-
Okay, well now I'm a bit wigged out - I talked to Lou about this a few days ago. I got a pretty nasty email too from a Gmail account. Whomever it was knows about my son, my going to the Bash, etc... and they wanted me to post something nice about EZ Street at the Rx.Comment -
If you read this thread it might give you a better understanding of these scuzballs.
So who is easystreet sports?Comment -
EasyStreet = buried.Comment -
WizardOfOdds article in top three of an "easystreet sports" Google search.Comment -
...
Comment -
Comment -
-
you go head and kiss my dang ole nut sackComment -
The RX is awful, I don't know why a single person would log in to those crooks anymore.Comment -
The player is a fraud with multiple chargebacks to his name. In my opinion that automatically disqualifies him from any 'justice' or fair settlements in disputes with books. It doesn't matter that, in this case, the deposits were cash, because his entire bankroll should be considered as stolen funds (unless and until it is made precisely clear how much he charged back, which is a topic SBR didn't come remotely close to investigating with the same focus as the book's fraud).
Players who do chargebacks are not deserving of SBR's assistance. Justin focused on the issue as if it is isolated from the chargebacks, but that presents a false picture. Anyone who does chargebacks can basically go all in with every bet, and only keep the winning accounts. The cash deposits here are meaningless, because the money was already stolen. Again, the 'correct' approach towards players who do chargebacks, in my view, is to consider their entire bankroll as stolen funds. If such players wish to prove differently, the burden of proof is on them. These type of players do not deserve any support from honest players (who do you think they're stealing from? If you were wondering, imagine a run on the bank at a book).
Conclusion. Good job by Justin for unmasking EZstreet as a fraudulent book; but that is all that was achieved here. If SBR wishes to use this as an example of assisting players, I would suggest they think again. Unless they can prove differently, they assisted a thief here; someone who had no problem stealing from honest players. And this fraudulent, no risk approach is the only reason he was able to run up positive balances at some books. SBR should have a more realistic approach towards players who do chargebacks. By not recognizing these players as a separate, preferably blacklisted, category, SBR is simply handing out an unbalanced type of justice. This may look good to the majority of posters here, but they don't realize that this fraud has his hand in their pockets as well. We can all choose to stay away from stealing books, but we all share the burden of players who do chargebacks.Last edited by Dark Horse; 04-10-11, 06:04 PM.Comment -
Dark Horse,
If this player had made only 1 deposit via CC, and we had these same facts, the outcome would have been different. Here there was no risk of chargebacks.
Even murderers are entitled to justice.Comment -
a motion in limine was made to exclude the chargebacks from the trial since the probative value is outweighed by their prejudicial value.Last edited by antifoil; 04-10-11, 06:16 PM.Comment -
Very valid. I'm sure many mediators would reject the plea for help on just this basis. I think I might have. You'd probably need it listed in your terms of service that you don't deal with fraudsters, though, otherwise you could face accusations of unfairness.
However, once a mediator DOES accept such a case, it needs to be fairly resolved even if one thinks it should never have been accepted in the first place. Both Justin and Wilheim took the case on (caveat that Wilheim's impartiality is currently looking dead in the water).
I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.Last edited by yokspot; 04-10-11, 06:27 PM.Comment -
-
90+++ percent of the world is in favor of player being paid.
Meanwhile, not ONE RX employee, mod, owner has come forward stating they believe this also.....
How freaking sad and disgraceful is this??Comment -
The book is fraudulent, and so is the player. Why reward fraud? This money should be paid to some good cause.Comment -
Rx has lost all credibility now.Comment -
according to this dang ole poll here at sbr it's 50/50.....why you insist on 90+??????Comment -
Judging by your ability to spell basic elementary words, I am going to assume you have below average IQ.
Do your own DD and check all the known forums. MAJORITY on EVERY forum agrees the player should get paid.
Stick to your McDonalds day job and leave it at that fool.Comment -
You seem to imagine that everything this guy owns is a result of making some chargebacks. To me, the guy sounds like a degenerate gambler. He says he is down $60K in the Heritage casino (also DGS software). He played way, way beyond any wagering requirement for his easystreetsports.com bonuses. The idea that an inveterate gambler is taking money away from other casino customers is just laughable. These types of players are the very reason bonuses exist. If all players were like you or me, there would be no bonuses - none at all.
I have a problem with this idea that this guy should be stiffed because he has admitted to some chargebacks. EZ Street Sports is not saying that they are stiffing him because he did chargebacks in the past, nor because they feared chargebacks in this case. Instead they have manufactured a case of bot use and RNG manipulation. They have employed shills who pretend to be a "watchdog" in order to pretend that it is OK to stiff a player based upon charges which have not been proved. Not only have the charges not been proved, but the tiny bit of evidence which has been released has actually served to vindicate the player.
Do you have any idea how dangerous this all is? The idea that a player can be accused of using a bot, or defeating the RNG, all without even a shred of proof? The idea that a player would have to fly down to Costa Rica and "pass" a rigged "lie detector test" in order to collect his winnings? The idea that a site like theRX can pretend to be an industry watchdog, while really serving to help a fraudulent operation commit outright theft?
There is good reason for the average player to be up in arms. We are not missing anything here. You are the one missing the big picture, not us. Try to think about this whole thing a little bit harder.Comment -
20 people believe he should get paid in full
14 people believe he should only get deposits backs and nothing more
59%, not 90%, but more people voted since i posted dang ole link so who knowsComment -
I'm well aware of the situation, KG. I'm opposed to the idea that stealing books are in any way different than stealing players. It doesn't surprise me that this simple fact is easily overlooked by many, in their crusade against books, but that doesn't change the underlying dynamic. Both parties are thieves. If you wish to choose sides, be my guest. But nothing says you have to.Comment
