Wilheim/TheRX's Decision of EasyStreet Casino dispute

[Eagle1958]

Pay Cory now. What's fair is fair.

[Scooter]

Wil recovered tens of thousands of dollars for players that got stiffed from BoS and made sure players got paid 5 years ago.

You keep parroting this in multiple threads.

I have no way of knowing if this is true, but assuming it is:

So what?

[jgilmartin]

Complete ******* joke. Polygraphs are woefully inaccurate. Anyone in their right mind would refuse to take one.

[STAY STRONG]

easystreet is a shit book. stay away.

[MBENZ]

Wil also failed to uncover 100's of thousands in that same BOS Fiasco. I alone got ****** out of more than he was able to recover.

Yeah,a shitload of us never got squat in fact he banned my ass in 07 for questioning his Kaplan love.He is a friggin shill and any other shit book over there is safe as long as he is considered mediator.

[HedgeHog]

Did Wil steal?

Technically yes. Wil is an accomplice after the fact.

[LegitBet]

What a great endorsement for bots!
Please please can we get an official response from DGS re 'overloading the RNG'

[vitalyo]

Thieves !
Easystreet should be rated F

[BuckeyeT]

And all of a sudden they come up with this "46K" VP tourney.

Wonder where that figure came from.

You just know wil the shill and EZ are sitting back laffin there asses off over this whole thing.

I know i may have just signed up at SBR but i have been playing offshore for over 8 years and if EZ is not downgraded to D-or F something is seriously wrong with this business.

[justonetime]

I stopped reading therx a long time ago but now will never go back. Ridiculous really. Karma is a bitch though.

[HedgeHog]

And all of a sudden they come up with this "46K" VP tourney.

Wonder where that figure came from.

You just know wil the shill and EZ are sitting back laffin there asses off over this whole thing.

I know i may have just signed up at SBR but i have been playing offshore for over 8 years and if EZ is not downgraded to D-or F something is seriously wrong with this business.

We all know where the $$$ came from. EZ should at least name the contest after their inadvertent sponsor, Cory 1111--with four aces paying extra.

[shari91]

And all of a sudden they come up with this "46K" VP tourney.

I've refrained from saying a word on this whole thing for various reasons although I've been following this closely both here and elsewhere from day one. But I'm so disgusted that I feel like I have to say this: If this was happening at SBR right now, I'd be ashamed to be employed here. This contest, with that $ figure mentioned, is one of the most classless things I've seen a 'business' do in awhile, regardless of the industry.

You want to outright steal? Go for it. That sadly makes you not much different than many who came before you and those who will follow. But this contest takes the bloody cake.

[Fishhead]

If ever the world unbelievable needs to be used, this would be it............

[LGBoots]

Microgaming offer fast 'Autoplay' & does not seem to cause 'overloading of the RNG'

Actually if this were April 1st I would think that the RX decision on this was an April Fool.

Why on earth they didn't get the 'Wizard Of Odds' to do the maths on this dispute is beyond me. Actually it is not really 'beyond me' because we all know (as does the RX) what conclusions he would have come to

Even someone with just a basic grasp of Math (Such as myself) can see how flawed the results of the so called 'expert' the RX used is

[stevenash]

You keep parroting this in multiple threads.

I have no way of knowing if this is true, but assuming it is:

So what?

It means he went the extra mile for the player, he didn't have to do that.
You guys come across as Wil is the second coming of Hitler.


If true? You really don't follow the off shore industry much, do you?
There are plenty of posters here that could back that up.

[stevenash]

Polygraphs are woefully inaccurate.

While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors can occur. According to the American Polygraph Association over 250 studies have been conducted on the accuracy of polygraph testing during the past 25 years. Recent research reveals that the accuracy of the new computerized polygraph stytem is close to 100%.

Most errors occur with inexperienced polygraph examiners. Just as one doctor can look at an x-ray, and not see a problem, while the next, more experienced doctor can, so it goes with polygraph charts.

Occationaly you will hear reports from those who fear the polygraph may not be accurate. The APA answers them with this:

One of the problems in discussing accuracy figures and the differences between the statistics quoted by proponents and opponents of the polygraph technique is the way that the figures are calculated. At the risk of over simplification, critics, who often don't understand polygraph testing, classify inconclusive test results as errors. In the real life setting an inconclusive result simply means that the examiner is unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a second examination is usually conducted at a later date. To illustrate how the inclusion of inconclusive test results can distort accuracy figures, consider the following example: If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.) Since those who use polygraph testing do not consider inconclusive test results as negative, and do not hold them against the examinee, to consider them as errors is clearly misleading and certainly skews the figures.

[yokspot]

My post above, which I put at RX also, was deleted. I thought it might be, which is why I copied it here.

Hmm...my post found it's way back. It definitely WAS removed, as it was on page 35, and when I checked back a bit later there were only 34 pages, so there was trimming. It was put back, though.

[KEdge2k]

While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors can occur. According to the American Polygraph Association over 250 studies have been conducted on the accuracy of polygraph testing during the past 25 years. Recent research reveals that the accuracy of the new computerized polygraph stytem is close to 100%.

Most errors occur with inexperienced polygraph examiners. Just as one doctor can look at an x-ray, and not see a problem, while the next, more experienced doctor can, so it goes with polygraph charts.

Occationaly you will hear reports from those who fear the polygraph may not be accurate. The APA answers them with this:

One of the problems in discussing accuracy figures and the differences between the statistics quoted by proponents and opponents of the polygraph technique is the way that the figures are calculated. At the risk of over simplification, critics, who often don't understand polygraph testing, classify inconclusive test results as errors. In the real life setting an inconclusive result simply means that the examiner is unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a second examination is usually conducted at a later date. To illustrate how the inclusion of inconclusive test results can distort accuracy figures, consider the following example: If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.) Since those who use polygraph testing do not consider inconclusive test results as negative, and do not hold them against the examinee, to consider them as errors is clearly misleading and certainly skews the figures.

What about false positives? I mean polygraphs measure no more than the physiological changes that occur when a person answers a question. The assumption is that a physiological change in an answer that is different from the control questions indicates lying or deceptive. Couldn't it just as easily indicate nervousness? Anxiety?

Completely unreliable and THAT is the reason they are not admissible in court in general.

[HedgeHog]

It means he went the extra mile for the player, he didn't have to do that.
You guys come across as Wil is the second coming of Hitler.


If true? You really don't follow the off shore industry much, do you?
There are plenty of posters here that could back that up.

We get your loyalty to Wilheim, but I think that clouds your view on the Cory case. I don't see Wilheim as a Hitler. He's more of a Sgt Schultz (Hogan's Heroes tv character), which I guess makes EZ Col. Klink.

EZ: I'm going to steal Cory's casino winnings.

Wil: I see nothing! NOTH--ING!!!!

[stevenash]

OK, here's my take.

EZ is not a top rated book, not even close to it, I wouldn't play there, not if they give me 1.00 for my 0.10
Corey is not a reputable player either, he's been implicated (I can or can not prove this, but from what I read) in back charging schemes.
For the most part, I think what SBR does is terrific.
Wil is a decent person. (over / under is 5 minutes before somebody cracks wise on this comment), but he is.

I still say Corey, if he indeed riped off books, pay that back, after doing so (if true) both sides should sit down and come to some sort of happy settlement.

I'm not defending either party, both parties involved have issues.

[BuckeyeT]

What happened at the "other books" is between the other books and Corey.

EZ should have no say in that or even bring it up.

If i went to Sears and stole that is between me and Sears.

That doesnt mean that Walmart can take my money then not give me my product cuz of what happened at sears and thats exactly what EZ is doing here they are just using this "bot", which has not been proven as an excuse.

[mikeyg]

This is just another excuse Sleazysports is using not to pay Cory

What he has done or not done at other books has no bearing on them. He never did anything to them as far as fraudulant deposits

Sleazy is grasping at straws

They are thieves... Plain and simple!!!

[Thremp]

Again, robbing one person is immaterial to EZnigs robbery.

[tommygun]

We get your loyalty to Wilheim, but I think that clouds your view on the Cory case. I don't see Wilheim as a Hitler. He's more of a Sgt Schultz (Hogan's Heroes tv character), which I guess makes EZ Col. Klink. EZ: I'm going to steal Cory's casino winnings. Wil: I see nothing! NOTH--ING!!!!

hahaha, your on fire today hedgehog

[KGambler]

While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors can occur. According to the American Polygraph Association over 250 studies have been conducted on the accuracy of polygraph testing during the past 25 years. Recent research reveals that the accuracy of the new computerized polygraph stytem is close to 100%.

Most errors occur with inexperienced polygraph examiners. Just as one doctor can look at an x-ray, and not see a problem, while the next, more experienced doctor can, so it goes with polygraph charts.

Occationaly you will hear reports from those who fear the polygraph may not be accurate. The APA answers them with this:

One of the problems in discussing accuracy figures and the differences between the statistics quoted by proponents and opponents of the polygraph technique is the way that the figures are calculated. At the risk of over simplification, critics, who often don't understand polygraph testing, classify inconclusive test results as errors. In the real life setting an inconclusive result simply means that the examiner is unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a second examination is usually conducted at a later date. To illustrate how the inclusion of inconclusive test results can distort accuracy figures, consider the following example: If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.) Since those who use polygraph testing do not consider inconclusive test results as negative, and do not hold them against the examinee, to consider them as errors is clearly misleading and certainly skews the figures.

What does the American Psychics Association have to say about the accuracy of Extra-Sensory Perception?

Do you even realize who you are quoting? This is all just pure nonsense.

I will wager my own $50K that ezstreet's CR polygraph expert cannot distinguish between my telling the truth or lying, using his "lie detector". Using a "computerized system" would be OK as well. With the accuracy nearly 100%, this is free money!

[chase hardy]

What a joke of a statement! They cant afford to pay the man and thats it!

[Scooter]

What does the American Psychics Association have to say about the accuracy of Extra-Sensory Perception?

Do you even realize who you are quoting? This is all just pure nonsense.

I will wager my own $50K that ezstreet's CR polygraph expert cannot distinguish between my telling the truth or lying, using his "lie detector". Using a "computerized system" would be OK as well. With the accuracy nearly 100%, this is free money!

Stevenash defends the use of the polygraph by using a press release from their own lobbying group.

[Trident]

Wil recovered tens of thousands of dollars for players that got stiffed from BoS and made sure players got paid 5 years ago.

He didn't recover squat, the owner of RX personally guaranteed players balances and had to go into his pockets to pay off balances.

[scarface]

i can't believe you guys would side with someone who has a history of casino fraud and chargebacks...cory you dug your own grave

[Scooter]

stevenash - "It means he went the extra mile for the player, he didn't have to do that."

I have no idea if he went an extra mile or not.

But either way, this is irrelevant.

You've made it clear to all that you like Will.
So what?


Whatever he did 5 years ago, and the fact that you like him, doesn't justify his active participation in the theft of a player's winnings.

[stevenash]

Stevenash defends the use of the polygraph by using a press release from their own lobbying group.

I like Wil, he's always treated me more than right, but like Corey, EZ also has issues.
If EZ offered me 1.00 to my 0.10 I'd turn that down, that's what I think of them.

I personally think Corey is scum, doesn't mean I like EZ either, I don't, but unlike 75 percent of you, I'm not going to genuflect to Corey and suck his e-penis.

Some of you act like Corey is a third grade nerd who's lunch money got taken from him.

[HedgeHog]

I like Wil, he's always treated me more than right, but like Corey, EZ also has issues.
If EZ offered me 1.00 to my 0.10 I'd turn that down, that's what I think of them.

I personally think Corey is scum, doesn't mean I like EZ either, I don't, but unlike 75 percent of you, I'm not going to genuflect to Corey and suck his e-penis.

Some of you act like Corey is a third grade nerd who's lunch money got taken from him.

No, you'd rather bend over for Shilheim and take it up your e-ass.

[stevenash]

No, you'd rather bend over for Shilheim and take it up your e-ass.

Stay classy HedgeHog, stay classy dude.

[KEdge2k]

wrong thread.

[stevenash]

Riddle me this?

If you ran an OS book, would you want Corey as your customer?