New Book BetJoint Trying to Steal $3,626 From Me

**whitey** · 05-21-08, 04:39 PM

MOST SBR Rookie Join Date: 02-15-07 </PRE>
Posts: 12 ________________________________________ “I am the judge and the jury here. It is my book and I will do what I want to here – plain and simple.” Unbelievable. This attitude is what kills it for me for this book. WRONG - the players are the judges BetJoint. We can decide for ourselves what is fair - and when you are trying to screw players or not follow your own rules. Question for the poster - when you placed the bet that BetJoint claims you weren't allowed to place, did you have an opposing cash bet on the other side of the game? If that is what I am understanding, the rule is clear you were allowed to do it. But if not, even though I wouldn't get this rule, the rule says you can't. Can you please clarify that? </PRE>
 Bill - if you have reviewed the case, please confirm player's story - I was considering signing up with this book, but this really really concerns me. Is this book working with you to return player's money? fiveteamer SBR High Roller </PRE>
 Join Date: 04-14-08 Posts: 107 ________________________________________ Thats brutal. marc </PRE>
SBR MVP Join Date: 07-15-05 Posts: 1,194 ________________________________________ Once books start playing these games where they look for excuses to cancel winning wagers, it basically tells you that thye are broke. VEry similar thing happened to my freind at sportsbettingtrivia, and 6 months later they were out of business. No doubt if Mark was still at betatlas, he wouldn't be pulling this stunt. He must be short on cash. Probably just hoping he can survive until football season. </PRE>
 MOST SBR Rookie Join Date: 02-15-07 </PRE>
Posts: 12 ________________________________________ “I am the judge and the jury here. It is my book and I will do what I want to here – plain and simple.” Unbelievable. This attitude is what kills it for me for this book. WRONG - the players are the judges BetJoint. We can decide for ourselves what is fair - and when you are trying to screw players or not follow your own rules. Question for the poster - when you placed the bet that BetJoint claims you weren't allowed to place, did you have an opposing cash bet on the other side of the game? If that is what I am understanding, the rule is clear you were allowed to do it. But if not, even though I wouldn't get this rule, the rule says you can't. Can you please clarify that? </PRE>
 Also, which parlay winnings did they cancel - BOTH? Bill - if you have reviewed the case, please confirm player's story - I was considering signing up with this book, but this really really concerns me. Is this book working with you to return player's money? ________________________________________ Last edited by MOST : 05-12-2008 at 09:51 AM. </PRE>
Justin7 Moderator Join Date: 07-31-06 Posts: 1,261 ________________________________________ </PRE>
I have been following this dispute closely (Bill is handling it, but forwarding correspondence to me). I am amazed at BetJoint's position in this matter. The Book writes the rules. They can even write unreasonable rules sometimes. But if the player is within the rules, you can't "fudge them" when the player did nothing wrong. BetJoint needs to reconsider its position carefully. </PRE>
 MOST SBR Rookie Join Date: 02-15-07 Posts: 12 </PRE>
________________________________________ Thanks for the info, Justin. Is BetJoint in talks with SBR to resolve, or is the player being fair when he said that the BetJoint guy simply said he was the "judge and jury"... Francis Sollozzo </PRE>
SBR Wise Guy Join Date: 11-15-07 Posts: 523 ________________________________________ </PRE>
place sounds more like a 'gypped joint' marc SBR MVP Join Date: 07-15-05 Posts: 1,194 </PRE>
________________________________________ Anytime a bookmaker tells you that they are judge and jury, it's time to run. No honest person speaks that way. bigboydan Moderator </PRE>
 Join Date: 08-10-05 Posts: 36,834 ________________________________________ Here is a similar case involving BetJoint that happen not 3 months ago. </PRE>
Player Files Dispute BetJoint eyeball SBR Sharp Join Date: 08-14-07 </PRE>
Posts: 389 ________________________________________ I played with this book and the payouts were good, but after the BJO deal I had caution. They have been calling me every week so that was also another thing. I guess its the "slow summer months" and cash is low. But BBD has warned people on this board about new books many times. I guess I learned my lesson with BJO I only play with A books, forget the bonuses. jason SBR Hustler </PRE>
 Join Date: 03-28-06 Posts: 54 ________________________________________ To respond to the questions - MOST: you are exactly right. I had a CASH wager on the SD Padres and then placed a CASH wager on the Colo Rockies. BetJoint's rule is clear that: </PRE>
 "However, you can make CASH plays on both sides of the same game in all instances." Regarding the status, last I heard was that BetJoint just told SBR to screw off, and when I called there yesterday the owner told me he's a busy man and he has no time to talk to me. He said it was a privilege that I got to talk to him in the first place because "no other book's owner talk to players." When I told him no real book would ignore players and/or SBR Then he ran off as many expletives known to man and slammed the phone down on me. And regarding the judge and jury line - that was a quote from BetJoint. I hope SBR can do something here, but I expect Bill and Justin to offiicially explain on the main page later. </PRE>
 fiveteamer SBR High Roller Join Date: 04-14-08 </PRE>
Posts: 107 ________________________________________ Damn, I was gunna put 5 dimes in there til I read this post. Too bad 4 u betjoint. Skudrulacis SBR Rookie </PRE>
 Join Date: 05-06-08 Posts: 6 ________________________________________ robbers.... :@ How can they do that.... </PRE>
jason SBR Hustler Join Date: 03-28-06 Posts: 54 ________________________________________ </PRE>
I don't know. BetJoint claims to have over 1,000 players. First word out of their mouth when you call to open an account is "we pay out faster than anyone, come try us out." What they don't tell you is that they do pay pretty fast - but they only payout 60% of your balance and then keep the rest for themselves! 05-12-2008, 02:19 PM #17 (permalink) </PRE>
RickySteve SBR MVP Join Date: 01-31-06 Posts: 1,730 ________________________________________ </PRE>
Did you file an official complaint on the front page? Mattn3236 SBR Sharp </PRE>
Join Date: 04-21-08 Posts: 313 ________________________________________ This is why you research a book before depositing. Plain and simple. Sorry but I have no sympathy </PRE>
turnip SBR Wise Guy Join Date: 12-03-06 Posts: 562 </PRE>
________________________________________ Quote: This is why you research a book before depositing. Plain and simple. Sorry but I have no sympathy Do you have sympathy for scam-books then? There are advantages to playing at less-reputable books, and though some funds will be at risk, filing a complaint with SBR makes you less likely to lose them. Furthermore, without posts like this, there would be nothing to research. </PRE>
________________________________________ Last edited by turnip : 05-12-2008 at 04:26 PM. Mattn3236 SBR Sharp </PRE>
 Join Date: 04-21-08 Posts: 313 ________________________________________ No. I'm just tired of guys coming on here crying about money they should have won. While I do agree they should get paid there is something to be said about buyer beware. Just bc I can buy a car one place and get the same car at another place alot cheaper it doesn't nec. mean that it is over the long run. Remember most people go to these place for a bigger bonus or limits. Well all I'm stating is go on SBR check there rating then decide where to send money </PRE>
 05-12-2008, 05:17 PM #21 (permalink) tomcowley SBR Hustler </PRE>
 Join Date: 10-01-07 Posts: 62 ________________________________________ He isn't even on the opposite side of the same market. SD -1.5 and Col ML can both lose. What if he has Col ML and SD team total over (if they offer those)? The bets are obviously negatively correlated, but they're hardly opposite sides of the same wager, just like these two bets aren't. BetJoint flat out stole money before (and SBR for some reason refuses to acknowledge this) by voiding THE ENTIRE PARLAY instead of just the one "illegal" bet. If that leg of the parlay were on an obviously bad line, the proper recourse would be to void that leg and pay off as a 2-teamer. It's no different in the prior case (void the one illegal bet, not the other 2 winners, pay off as a 2-teamer), and I don't believe they have any grounds to stand on here since you aren't even on both sides of the same market- not to mention their own rules explicitly allow the bets made if the scam book wants to argue it is the same market. </PRE>
 Maybe SBR will get it right this time and either get your money or downgrade these clowns (or both). ________________________________________ Last edited by tomcowley : 05-12-2008 at 05:20 PM. MOST SBR Rookie </PRE>
 Join Date: 02-15-07 Posts: 12 ________________________________________ I feel for ya, man. This is theft at its worst. But what concerns me almost as much as your loss, is their attitude. Any book that would tell SBR to "screw off" is OFF LIMITS. </PRE>
 Players have no protection that this guy won't do whatever the hell he wants to with a player's money. I can't believe they would kill their reputation like that - but I guess like Marc said, they must need the money. Not good. durito SBR MVP </PRE>
 Join Date: 07-03-06 Location: La Selva Lacandona Posts: 2,206 ________________________________________ I believe Justin has addressed this complaint in this post: </PRE>
 l</a> flyingillini SBR MVP </PRE>
Join Date: 12-06-06 Location: the 805, Santa Barbara Posts: 1,101 ________________________________________ Stay away from this book. I still don't understand why people play with books that aren't top notch? </PRE>
 frostno98 SBR Wise Guy Join Date: 09-11-07 </PRE>
Location: Western Coast Posts: 516 ________________________________________ I think this book and it's families of books, BetRuss probably included is getting hammered for all those lucrative sign up bonuses they were offering. I had a situation with them where a bonus was offered and credit to my account, only to be removed in middle of an active bet because someone else in the book CS said it was wrongly offer. The only reason why I reloaded with them to begin with was because the bonus being offered. Time to stick to B or higher rated books only! </PRE>
__________________ SURGEON'S GENERAL WARNING: Online sports gambling is highly addictive, only play what you can risk! marc SBR MVP </PRE>
Join Date: 07-15-05 Posts: 1,194 ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by jason I don't know. BetJoint claims to have over 1,000 players. </PRE>
Lots of books have over 1000 players. The big question is how many ACTIVE players do they have. And whats the handle of those players. If they only have 100 active players, and those players are only betting $100 at a time, then the book really can't afford to lose 7k on a parlay. Shark79 SBR MVP </PRE>
 Join Date: 11-19-07 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Posts: 2,481 New Player gives away $3,626 to New Book ________________________________________ If we have said it a million times ... its just not enuff </PRE>
 __________________ Peace Out ! Shark </PRE>
 jason SBR Hustler Join Date: 03-28-06 Posts: 54 </PRE>
________________________________________ Thanks to players for their support. Just to respond to a couple of questions that came up: (1) I did file an official complaint with SBR. SBR has been very helpful and stepped in, but when SBR ruled told BetJoint that I deserved to be paid out (it was a no brainer), BetJoint said screw SBR (that is the nicest way of summing up a much longer 3-4 miunute tirade on how he couldn't care less about ****SBR and Bill and how this is his book and he will do what he wants to - he is his own judge and jury) and slammed the phone down on me. Matt - regarding researching the book. I did research the book - I admit that I obviously picked the wrong book, but I tried. It wasn't an A, but the owner was from Atlas which was an A. They were a C- on SBR as a new book, and BetJoint told me that C-is the highest rating a book can start with. </PRE>
I truly am with those of you who hope SBR can fix this, but I am very much afraid that BetJoint is refusing to even face SBR or the posters on this forum hoping to just walk away with my money (before hanging up on me, the owner actually said "You should say thank you to me for paying you anything"). bigboydan Moderator </PRE>
Join Date: 08-10-05 Posts: 36,834 Actually BetAtlas was never had an SBR rating, however they were a solid out IMO. Mark Roberts resigned on October 1, 2007 and opened up BetJoint a few weeks later. Anyways, I'm sure the gentlemen in the office received plenty of high quality references to rate them at the C- (which is the highest rating given for a new book) as you mentioned above. Hopefully Mark will make things right in your case sir, because when both Mr.Justin, Mr.Dozer, and seemingly everyone else agrees that you are getting the shaft and they still refuse to make things right. Then you know this book is most likely in some seriously bad financial shape to squabble over such a small amount of coin. </PRE>
jason SBR Hustler Join Date: 03-28-06 Posts: 54 ________________________________________ </PRE>
Sorry, I didn't know which forum was best to post this story in. This is the link to the other thread, maybe SBR can combine when they post the story on front page. New Book BetJoint Trying to Steal $3,626 From Me jason SBR Hustler </PRE>
 Join Date: 03-28-06 Posts: 54 ________________________________________ I wanted to share with all the players how insincere BetJoint has been in this case. When confronted by SBR, BetJoint wrote an email saying "I truly think an elementary-grade student could read the rule that applies here, look at the SIMPLE situation and interpret it." </PRE>
 So Bill Dozer and Justin and everyone in this forum looked at the rule and saw that it is BLACK AND WHITE I am permitted to make this wager "IN ALL INSTANCES." Now BetJoint is stuck. So what do they do? They tell SBR and all of the players to "screw off" and they're keeping my $3,626. eyeball SBR Sharp </PRE>
 Join Date: 08-14-07 Posts: 389 ________________________________________ They must be thinking od closeing shop if what you say is true. For them to talk to you like that means they don't want any further business. </PRE>
 tomcowley SBR Hustler Join Date: 10-01-07 Posts: 62 ________________________________________ </PRE>
Besides not even being on both sides of the same game (SD -1.5 and Col ML can both lose, they're just somewhat negatively correlated), does anybody think that if the rest of the parlay legs had won, but SD -1.5 had lost, that BetJoint was going to audit his account, void the losing leg for being an invalid bet, and pay out a winning 2-teamer? Hell no. If bets like this are valid individually, then it should be the sole responsibility of the book to make sure its software blocks combinations it doesn't want to accept- always. Otherwise the player is getting freerolled (or in this case, outright robbed). ________________________________________ Last edited by tomcowley : 05-13-2008 at 10:14 AM. </PRE>
Justin7 Moderator Join Date: 07-31-06 Posts: 1,261 ________________________________________ </PRE>
This is a terrible rule. The only thing worse than the rule is the misinterpretation used in this case by the book. flyingillini SBR MVP </PRE>
Join Date: 12-06-06 Location: the 805, Santa Barbara Posts: 1,101 ________________________________________ Sounds bad that sucks MOST </PRE>
SBR Rookie Join Date: 02-15-07 Posts: 12 ________________________________________ </PRE>
Thanks for the heads up - I've seen books pull this sort of thing before. I'd get out asap - before it's too late. MOST SBR Rookie Join Date: 02-15-07 </PRE>
Posts: 12 ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by Justin7 This is a terrible rule. The only thing worse than the rule is the misinterpretation used in this case by the book. Agreed. Is this book going under? What's SBR's take on this?<o

></o

></PRE>

**whitey** · 05-21-08, 05:22 PM

Bill Dozer
Administrator
Join Date: 07-12-05
Posts: 4,738
Most,
Jason got a raw deal. The decision is not logical or consistent with how BetJoint said they would handle these. I will check my notes on this case a bit later today to point out some of the obvious points.
_______________________________________

bigboydan
Moderator
Join Date: 08-10-05
Posts: 37,084

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer
Most,
Jason got a raw deal.

Nobody disagrees with that fact in this thread either Bill. Now with that being said, one would have to assume that BetJoint is really struggling fanatically right now. I almost have to wonder if they will survive through the slow summer months if they are doing these types of things.
____________________________________

pimike
SBR MVP
Join Date: 03-23-08
Location: PA
Posts: 1,812
So their WRITTEN guarentee to have payouts in 72 hours is BS
I am contemplating sending money.
Would it be safe to say hold off?
Just April 30, 2008 they had a written promise on fast payouts.
"Lighting Fast"
___________________________________

Justin7
Moderator
Join Date: 07-31-06
Posts: 1,277

Originally Posted by pimike
So their WRITTEN guarentee to have payouts in 72 hours is BS
I am contemplating sending money.
Would it be safe to say hold off?
Just April 30, 2008 they had a written promise on fast payouts.
"Lighting Fast"

I wouldn't touch this book. I view this complaint as outright theft by the book. Why play somewhere that would resort to this?
________________________________________

Bill Dozer
Administrator
Join Date: 07-12-05
Posts: 4,738

Originally Posted by bigboydan
Nobody disagrees with that fact in this thread either Bill. Now with that being said, one would have to assume that BetJoint is really struggling fanatically right now. I almost have to wonder if they will survive through the slow summer months if they are doing these types of things.

BJ is a small book that can probably survive off their customer list if they don't soil the name. Very low overhead.
As we discussed in the last thread, the rule is silly. Joint is trying to keep players from coverting the free-play into a cash bet with this rule. For some reason they consider it enough of a problem that it is worth creating another problem. If the software can't handle it then why not let a guy roll over his half the amount of a free-play as a cash bonus. It should work in the houses favor if the player doesn't know better to hedge it out elsewhere.
In these cases, the sticker is the canceling of regular cash bets. The rule serves as a trap and goes against the you-book-it-pay-it adage. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a line about when bonuses are void but a non-standard rule voiding regular plays is rough. Here is how SBR explained the dispute yesterday:
BetJoint applies bonus rule to parlay winnings; costs player $3,051
The player made two winning 3-team parlays wagering $250 and $150 in free-play bonus money to win a total of $5,359. The last leg of both parlays were on the San Diego Padres +1.5 run line. The player also made a regular moneyline bet on the Padres as well as a wager on the opposing team using his deposited funds. The next day the user account was debited $3,051 and his parlays were recalculated as 2-teamers with the third leg removed. BetJoint cited the rule below:
You are allowed to bet both sides of the same game or both sides of a total on the same game, PROVIDING THAT IT IS ALWAYS WITH YOUR OWN CASH AND NEVER INCLUDES THE USE OF ANY ‘FREE PLAY’ CREDIT. This rule applies to all straight-action wagers and also any plays that are used in parlays or teasers. For example, if you make a FREE PLAY wager on Team “A” or use Team “A” in a parlay or teaser wager using FREE PLAY credits, you are not allowed to bet Team “B” from that same game or event with either FREE PLAY credits or CASH play. Likewise, if you make a CASH wager on Team “A” or use Team “A” in a parlay or teaser wager, you are not allowed to bet Team “B” from that same game or event with FREE PLAY credits. However, you can make CASH plays on both sides of the same game in all instances, whether it is straight action, parlays or teasers. Violations of this rule will result in both/all bets on that event or game being cancelled and those bets will be considered null and void. In such instances, the cash play money will be refunded to customer's account and the customer will automatically forfeit all remaining Free Play credits in his/her account as penalty for rule violation.
The player argues that his cash bets oppose each other and were not made in an attempt to hedge out of the parlay. He also argues that BetJoint is using a single cash bet to void two separate larger parlay wagers. The rule is considered fine print due to the fact that the software does not prohibit these actions. This is the second case of this rule biting into an account balance this year. In February a player was in a similar situation. His free-play parlay lost and the cash bet won. BetJoint handled it differently, canceling the player’s winning cash wager that was opposing the last leg of a losing parlay. BetJoint assured SBR that had the parlay won it would have been honored and the losing cash bet would have been no-actioned. BetJoint stated it aimed to prohibit the player from making a cash bet on the opposing team and it expects its software to prohibit the free-play buy-back bet in the near future. In this most recent report, the player’s $575 cash bet was honored while the parlay legs were not. Despite inconsistent handling with the two accounts, BetJoint’s management states that the rule gives the book the ability to cancel any and all bets referenced in the rule. Players should be aware of the odd rule and the liberties it gives the sportsbook. Under this catch-all stipulation a sportsbook has the ability to cancel winning cash wagers or void a $7,000 8-team parlay if the bettor was to make a $20 cash bet that was opposite one of the picks in his parlay.
___________________________________

MOST
SBR Rookie
Join Date: 02-15-07
Posts: 9

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer
In February a player was in a similar situation. His free-play parlay lost and the cash bet won. BetJoint handled it differently, canceling the player’s winning cash wager that was opposing the last leg of a losing parlay. BetJoint assured SBR that had the parlay won it would have been honored and the losing cash bet would have been no-actioned. BetJoint stated it aimed to prohibit the player from making a cash bet on the opposing team and it expects its software to prohibit the free-play buy-back bet in the near future.

This is the worst of the worst. We often see cases where a book says - look if the other thing happened, the player would have won - and I always think, easy for the book to say. We will never know if they're lying.
Well, BetJoint, in your case, now we know. You told SBR that you would have honored the parlay last time, when that made you money, and now when confronted, you went back on your word. Shame on you. That's stealing at its worst.
________________________________________ _____

Bill Dozer
Administrator
Join Date: 07-12-05
Posts: 4,738

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer
Side note... The rule quoted in that news wire appears to be changed from the one below after the player's dispute.
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/Bett...x?d=03/26/2008
You are allowed to bet both sides of the same game, PROVIDING THAT IT IS ALWAYS WITH YOUR OWN CASH AND NEVER INCLUDES THE USE OF ANY ‘FREE PLAY’ CREDIT. Any violations This rule applies to all straight-action wagers and also any plays that are used in parlays or teasers. For example, if you make a FREE PLAY wager on Team “A” or use Team “A” in a parlay or teaser wager using FREE PLAY credits, you are not allowed to bet Team “B” from that same game or event with either FREE PLAY credits or CASH play. Likewise, if you make a CASH wager on Team “A” or use Team “A” in a parlay or teaser wager, you are not allowed to bet Team “B” from that same game or event with FREE PLAY credits. However, you can make CASH plays on both sides of the same game in all instances, whether it is straight action, parlays or teasers. Violations of this rule will result in both/all bets on that event or game being cancelled and those bets will be considered null and void. In such instances, the cash play money will be refunded to customer's account and the customer will automatically forfeit all remaining Free Play credits in his/her account as penalty for rule violation.