BetPhoenix account dispute, slow pay-outs update

[TRE1968]

i will never play at BP again

[AimingHigh]

I find it in poor taste that you use this title to "make" your point--could you choose bigger letters. I have been outspoken about BP's slow pays in the past, but they've shown vast improvement in the past 2 months--payouts w/i a week or two lately.

The fact is that BP is paying much, much faster than when they were SBR's sponsor speaks volumes. We all recall that when SBR collected the ad revenue, the 4-6 week waits for BP payouts were swept under the rug. This is not to excuse the $2659 case at hand, but I'm sure BP will address it responsibly.

Shame on SBR for turning an isolated slow pay case into what it actually is-- payback for a sponsor dropping them, plain and simple.

What he said. Where's the integrity here, SBR?

[secretstash]

i received a payout from betphoenix in 5 days TOTAL from when i requested it via check.. this is almost a 10 day improvement on their past scenario.. so i think they are trying to improve.

i will deposit for football once slow season is over if they offer a nice bonus

-stash

[SBR Lou]

The xxxxx to this player actually shut this account down in order to collect from this previous stiff.

Of course he denies it, although he did confirm to the xxxxx as well as to SBR that he is a beard for the stiff. The account will remain closed until the xxxxx and player conference with me.

In December, a former BetPhoenix associate came across this player's account and closed it down. The player’s account was a post-up account with a balance of $2,659, with no problems on his deposits or bets.

The BetPhoenix associate believed that the player was bearding for a third-party with a $3,000 debt. He no longer works with BetPhoenix, and could not conclusively prove that the player was making bets for the third-party at BetPhoenix.

Three dispute points:
1. The player deposited funds with BetPhoenix.
2. The player denied placing bets at BetPhoenix on behalf of the debtor (though he admitted doing this at one other book).
3. BetPhoenix has offered no conclusive evidence that the post-up player wagered at BetPhoenix on behalf of the third-party debtor.

It is not reasonable to enforce a guilty by association penalty. As BetPhoenix notes, the player does not hide his past dealings with the player. He denies however making bets for him at BetPhoenix, and requests to see evidence in support of that accusation.

Since this player's deposit and bets were accepted by BetPhoenix, it is ultimately BetPhoenix—not a former associate—that is solely responsible for the frozen player balance.

[Thremp]

Lou,

That may be the most coherent and best analysis of a dispute you have ever done. Congrats.

[pokerplayer22]

In December, a former BetPhoenix associate came across this player's account and closed it down. The player’s account was a post-up account with a balance of $2,659, with no problems on his deposits or bets.

The BetPhoenix associate believed that the player was bearding for a third-party with a $3,000 debt. He no longer works with BetPhoenix, and could not conclusively prove that the player was making bets for the third-party at BetPhoenix.

Three dispute points:
1. The player deposited funds with BetPhoenix.
2. The player denied placing bets at BetPhoenix on behalf of the debtor (though he admitted doing this at one other book).
3. BetPhoenix has offered no conclusive evidence that the post-up player wagered at BetPhoenix on behalf of the third-party debtor.

It is not reasonable to enforce a guilty by association penalty. As BetPhoenix notes, the player does not hide his past dealings with the player. He denies however making bets for him at BetPhoenix, and requests to see evidence in support of that accusation.

Since this player's deposit and bets were accepted by BetPhoenix, it is ultimately BetPhoenix—not a former associate—that is solely responsible for the frozen player balance.

Great analysis Lou. It sounds like Richie is trying to turn the facts all around and pull his own version of EZstreet.

Richie...pay the player man. You're better than this.

[betphoenix]

I get it, BP was the only place where he was not bearding. It was his own money and his own plays this time. SBR can put this issue in flashing lights and it does not change anything.

"3. BetPhoenix has offered no conclusive evidence that the post-up player wagered at BetPhoenix on behalf of the third-party debtor."

The player confirmed to Lou that he does do this practice for the 3-rd party. The player has offered no conclusive evidence that he did not do this at Phoenix.


The sooner the two parties get on the phone with me here, the sooner this will be resolved.

[pokerplayer22]

I get it, BP was the only place where he was not bearding. It was his own money and his own plays this time. SBR can put this issue in flashing lights and it does not change anything.

"3. BetPhoenix has offered no conclusive evidence that the post-up player wagered at BetPhoenix on behalf of the third-party debtor."

The player confirmed to Lou that he does do this practice for the 3-rd party. The player has offered no conclusive evidence that he did not do this at Phoenix.


The sooner the two parties get on the phone with me here, the sooner this will be resolved.

Richard...Its not up to the player to provide evidence. That burden lies with BP. Come on man.

[betphoenix]

PP22,

There is more at play here than what is being reported. As usual every story has different perspectives. Currently, the players funds remain untouched and intact in his account and will remain that way until the requested call is achieved. All parties directly involved can collectively move forward from there.

[WVU]

So because this guy is a beard at some shops it makes him a beard at every shop? If you have proof, just post it otherwise you are simpy assuming. I wouldn't want you assuming anything with my funds.

[Justin7]

I don't think the player admitted to bearding at all the other shops... Just one place.

[WVU]

If I tell you I opened mutiple accounts and scammed XYZ casino it doesn't give casino ABC any right to take my funds that I deposited there.

[VTranX]

Way to fck up BP. Your reputation just went down the drain, for what? $2,600? You need to take your head out your ass and look at the big picture.

[TRE1968]

PP22,

There is more at play here than what is being reported. As usual every story has different perspectives. Currently, the players funds remain untouched and intact in his account and will remain that way until the requested call is achieved. All parties directly involved can collectively move forward from there.

yo BP dude ...you guys aint nothing but a shit book anyway

[acarmelo1]

If I tell you I opened mutiple accounts and scammed XYZ casino it doesn't give casino ABC any right to take my funds that I deposited there.

That is what EZstreets did btw

[betphoenix]

Who said any funds were taken? The account is intact as stated in my previous posts. I am asking for a simple phone call from the parties involved is all, and I find that to be a reasonable request.

[WVU]

sounds fair enough to me, but what will a phone call prove? Do you think they are one and the same?

[VTranX]

The player confirmed to Lou that he does do this practice for the 3-rd party. The player has offered no conclusive evidence that he did not do this at Phoenix.

Guilty until proven innocent, is that how it works at your book?

[HedgeHog]

I think a simple phone call is reasonable as well. If I had $2600 at stake I'd find friggin time for a phone call, makes you wonder why the account holder hasn't done so the past 6 months. It's not like BP is asking the alleged perp to come to Costa Rica for a polygraph. And to their credit, BP did not zero out the guy's balance, unlike an A+ Book did in three recent casino disputes--before the facts were even heard. Jesus, if BP was out to screw anyone it'd be for a lot more than $2600. I truly believe Richard is fighting this on principle's sake, so let's make the friggin phone call and be done with this nonsense. Three 5-digit complaints against 5D, and this is the battle SBR chooses to highlight. Unfriggin real.

[sharpcat]

The player had better call Richard before BP renews its SBR membership

[HedgeHog]

The player had better call Richard before BP renews its SBR membership

That ship already sailed. That's why this payback thread exists.

[acarmelo1]

I think a simple phone call is reasonable as well. If I had $2600 at stake I'd find friggin time for a phone call, makes you wonder why the account holder hasn't done so the past 6 months. It's not like BP is asking the alleged perp to come to Costa Rica for a polygraph. And to their credit, BP did not zero out the guy's balance, unlike an A+ Book did in three recent casino disputes--before the facts were even heard. Jesus, if BP was out to screw anyone it'd be for a lot more than $2600. I truly believe Richard is fighting this on principle's sake, so let's make the friggin phone call and be done with this nonsense. Three 5-digit complaints against 5D, and this is the battle SBR chooses to highlight. Unfriggin real.

I Agree, SBR why fight so hard for 2600 and let 5 dimes lay low for more than 40k?

[betphoenix]

Guilty until proven innocent, is that how it works at your book?

Just looking to get communication, which from a business standpoint is what is appropriate in these types of situations. You are quick to pass judgment without real knowledge of the facts involved here. I do not even have all of those facts myself hence the communication request.

[mighty maron]

Ok so if the situation stalemates....what do you think will happen?

[HedgeHog]

Ok so if the situation stalemates....what do you think will happen?

Nothing. The complaint will remain open and the account holder will still have his balance waiting for him. For example, Sportsbook.com, and other Jazette Books, require ID verification before your first payout. Refuse to do so, and the same thing happens. BP is simply asking for ID compliance--so why won't the account holder oblige?

[BigDaddy]

I think a simple phone call is reasonable as well. If I had $2600 at stake I'd find friggin time for a phone call, makes you wonder why the account holder hasn't done so the past 6 months. It's not like BP is asking the alleged perp to come to Costa Rica for a polygraph. And to their credit, BP did not zero out the guy's balance, unlike an A+ Book did in three recent casino disputes--before the facts were even heard. Jesus, if BP was out to screw anyone it'd be for a lot more than $2600. I truly believe Richard is fighting this on principle's sake, so let's make the friggin phone call and be done with this nonsense. Three 5-digit complaints against 5D, and this is the battle SBR chooses to highlight. Unfriggin real.

good post

[TRE1968]

if you play anywhere but pinny bookmaker or the greek you are a fool anyway

[JoeVig]

Would SBR agree to host the requested conference call in this case, or be party to the call? Would BP agree to a call with the two players and SBR as well?

[betphoenix]

Of course he denies it, although he did confirm to the xxxxx as well as to SBR that he is a beard for the stiff. The account will remain closed until the xxxxx and player conference with me. Anyone from SBR's staff is welcome to join in as well.

Already offered in my earlier post.

[dark star]

I think a simple phone call is reasonable as well. If I had $2600 at stake I'd find friggin time for a phone call, makes you wonder why the account holder hasn't done so the past 6 months. It's not like BP is asking the alleged perp to come to Costa Rica for a polygraph. And to their credit, BP did not zero out the guy's balance, unlike an A+ Book did in three recent casino disputes--before the facts were even heard. Jesus, if BP was out to screw anyone it'd be for a lot more than $2600. I truly believe Richard is fighting this on principle's sake, so let's make the friggin phone call and be done with this nonsense. Three 5-digit complaints against 5D, and this is the battle SBR chooses to highlight. Unfriggin real.

I agree

[dark star]

Free Betphoenix payout 4 days $2000 tx guys appreciate it!!

[nosniboR11]

what is being reported. As usual every story has different perspectives. Currently, the players funds remain untouched and intact in his account and will remain that way until the requested call is achieved. All parties directly involved can collectively move forward from there.[/quote]

KEEP TALKING BETPHOENIX, YOU KEEP LOSING PLAYERS, THERE IS A LOT MORE AT STAKE THAN THIS SMALL PAYOUT, YOU ARE LOSING FUTURE MONEY AND FUTURE PLAYERS.

I WILL NEVER PLAY AT YOUR SHOP AGAIN!! THAT INCLUDES WAGERCHIEF AND BET.

[Santo]

I can't see how BP are being unreasonable here. Many books have more onerous payout requirements than making a phone call. The refusal by the player implies he has something to hide.

If they make the phone call (SBR mediated or not), and then BP refuse to pay, there may be a case to discuss on its merits. There is not yet.

[Justin7]

Already offered in my earlier post.

What do you hope to prove, or accomplish with this call?

[blix177]

What is breading?