EZStreet theft, deception and TheRx whitewashing Video (banned at TheRx)

**Extra Innings** · 04-09-11, 02:54 AM

Wow...they just deleted 2 pages after that post

**Eleven** · 04-09-11, 03:58 AM

A third arbitrator should get called upon and act as a tie-breaker.

**LegitBet** · 04-09-11, 04:19 AM

Very impressive.
I think the name of the expert is not as important as is his response to each and every one of Justin7's points.
"long live the polo logo!"

**slash** · 04-09-11, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Eleven

A third arbitrator should get called upon and act as a tie-breaker.

A third? As far as I know, only Justin has mediated this case...

**darrell74** · 04-09-11, 05:05 AM

Looks like easy street just took a big public relations hit

Do they have any affiliated books?

Is Cory gonna get his money?
When is the software company gonna display the results of the royals?

I'd like to know how this ends.

**Grandmaster B** · 04-09-11, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

A nice effort, which will likely be rewarded by deleting your post and putting you on post review. You'll always be free to post here though

**Dark Horse** · 04-09-11, 05:50 AM

Before taking sides, more should be known about the charge back history of this player. I personally feel that a player who does charge backs gives up his rights to fair settlements. Why would I care if a thief runs into another thief? This player is just as D- as the book. They deserve each other. If he already knew he would do a charge back if he lost, he could take far greater risks, so the 46K is a disproportional amount in winnings. The fact that he admitted to doing charge backs does not suddenly make him an honest player. And the fact that he won big at other casinos only underscores that point. This guy is a hit-or-miss type of player, who charges back after a miss. I don't really understand why such a crucial point is so easily overlooked here. It is at least as important as the cheating by the book. I also think it is completely fair for books to share info on which players have done charge backs. Such players should be blacklisted.

**Monte** · 04-09-11, 05:51 AM

TheRx are the biggest bunch of assholes i ever came across on the internet.
Having SBG Global as sponsor for years and years now, deleting posts as they wish, but talking about honesty and helping people out.
Those ppl only deserve one thing - and that is being locked into a ******* jail cell.

**shari91** · 04-09-11, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Before taking sides, more should be known about the charge back history of this player. I personally feel that a player who does charge backs gives up his rights to fair settlements. Why would I care if a thief runs into another thief? This player is just as D- as the book. They deserve each other. If he already knew he would do a charge back if he lost, he could take far greater risks, so the 46K is a disproportional amount in winnings. The fact that he admitted to doing charge backs does not suddenly make him an honest player. I don't really understand why such a crucial point is so easily overlooked here. It is at least as important as the cheating by the book. I also think it is completely fair for books to share info on which players have done charge backs. Such players should be blacklisted.

In this case there wasn't any possibility of Cory doing a charge back. His deposits were all made in cash. That's why the issue has been deemed moot in this case.

**MBENZ** · 04-09-11, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Before taking sides, more should be known about the charge back history of this player. I personally feel that a player who does charge backs gives up his rights to fair settlements. Why would I care if a thief runs into another thief? This player is just as D- as the book. They deserve each other. If he already knew he would do a charge back if he lost, he could take far greater risks, so the 46K is a disproportional amount in winnings. The fact that he admitted to doing charge backs does not suddenly make him an honest player. I don't really understand why such a crucial point is so easily overlooked here. It is at least as important as the cheating by the book.

How do you ********** cash deposits?I know he isn't snow white but this should only be judged on the facts of this case and this case alone.This outfit will be exposed for what they are before this is over.

**Dark Horse** · 04-09-11, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by shari91

In this case there wasn't any possibility of Cory doing a charge back. His deposits were all made in cash. That's why the issue has been deemed moot in this case.

He's still a thief for the other charge backs, which puts him in the same boat as the stealing book. We don't know how much money this guy owes other books. And until that is clear it is too early to consider that history irrelevant. What goes around comes around type of 'justice'. To illustrate. If he won 26K somewhere else with a hit or miss strategy (charging back for the misses), is that 26K still his money? And does a cash deposit from those winnings qualify as his money? Nothing is isolated here. I would consider all of this as stolen money. A sh*t book and a sh*t player. F*ck them both.

**shari91** · 04-09-11, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

He's still a thief for the other charge backs, which puts him in the same boat as the stealing book. We don't know how much money this guy owes other books. And until that is clear it is too early to consider that history irrelevant. What goes around comes around type of 'justice'.

I understand what you're saying but I guess I got confused with your post, as it appears MBenz did, by this statement:

"If he already knew he would do a charge back if he lost, he could take far greater risks, so the 46K is a disproportional amount in winnings."

I was just explaining that he couldn't have done a charge back if he lost as there was nothing to charge back here.

**Santo** · 04-09-11, 06:21 AM

We know they were P2P (as brands are blocked), but do we know they were cash? RX posters claim you can ********** a P2P CC deposit...

**Dark Horse** · 04-09-11, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by shari91

I understand what you're saying but I guess I got confused with your post, as it appears MBenz did, by this statement:

"If he already knew he would do a charge back if he lost, he could take far greater risks, so the 46K is a disproportional amount in winnings."

I was just explaining that he couldn't have done a charge back if he lost as there was nothing to charge back here.

Does that matter? Those cash deposits could be entirely made up of stolen funds (see addition to my above post)?

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 06:54 AM

WALT DISNEY himself would have had a difficult time coming up with this.....................Geezus H. Crickets

Now that we have a resolution of this issue, EasyStreetSports moving forward is pleased to announce that we will be having a CR VIDEO POKER CONTEST

The reason for this contest is to show the public that this was never about the money, but the principle of running a fair operation for all players.

This contest will be held in Costa Rica at an announced venue and the chosen contestants will have their expenses paid.

Total cash awards could exceed $46,000.

* The Contest will be held in beautiful Costa Rica.
* A total of 6 contestants will be chosen to participate.
* 3 posters from the RX & 3 posters from SBR.
* To be eligible for this event, posters must have at least 1000 posts prior to March 1st.
* Contestants must have registered for an Easy Street account, but no deposit is required.
* Selected contestants will receive round trip airfare, hotel accommodations and transportation to and from the event.
* Local forum moderators will be invited to observe the contest.
* The contest venue will be made public.
* Overall Winner will receive 10,000 in Cash!
* 2nd through 6th place will ALL walk away with prizes.

Stay tuned for the full details to be posted next week.

Full details of the contest and the rules will be posted soon, so please stay tuned.

**Eleven** · 04-09-11, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by slash

A third? As far as I know, only Justin has mediated this case...

Its like politics now, anybody who has an opinion is accused of having a dog in the race, so finding someone who doesnt have a dog in the race is what Im saying, a watchdog cant have sponsors. I dont care either way, I stick to british books anyway, and this fiasco only reinforces my stance.

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Eleven

Its like politics now, anybody who has an opinion is accused of having a dog in the race, so finding someone who doesnt have a dog in the race is what Im saying, a watchdog cant have sponsors. I dont care either way, I stick to british books anyway, and this fiasco only reinforces my stance.

Hundreds, and probably thousands, have viewed ALL THE EVIDENCE that has been made public and over 90% are siding with the player...................I think that's a pretty damn good 3RD PARTY in itself.

**shari91** · 04-09-11, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Does that matter? Those cash deposits could be entirely made up of stolen funds (see addition to my above post)?

You're right, they definitely could have been if Cory did indeed do all or some of the charge backs that he's rumoured to have done.

I'm a very big believer in karma. But I think this would have sat better with me if Alex or Marvin had come out and said "The guy has scammed xx, xx, xx, xx books (and provided proof of this) so we decided to freeroll his 11 deposits with no intention of paying out if he won."

But they didn't say that. Instead you have Wilheim going on about this guy's past and a few posters here who are rather vocal in their support of EasyStreet.

So if the book itself isn't saying that this is their reason for non payment, I don't see how his past should be considered a factor. The reasons for their non payment should be analysed and obviously proven on their end, regardless of what fellow posters may think of him as a person.

Although again - I do believe each of us reaps what we sow in this world.

**MBENZ** · 04-09-11, 07:36 AM

Since EZ sees fit to withhold a players money as they conclude is a fraud,why don't they use that money to pay the credit players they defrauded instead of holding some stupid contest.An RX mod openly admitted that they have credit players that were stiffed.This place reeks and anybody that deposits and gets stiffed now deserves it.

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by MBENZ

Since EZ sees fit to withhold a players money as they conclude is a fraud,why don't they use that money to pay the credit players they defrauded instead of holding some stupid contest.An RX mod openly admitted that they have credit players that were stiffed.This place reeks and anybody that deposits and gets stiffed now deserves it.

I missed this, is this indeed a fact?

**MBENZ** · 04-09-11, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Fishhead

I missed this, is this indeed a fact?

Check out post 22-31.

EasyStreet stiffs player for 56k ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)

**MBENZ** · 04-09-11, 08:12 AM

Sorry Fish,this place is not allowing to paste thread.It's in the main thread at Peeps about EZ.

EasyStreet stiffs player for 56k ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Grand Slam

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 04-09-11, 08:25 AM

=BINOMDIST(E152,21815,0.00002476,FALSE)

0 58.266%
1 31.473%
2 8.500%
3 1.530%
4 0.207%
5 0.022%
6 0.002%
7 0.000%

(to 3 dec places, there's never exactly 0%)

>2.5 1.76% = 1 in 57

Anyone want to check?

**Justin7** · 04-09-11, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Climate

Justin why use a Poisson Dist? Poisson is more suited to problems where the number of trials is unknown but you can define the average number of successes in a fixed period of time.

In this case we know the number of trials and can define the probability of success for each trial. So solving for the binomial dist is more suitable. My calculations show that getting 3 or more royal flushes in 21,000 hands has a probability of 1.6353% or roughly 1 in 61.

Did you use a binomial distribution? Show your work. Others using a binom got a very similar result to Poisson.

**Justin7** · 04-09-11, 08:50 AM

Ok. I made a mistake somewhere. I agree it is very close to 2%.

**darrell74** · 04-09-11, 08:55 AM

SBR and Rx moderators in the same room.

Could be a little tension, huh.

**empty cookie jar** · 04-09-11, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by fishhead

hundreds, and probably thousands, have viewed all the evidence that has been made public and over 90% are siding with the player...................i think that's a pretty damn good 3rd party in itself.

wrong

**Extra Innings** · 04-09-11, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

Ok. I made a mistake somewhere. I agree it is very close to 2%.

Doesn't make a difference if it was .002%, 3% or 7%.

It's fair to say 2% is far from improbable which proves the point.

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by empty cookie jar

wrong

I should have said over 90% that are not BIASED in either way, sorry.

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Extra Innings

Doesn't make a difference if it was .002%, 3% or 7%.

It's fair to say 2% is far from improbable which proves the point.

It's totally irrelevant and why all this Royal frequency bullshit should never be mentioned again........

**pokerplayer22** · 04-09-11, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by MBENZ

Since EZ sees fit to withhold a players money as they conclude is a fraud,why don't they use that money to pay the credit players they defrauded instead of holding some stupid contest.An RX mod openly admitted that they have credit players that were stiffed.This place reeks and anybody that deposits and gets stiffed now deserves it.

I didnt know of this either. But obviously it comes as no shock that they defrauded other players also. It's known in this industry as pulling a "Powers".

But you're right, they should at the very least, use that money to pay back their previous stiff jobs

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by pokerplayer22

I didnt know of this either. But obviously it comes as no shock that they defrauded other players also. It's known in this industry as pulling a "Powers".

But you're right, they should at the very least, use that money to pay back their previous stiff jobs

They owe Cory............this making it up by paying others or running a contest and other similar offers is not solving this matter in a responsible way.

Cory1111 is the person owed the funds.

**ufcmma36** · 04-09-11, 10:38 AM

I hope SBR takes all the winnings in that contest!!!!

**Fishhead** · 04-09-11, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by ufcmma36

I hope SBR takes all the winnings in that contest!!!!

The contest is an insult to the vast majority of postup players that are aware of the dispute.

**ufcmma36** · 04-09-11, 10:42 AM

I agreee! maybe SBR could win and give 10K to Cory? Its pretty screwed... But if they send you an email saying you have been chosen you wont go to CR?