Player thoughts on a possible dispute?

[bubba]

We don't call people. We don't have their phone number because you can play anonymously. All we have is the email.

It is ironic that the player with the issue is still wagering with us and yet people who have never played with us are convinced we are somehow taking a shot at the player. I would suggest since the knowledgeable experienced player doesn't think we are taking a shot at him then nobody else should either.

why did the player contact sbr if he didnt think you guys did something wrong?!?!?

[Max009]

why did the player contact sbr if he didnt think you guys did something wrong?!?!?

Just because a player has a grievance doesn't mean they are always right. On forums there is a strong tendency to say everything the books do is bad and the players are always the victim. Sometimes there is just a disagreement about things without either party having to hate the other party when it is over. Things can be discussed and then the parties move on.

[Max009]

max - you are consistant - you just can't keep yourself from pointing out why you are right. what are you trying to accomplish by taking shots at posters here. your arrogance is profound and childish.

You are consistent as well. You want to portray us, without any basis, as the evil book and don't like it when we don't accept your label. I for one think dialogue is helpful for both the books and the players. Even when we disagree.

[relaaxx]

You are consistent as well. You want to portray us, without any basis, as the evil book and don't like it when we don't accept your label. I for one think dialogue is helpful for both the books and the players. Even when we disagree.

i do not mind differences in opinions. between posters. i don't like books coming on here picking at different details to show why they are right. don't you have an agreement with SBR for this. then shut up and let them do their job like almost every other good book. all the shit books keep going on and on about every post and every detail. this forum and others like it were set up because of books ripping off people not people ripping off books.and there was no consequence for thier theft.. now there is. books lose money, the only thing they understand. but somehow you don't. you just keep coming back here. answering every poster. explaining how wrong they are. with your help this thread will last months. for every poster that agrees with you there will be one that doesn't. let me help you with the match. let's say you offend 1 person a day. if you had shut up after the 1st day, that would be 1 person you pissed off. let's say you shut up after the second day, that would be 2 people you pissed off so far. ok, this is where it gets tricky. how many people do you piss off if you still are here tomorrow running your mouth. hint=3rd day. ---------------------go tell SBR what you think are the facts. i for 2 just do not care what you have to say. i do care about every posters opinion.

[austin]

too much negativity, they should have taken the hit or resolved this outside the public forum. this does not do any good for their reputation, although i had only good experience with them

[msdw1]

The book is at fault. It accepted wagers at legit lines.

Imagine what an unscrupulous bookie would do. He would reject the multiple bets if the line moves against him. If the line moves in the bookie's favor, then he does nothing.

I have to wonder how a book can't have software that checks for such a basic and important figure. They must have other issues as well.

[pinionboy]

I've always been amazed. If your software doesn't allow it then it wouldn't happen. It's pretty simple to restrict a limit on one event with software.

[Dark Horse]

I've always been amazed. If your software doesn't allow it then it wouldn't happen. It's pretty simple to restrict a limit on one event with software.

At other books it seems a pretty simple matter, but Max has already told people they know nothing about programming and that it is not simple at all. One way to translate that would be that those other books are way ahead of PM.

[pokerplayer22]

The fiunny thing is, Ive never even heard of parlaymakers. Could it be that they are a fly by night shop (like Wagerhub) and doesnt even have the 4 or 5k to pay? You would think that if they were a reputable book that they might just suck it up, pay the player because of their software error, and show us sick degenerates that they are an honest shop and probably earn more deposits from us.

[Dark Horse]

No, they're set up in a rather original way (that takes a lot of thought). Not remotely in the same boat as WH.

[Glitch]

the second and succeeding bets made the player exceed the limit. if this was allowed- why would there even be a limit?

the bets were cancelled before the game- showing that this is policy. the bets were accepted because of a software flaw, not flip-flopping on their position regarding a rule.

[tomcowley]

the second and succeeding bets made the player exceed the limit. if this was allowed- why would there even be a limit?

the bets were cancelled before the game- showing that this is policy. the bets were accepted because of a software flaw, not flip-flopping on their position regarding a rule.

Why do people have trouble with the concept that a shitton of books will willingly take multiple limit bets from the same person? Oh, yeah, probably because they've never done it.

[Santo]

Books will do it, but the primary question here is about the published rule...

[tomcowley]

I know, he's just like the 30th donk who's come on here saying the exact same thing without reading the thread.

[ShamsWoof10]

I don't think Max has done anything but make his point and there is nothing wrong with that..

What I find interesting, I've asked "CLooo' about this before and recieved no answer, is why don't we ever hear about a player being in the wrong when he files a dispute with SBR as it's ALWAYS the books fault...

What are the odds that there is no one here that ever tries to get over on a book?

Hi Hedgey.. good luck today

[durito]

I don't think Max has done anything but make his point and there is nothing wrong with that..

What I find interesting, I've asked "CLooo' about this before and recieved no answer, is why don't we ever hear about a player being in the wrong when he files a dispute with SBR as it's ALWAYS the books fault...

What are the odds that there is no one here that ever tries to get over on a book?

Hi Hedgey.. good luck today

Justin said most of the complaints he gets are without merit.

[skrtelfan]

Why do people have trouble with the concept that a shitton of books will willingly take multiple limit bets from the same person? Oh, yeah, probably because they've never done it.

So if you withdraw $500 from 30 ATMs and 1 ATM gives you $500 and the other 29 give you $5000 does that mean it's ok to keep the $5000???

Max's analogy about banking errors was quite erudite IMO.

[jonny]

So if you withdraw $500 from 30 ATMs and 1 ATM gives you $500 and the other 29 give you $5000 does that mean it's ok to keep the $5000???

Max's analogy about banking errors was quite erudite IMO.

I don't have the encompassing vocab you do, but you are a ******* moron. He didn't bet $1000 on +100, and erroneously receive $10000 in winnings. Max is clearly scrambling here, just pay the guy, and if you can't fix the software (???) put the rule in big ******* font at the top of the page and move on.

[MadTiger]

While I don't think he was in the right, I would have paid OP to keep a 5-page thread off of SBR. That's for sure.

[Justin7]

The book and the player settled this dispute, giving the player a $1600 freeplay. All is well that ends well.

[relaaxx]

The book and the player settled this dispute, giving the player a $1600 freeplay. All is well that ends well.

player must be satisfied to settle for the freeplay to end this dispute- so i guess he knows he was at least in part at fault also - good to hear they were able to come to an agreement -- also good to hear the outcome from justin7 and/or SBR. also good not hearing from max yesterday or today.

[horsiehung]

i totally agree with darkhorse

[LGBoots]

Well at least they cancelled before the game rather then taking a 'shot' at the player like quite a few books would have

I think the freeplay offered is a good result for the punter

[horsiehung]

they have software that should be able to deal with this, and it shouldn't even be an issue!@

[Dark Horse]

The book and the player settled this dispute, giving the player a $1600 freeplay. All is well that ends well.

Fair.

Can we know who suggested this solution?