took place, they canceled all the bets, corrected the typo on the date, and would only take action on Katsidis on the new, less favorable line. When I contacted them they replied with an email stating that the bets were nixed because the fight was canceled and changed to a later date. As proof they sent me a link to Kevin Mitchell's boxrec page, which is nothing more than a win/loss record. I emailed them back with links to news stories from before they posted the line that showed the fight was scheduled for the date it eventually took place. They responded with the same email they sent me before, only without the link.

I didn't file a complaint with SBR because the Katsidis bet was small, and this particular book showers me with bonuses and frequently has lines that differ significantly from what other books have. I didn't want to win the battle on the boxing bet, but lose the war by getting bounced from a goldmine. I can't be the only person that has been screwed over by a sportsbook.com related book in the past year. SBR might not be receiving any complaints, but that doesn't mean the book is behaving with integrity.

**durito** · 11-08-10, 04:13 PM

D. They need to pay the people they stole from first.

**BigDaddy** · 11-08-10, 04:37 PM

sometimes i am just amazed by the questions asked.

**Frank** · 11-08-10, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by BigDaddy

sometimes i am just amazed by the questions asked.

I was never stiffed by any of their books and the question still kinda pisses me off.

Justin wouldn't be asking this if it happened to him......

**big joe 1212** · 11-08-10, 07:26 PM

They should only get a fair rating if they had new owners and new management!

**HedgeHog** · 11-08-10, 07:42 PM

Still a D-. Why should time elapsed excuse their theft?

**Halifax** · 11-08-10, 08:11 PM

People were talking earlier this year about how it had been 2 or 3 years since Jazette confiscated any funds from anyone.

I quickly pointed out that I personally knew of one person who got several thousand dollars confiscated at Sports.com in the Fall of 2009 (about 6 months earlier), and there were no doubt others whose stories I was not familiar with.

So keep in mind, Justin, that it hasn't been 2 or 3 years that have passed since they last stole from people. The "older" complaints (correlated parlays) that you refer to are not the last time that this stuff has happened. They have been confiscating funds well after the "correlated parlay" confiscations occurred. I know of one case a year ago. I'm sure if you asked around, you'd find cases more recent than that.

**skrtelfan** · 11-08-10, 08:29 PM

If they started treating people fairly who's to say they wouldn't go back to their old ways? That was the problem with BetUS when you recommended them for a bit when they'd gotten a bit better, and then they went back to their old scamming ways.

**Thremp** · 11-08-10, 08:31 PM

Do the ratings even matter except when it deals with who John can get handouts from?

**Santo** · 11-08-10, 08:57 PM

It matters why they've changed. If it's new ownership, re-rate them, if it's the same owners then they're still responsible for the debts.

Yes you could argue that new owners should be liable for the debts, but that would often depend on the terms of purchase.

**Justin7** · 11-08-10, 09:34 PM

I think it is the same owners, but a more responsible management. Time will tell.

**Absolutelyonfire** · 11-08-10, 10:19 PM

well seeing you're talking about ratings , SBR has WSEX rated a D and Sportsbook.com rated a D-.

I know who I would rather have my funds with....not even a close contest !!

**increasedodds** · 11-08-10, 11:21 PM

They should be an F. SBR's ratings are a joke.

Once someone steals, they can never be trusted again.

**increasedodds** · 11-08-10, 11:22 PM

Sounds like they must be considering advertising...

**Halifax** · 11-09-10, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

I think it is the same owners, but a more responsible management. Time will tell.

SBR has already floated the "new Jazette management wants to clean up their act and fix their sullied reputation" trial balloon once before, a year or two ago.

SBR said that they were in communication with Jazette upper management, and that management had pledged to change their ways and that they were going to try to convince the owners to pay the people whose funds were confiscated (on the correlated parlays, and a few other incidents).

Since that time, (1) Jazette have continued their confiscations, and (2) they have not repaid the funds that were previously confiscated.

Having said that, 98% of players will continue to play there without problems ... but if they are still screwing over the other 2%, do they really deserve to have their ratings improved ?? I'm not so sure they do.

.

**shooterman** · 11-09-10, 01:55 AM

Would never use them. Off with their hands...

**tblues2005** · 11-09-10, 03:15 AM

I sure would not trust them still.

**frostno98** · 11-09-10, 04:15 AM

I've give them a C+ or B- if all the above is done. The correlated deal was unfortunate, but those players were knowingly taking shots. 5dimes would of dealt with them the same way, so I see no difference their.

Having said that, I still won't play their.

**HedgeHog** · 11-09-10, 06:41 AM

Sportsbook.com is still stealing, just not in the massive style it did in '07. So the question posed is irrelevant IMO.

**Monte** · 11-09-10, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by katstale

C+ if the old complaints were not resolved.

I can see the irony there...Wsex at D coz they have troubles atm (but never stiffed anyone of course, i still get paid rather fast atm btw but i dont use checks),
and Sportsbook.com, Sbg global, betphoenix and whatever other shitplaces there are sitting at Bs and Cs. Can you say Fukkup

**Dark Horse** · 11-09-10, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

I think it is the same owners, but a more responsible management. Time will tell.

The scorpion needed a ride across the lake. The fox said 'no way, you'll sting me'. The scorpion goes 'no, because that would kill us both'. So the fox gives in. About halfway across the lake the scorpion stings the fox. 'What did you do that for? Now we both drown!', the fox says angrily. 'Can't help it. It's my nature' were the last words of the scorpion.

No upgrade until they pay people the money they stole. No points for good behavior, at zero cost to them, until they correct their past crimes. Setting this type of precedent is entering dangerous ground. It would open the door for everybody else to steal and act like nothing happened.

**David** · 11-09-10, 03:15 PM

I would raise their rating but nothing higher than C+/B- until old complaints are made good.

**HedgeHog** · 11-10-10, 06:43 AM

Any update on this recent potential theft by SB?:

10.25.2010 03:37 PM
Sportsbook.com Group: Iwager.com voids players casino winnings
Iwager (SBR rating D-) complaint. In early October, a player deposited $1000 into Iwager's casino, and received a $250 bonus. After meeting the terms of the bonus, he had a balance of $4000. When the player requested a withdrawal, Iwager forfeited his winnings without providing an explanation. Iwager is part of the Sportsbook.com Group. SBR is attempting to discuss this dispute with Iwager.

**Justin7** · 11-10-10, 09:42 AM

Nice reminder HedgeHog. I'm taking another swing on this old Iwager complaint with the new contact.

**crinkle** · 11-10-10, 09:50 AM

for years all I've read is negativity regarding sportsbook.com and their family of books. I believe it's more nonsense than anything else. I would give them an A rating any day of the week. Every book out there will take your money if you break their rules. Perhaps some are more aggressive than others at enforcing their policies but sportsbook.com doesn't just take your money for being a good boy.

**HedgeHog** · 11-10-10, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by crinkle

for years all I've read is negativity regarding sportsbook.com and their family of books. I believe it's more nonsense than anything else. I would give them an A rating any day of the week. Every book out there will take your money if you break their rules. Perhaps some are more aggressive than others at enforcing their policies but sportsbook.com doesn't just take your money for being a good boy.

And you know this how? Besides the correlated parlay theft, SB stole from "multiple" account holders. With over three dozen Jazette skins, SB practically encourages playing at more than one of their outlets. Then they have the nerve to use this as a reason to confiscate funds. It would be like Bookmaker stealing your money because you also have a DSI account.

**Justin7** · 11-10-10, 10:56 AM

Hedge,

It looks like that Iwager dispute was resolved, but neither side bothered telling me. My new contact at Jazette told me that the player provided additional ID, and his account was reinstated.

**HedgeHog** · 11-10-10, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

Hedge,

It looks like that Iwager dispute was resolved, but neither side bothered telling me. My new contact at Jazette told me that the player provided additional ID, and his account was reinstated.

Good to hear. Maybe there is hope for them going forward. TY for the update.

**Thremp** · 11-10-10, 11:04 AM

I would spring for a upgrade to the low C level. But SBR ratings are comical. BetPhoenix as a B? John needs to eat though.

**tommygun** · 11-10-10, 11:20 AM

fck that, def. d- and below. what is the new management doing to recoupe players funds? probly nothing.