SERIOUS problem with Hill's; account closed and money confiscated

**tomcowley** · 07-11-11, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

The question I posed in #84 is 100% relevant to the topic of the thread

The topic of the thread is whether WH is justified if two different people used the deposit-allin-withdraw strategy on opposite sides of the same bet.

Your question- if you want to argue that it's relevant at all- presumes that playing opposite sides is abuse. You haven't made that case, and until you do, your question is irrelevant to the thread. It's like asking if the state is justified in punishing a guy for murder before establishing that he even killed anybody.

**Hareeba!** · 07-11-11, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

The topic of the thread is whether WH is justified if two different people used the deposit-allin-withdraw strategy on opposite sides of the same bet.

Your question- if you want to argue that it's relevant at all- presumes that playing opposite sides is abuse. You haven't made that case, and until you do, your question is irrelevant to the thread. It's like asking if the state is justified in punishing a guy for murder before establishing that he even killed anybody.

Incorrect.
The playing opposite sides idea is just one possibility of what the OP may have done to upset the bookie. There's nothing confirming that that is the issue at all.
There are other means of bonus abuse which may be involved.
My question is totally relevant and you are dodging it.
And I still await your responses to my other questions.

**tomcowley** · 07-11-11, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

Incorrect. The playing opposite sides idea is just one possibility of what the OP may have done to upset the bookie. There's nothing confirming that that is the issue at all.

Cool story bro. It's the issue being discussed ITT whether it's what actually happened or not.

And just for shits and giggles, why don't you give one of the alternate scenarios you had in mind when you were writing post 84.

**Hareeba!** · 07-11-11, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

Cool story bro. It's the issue being discussed ITT whether it's what actually happened or not.

And just for shits and giggles, why don't you give one of the alternate scenarios you had in mind when you were writing post 84.

FFS!!

why can you not just answer the questions ?

**tomcowley** · 07-11-11, 11:40 PM

Because they're stupid and irrelevant. Why don't you start a new thread with them and quit tarding up this one?

**Hareeba!** · 07-11-11, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

Because they're stupid and irrelevant. Why don't you start a new thread with them and quit tarding up this one?

My first question is entirely relevant to the thread and what you were saying prior to it.

And even if it were not what's stopping you answering it?

The next two questions were asking you to support your statements with evidence and reasoned discussion but you like other cowards on this site never put up. All you are interested in doing is pouring crap on me.

**tomcowley** · 07-11-11, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

My first question is entirely relevant to the thread and what you were saying prior to it.

No, we've been over this. If you haven't established abuse in a case, the justification for imposing a particular punishment for abuse is irrelevant to the case.

And even if it were not what's stopping you answering it?

Do you also think I'm obligated to have a discussion with you about your expert knob-gobbling techniques if that's what you want to talk about?

**vill** · 07-11-11, 11:59 PM

books have the right to block your account if you do something illegal.

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by tomcowley

No, we've been over this. If you haven't established abuse in a case, the justification for imposing a particular punishment for abuse is irrelevant to the case.

that response indicates you obviously haven't even understood the question

Originally posted by tomcowley

Do you also think I'm obligated to have a discussion with you about your expert knob-gobbling techniques if that's what you want to talk about?

You made the allegations, so most certainly you are obliged to either put up or shut up when challenged.

**tomcowley** · 07-12-11, 12:55 AM

LOL. Do you have anything to add to the discussion of the scenario ITT? Do you have any other interesting (2-person) scenarios for what OP could have done wrong? Anything at all to add?

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by tomcowley

LOL. Do you have anything to add to the discussion of the scenario ITT? Do you have any other interesting (2-person) scenarios for what OP could have done wrong? Anything at all to add?

In this thread all I've been doing is asking pertinent questions but alas not been able to extract any sense from you.

So you are taking the cowardly way out and not bothering to back up your allegations, let alone answer a simple question which is so relevant to the whole issue.

**tomcowley** · 07-12-11, 01:05 AM

So that's a no. You have nothing to add to the discussion of the scenario and you have no interesting alternative scenarios. Quote post numbers if you think you've contributed anything substantive to the discussion of the scenario (2 different people depositing, betting opposite sides, and withdrawing).

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by tomcowley

So that's a no. You have nothing to add to the discussion of the scenario and you have no interesting alternative scenarios. Quote post numbers if you think you've contributed anything substantive.

what a jerk

**tomcowley** · 07-12-11, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by tomcowley

Quote post numbers if you think you've contributed anything substantive to the discussion of the scenario (2 different people depositing, betting opposite sides, and withdrawing).

Originally posted by Hareeba!

what a jerk

Yeah, that's what I thought. Nothing.

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 02:26 AM

Well at least I was able to get a fair answer to my question from Santo.

Just as well we have some intelligent people on this forum who are able to conduct themselves in a more per personable manner than a few others.

**chachi** · 07-12-11, 03:06 AM

FFS ... tom / hareeba ... take it to private chat or PZ please

you're both knowledgeable and intelligent people but you come across as a pair of idiots at face value in this thread

**tomcowley** · 07-12-11, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by chachi

you're both knowledgeable and intelligent people

LOL.

**mike8888** · 07-12-11, 03:27 AM

. They closed my accounts with no reason.I do not recomment william hill

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by chachi

FFS ... tom / hareeba ... take it to private chat or PZ please

you're both knowledgeable and intelligent people but you come across as a pair of idiots at face value in this thread

Sorry Chachi but I won't sit idly by when some jerk derides me and then fails to show any just cause or enter into sensible debate about it. But fear not I'm thoroughly through with TC as it has proven to be utterly futile attempting anything approaching a sane discussion with him.

Apart from the fact that I'm guilty of being silly enough to enter into argument with such idiots I'd like to know if you seriously found any fault with what I've posted because I truly believe I've been very reasonable, fair and consistent.

**dealer wins** · 07-12-11, 05:58 AM

IMHO they were trying to pull a fast one on Hills, got caught and I dont think they will try that scam again anytime soon LOL

**Thremp** · 07-12-11, 08:46 AM

Chachi,

I used to have a modicum of respect (atleast where I recognized your handle), but the comment about equating TomC's opinion (its been put forth by another person I respect, that they could sit down and read an entire book of just his critiques of SB disputes) and Hareeba's is laughably dumb.

Hareeba is a routine liar who has virtually no experience in the offshore betting world and doesn't understand it. He is a small stakes dabbler who doesn't understand why people win or what motivations people have for using certain books and he certainly doesn't understand ethics/regulation/etc.

**chachi** · 07-12-11, 09:03 AM

thremp - you misunderstand me, I'm only referring to all the sniping and BS which is off-topic in the thread

**Thremp** · 07-12-11, 10:28 AM

Eh. Its what Hareeba does. He makes an absurd statement, trolls super hard, and when confronted with facts makes a hasty exit. When pressed for any evidence, he declines to present any and falls back on a stream of logical fallacies backed by his usual spineless taunts. (Still waiting for my prop bet to get action.)

He's deliberately deceptive and it lowers the quality of the entire forum to allow his posts. To group him in with anyone other than jjgold (infinitely more entertaining) and BigDaddyQH (same) is infinitely insulting.

**rolkis143** · 07-12-11, 01:17 PM

so it was reason to close account and dont give away deposited money,or not? i dont understand..

**chachi** · 07-12-11, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Eh. Its what Hareeba does. He makes an absurd statement, trolls super hard, and when confronted with facts makes a hasty exit. When pressed for any evidence, he declines to present any and falls back on a stream of logical fallacies backed by his usual spineless taunts. (Still waiting for my prop bet to get action.)

He's deliberately deceptive and it lowers the quality of the entire forum to allow his posts. To group him in with anyone other than jjgold (infinitely more entertaining) and BigDaddyQH (same) is infinitely insulting.

If someoone perceives as someone as a troll, and then proceeds one lowers ones'self down to that level to pursue the fight, the high ground is lost.

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Eh. Its what Hareeba does. He makes an absurd statement, trolls super hard, and when confronted with facts makes a hasty exit. When pressed for any evidence, he declines to present any and falls back on a stream of logical fallacies backed by his usual spineless taunts. (Still waiting for my prop bet to get action.)

You have described your own style perfectly.
I've lost count of the number of trash statements and allegations you've made about me and never once been game enough to provide any justification to back them up when called upon.

Originally posted by Thremp

He's deliberately deceptive and it lowers the quality of the entire forum to allow his posts. To group him in with anyone other than jjgold (infinitely more entertaining) and BigDaddyQH (same) is infinitely insulting.

This coming from someone who has never posted one useful thing on this forum?

**durito** · 07-12-11, 04:24 PM

Thremp post lots of useful stuff. For example his recent posts have demonstrated how truely horrible you are of a poster, though the jjgold comparison was a bit much, jj deserves more respect than that.

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

b.

Hareeba is a routine liar who has virtually no experience in the offshore betting world and doesn't understand it. He is a small stakes dabbler who doesn't understand why people win or what motivations people have for using certain books and he certainly doesn't understand ethics/regulation/etc.

I've asked you countless times to demonstrate where I've ever lied and you've never even made an attempt at it. So who does that make the liar ?

HTF would you have any idea about my betting?

Just because I told you that I don't risk more than $5k on an outcome you take delight in calling me a small stakes dabbler. Well that may be small to you but I'm just fine with it.

What gives you the right?

Especially rich coming from an arb bettor who never risks even one cent!

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by durito

Thremp post lots of useful stuff. For example his recent posts have demonstrated how truely horrible you are of a poster, though the jjgold comparison was a bit much, jj deserves more respect than that.

and here we have another of those cowardly posters who just like Thremp fails miserably whenever called upon to backup his accusations with any evidence at all

never once have I seen anything worthwhile from Thremp.

In fact this thread just demonstrates once again that his sole interest is in posting crap about me - he has nothing whatever to add to the subject matter just a pile of vitriol

**durito** · 07-12-11, 04:42 PM

thremp's help me add probably 6 figures to my yearly betting income, but you wouldn't have the faintest ability to grasp that.

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by durito

thremp's help me add probably 6 figures to my yearly betting income, but you wouldn't have the faintest ability to grasp that.

so precisely where is the post which did that for you ?

(as with all other requests for you or he to demonstrate what you are saying I won't be holding my breath)

**durito** · 07-12-11, 05:10 PM

all of them, start reading

**Hareeba!** · 07-12-11, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by durito

all of them, start reading

yet another post which adds absolutely nothing which can benefit the forum and fails to address the challenge

I've read hundreds of Thremp's posts and not once found one which has contributed anything of use to anyone. Almost all of them concentrate on nothing but attempts to put me down and many in the vilest manner.

**Optional** · 07-13-11, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by rolkis143

so it was reason to close account and dont give away deposited money,or not? i dont understand..

Who knows. We don't know William Hill's reasoning. Maybe they think the accounts real balance should be zero, so they don't see it as taking any money. Maybe some sort of criminal activity is suspected and it's out of their hands already. Maybe lots of things.

I can't imagine many situations where they would lawfully be able to unilaterally confiscate funds for themselves though. Particularly without an explanation.

**Thremp** · 07-13-11, 05:28 AM

You posted that $5,000 would have been by far your largest bet ever, when you deceptively "attempted" to work out prop bet arrangements. Any professional would laugh a this paltry sum for someone who claims to have been any more than a dabbler in a 30+ year career (as you claimed). Again you misrepresent what happened. Buy a dictionary, look up what "lie" means. Apparently you took issue with dictionaries in the prior iteration of this discussion... which isn't surprising.

You don't have the ability to know what you're discussing due to your incredibly narrow view of the issues.

PS: I never claimed you molested children. Apparently you are unaware what vile means or how superlatives are used in English. Shocking.