BetOnline is trying to steal $65,000 from me (cliff notes at end)

[prop]

And btw when asking someone their opinion of a game - please replace "if someone held a gun to your head which side would you bet" with "if you had $65,000 in poker winnings tied up at BetOnline and had to meet $1300 rollover to get paid which side would you bet" I realize the second takes longer to type and isn't quite as dramatic - but at least it's realistic. I vote to change that one to the later

[mighty maron]

I agree with you. However I am trying to find it in the rules at BetOnline that there must be a 1x rollover on sports for all deposits and can not find it.

The books dont like to be banks. They would like the 1x rollover so they have a shot of making back the money they lose in payment processing.

[Sid2001]

Here is the heart of the problem , The owner of the Action Poker Network is Play Safe Holdings AS , a company who's head office appears to be in Norway. On their website they have posted their year end financials up until the end of 2010.
There stock was trading on the Norway bourse although it is unclear to me if they are still public. I do not speak fluent Norwegian but here is a run down of their year end financial statemement from 2010 as I understand it. The year end financials when converted from Norwegian Kroners to US dollars shows total net assets of roughly $5,000,000 US dollars however only $600,000 is hard assets like cash and receivables.
The loss for year end 2010 as I understand are was around $150,000usd however they appear to have been spending money on software and not expensing that. The net cashflow appears to be more like -$500,000 usd.
if they have not raised more money and 2011 did not improve from 2010 they would almost be insolvent at this point. This would explain the slow payouts etc.

[WVU]

If its a policy it should be in the rules, period. For some of you guys to defend this action, well you are ******* out of your minds.

[mighty maron]

If its a policy it should be in the rules, period. For some of you guys to defend this action, well you are ******* out of your minds.

Theres a difference between defending the action and stating what is commonly known or accepted.

For example, I learned that book to book transfers do not count towards deposit bonuses. Nowhere did it say so on the site but I learned its a generally accepted policy,

[gomiamigo]

durito always looking for value

[sq764]

Greg I can confirm that written or not this is the rule - no one can cash out without the 1x rollover on sports. It might be unfair this is the case and perhaps BEFORE making the bet if you pointed out the fact this is stated nowhere and you could not possibly have been aware or agreed - then it would be reasonable for them to make an exception (and I think forums would support you on this - if in fact it is true that it is not written). Understanding how slow their support is how many hassles you had gotten so far you made the bet in order to not deal with it. Understandable to place the bet out of frustration and under duress, at that point however (my opinion is) you gave up the right to dispute the 1x rollover. I understand why you did it but there is no dispute on that matter at this point (just my opinion of course).

'make an exception' for a rule that does not exist? that sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?

[arichmond64]

'make an exception' for a rule that does not exist? that sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?

Hahaha, classic.

What has the guy been smoking. How can you have a rule what no one ever knows about, and has no way of knowing.

I am baffled.

[mighty maron]

Hahaha, classic.

What has the guy been smoking. How can you have a rule what no one ever knows about, and has no way of knowing.

I am baffled.

No one knows about is an overstatment

[WVU]

Theres a difference between defending the action and stating what is commonly known or accepted.

For example, I learned that book to book transfers do not count towards deposit bonuses. Nowhere did it say so on the site but I learned its a generally accepted policy,

I wasn't really singling you out, but commonly known? I didn't know and I am sure many others didn't either. Accepted? Accepted by whom? Do you think serious poker players should accept this unwritten policy, even those who have no clue about sportsbetting?

[mtneer1212]

i feel books should be able to put up any rules they want (within reason), fair or not, as long as they are know before money is sent. its a customer right to decide whether he wants to play at book with these known rules. if betonline wanted to have a 5X rollover in sportsbook on all deposits, they can certainly do this. they would probably lose a ton of business. if they made this rule clear to anyone thinking of depositing, how is that not fair?

I agree with your premise, but not on your application. If I want to deposit on their site to play poker, I should not have to make a sports bet to cash out. If you want to make a rule that says I have to rollover the amount in poker play 100x, or something similar, then no problem.

Again, by your logic, it would be the same as requiring the sportsbettor to play 1x his deposit in poker tournaments before he can cash out. It is the same thing. And it is ridiculous.

[bubba]

I agree with your premise, but not on your application. If I want to deposit on their site to play poker, I should not have to make a sports bet to cash out. If you want to make a rule that says I have to rollover the amount in poker play 100x, or something similar, then no problem.

Again, by your logic, it would be the same as requiring the sportsbettor to play 1x his deposit in poker tournaments before he can cash out. It is the same thing. And it is ridiculous.

they clearly dont want people to deposit on the site just to play poker. thats fine and they have every right to have a sportsbetting rollover in place IMO. it just needs to be clearly stated

[mighty maron]

I wasn't really singling you out, but commonly known? I didn't know and I am sure many others didn't either. Accepted? Accepted by whom? Do you think serious poker players should accept this unwritten policy, even those who have no clue about sportsbetting?

Ok commonly known is an overstatment. Its not an unheard of rule

[prop]

I agree 100% with the rule needing to be stated or otherwise an exception to that policy should be made for anyone that asks. My point though is you can't make a bet and dispute it after the fact. It had to be addressed before making the bet.

[prop]

Theres a difference between defending the action and stating what is commonly known or accepted.

For example, I learned that book to book transfers do not count towards deposit bonuses. Nowhere did it say so on the site but I learned its a generally accepted policy,

Was this ages ago? for as long I can remember their rules have clearly stated book to book transfers do not qualify for bonuses.

[mighty maron]

Was this ages ago? for as long I can remember their rules have clearly stated book to book transfers do not qualify for bonuses.

Some books dont list it but generally yes they do list the rule

[Quarius]

Why is this thread still going on didn't they say OP was getting paid? So why still post here....

[mighty maron]

Why is this thread still going on didn't they say OP was getting paid? So why still post here....

Wsex says people are going to get paid. I think this thread is relevant until Op gets every cent of his money. Anytime BOL is late with a payment...no mercy should be given to them. BOL put op thru the ringer...attempted to freeroll him....if not for the forums it would have been a successful cash grab.

Nope BOL's benefit of the doubt ran out a long time ago...hence the thread is consistently getting pounded

[DukeJohn]

Would be great if someone who knows could actually verify if this requirement is true and they just did not make it up and say it to me as an excuse. Even though it sounds like a really stupid rule atleast if this really is in their rules I will feel like I was not cheated.

Years ago I put some money into Carib Sports just to mess around with their Casino. I had other books for Sports Betting and was trying something new. Anyway, when I went to get a withdrawal they said I had to have a Sports Betting roll over before I could withdrawal. So, they had the same type policy.

I might note, that the manager at Carib Sports reviewed my case and saw I had never placed a sports bet with them and she agreed to waive the "Sport Betting Rule" and sent me my money. To this day, I am still at Carib Sports, although, I don't play in their casino anymore. lol...

Congrats on your poker winnings,

[dijamantu]

Pretty disgraceful that BOL blatantly lied and falsely accused this guy of cheating. A very shady organisation no doubt.

[stevenash]

Why is this thread still going on didn't they say OP was getting paid? So why still post here....

Because it is a message board, and apparently several people haven't said what they wanted to say yet.

[appleman]

glad to hear that you are getting your money

[skrtelfan]

The books dont like to be banks. They would like the 1x rollover so they have a shot of making back the money they lose in payment processing.

How much rake do you think the guy paid in winning 65k??? Their EV on his supposedly required "sports betting rollover," assuming a coin flip bet at -110 is around $25, and I can guarantee you he paid way more than that in rake. A competent book would simply require 1x rollover or a certain number of raked hands. BetOnline should reimburse this player his $1300 or be immediately downgraded. $1300 is a small amount to pay considering they falsely accused this player of chip dumping and dragged his name through the mud.

[skrtelfan]

Why is this thread still going on didn't they say OP was getting paid? So why still post here....

Because he actually hasn't been paid yet. Because BetOnline engaged in several shady business practices, namely falsely accusing him of chip dumping, refusing to send him his hand histories, and inventing a sports betting rollover for a poker player.

[jose21_us]

Gl man I hope you get paid...

[HedgeHog]

durito always looking for value

GL in finding value regarding betting on a timely BOL payout.

[Santo]

I would probably have made the 1 month wager, given the attention this case has got -- my worry with it would be the player reporting the payout as much as the payout itself.

[sq764]

Ok commonly known is an overstatment. Its not an unheard of rule

not to be simplistic, but, if its a rule, why isnt in their rules?

[sq764]

I agree 100% with the rule needing to be stated or otherwise an exception to that policy should be made for anyone that asks. My point though is you can't make a bet and dispute it after the fact. It had to be addressed before making the bet.

the point is he would have never made the bet if he was not told that it was a rule by BOL!

[sq764]

Why is this thread still going on didn't they say OP was getting paid? So why still post here....

this is like asking why people still talked about the OJ trial after the civil suit was settled.. there was a disguting action taken by a highly rated SBR book done here.. isnt this what the forum is all about?

[prop]

come on - if that was logical all day long books would be angle shot to oblivion. I agree put it in the rules now. If any poker player who has not already wagered the rollover comes complaining they were not aware and their deposit came prior to rule being added - allow them to withdrawal without the rollover. Beyond on that, anyone who has ever deposited an amount (say $1,000) made a $100 bet (win or lose) should now come back asking for $900.00 claiming they had wanted to cash out $900 but the system wouldn't let them and they only continued to wager due to an unstated rule. In short let's refund every player who has ever deposited at BetOnline the difference of all deposits less initial wager made. This way we can be sure it is fair? Make sense? If you lose money online and are seeking revenge on the bookmaker maybe it does make sense to most. If you're a winning gambler the concern should be getting it right - holding operators accountable but certainly not encouraging freerolls against them. The time to dispute the 1x rollover was prior to making a bet, once it's made that right is lost imo - there is no case on that issue.

[sq764]

come on - if that was logical all day long books would be angle shot to oblivion. I agree put it in the rules now. If any poker player who has not already wagered the rollover comes complaining they were not aware and their deposit came prior to rule being added - allow them to withdrawal without the rollover. Beyond on that, anyone who has ever deposited an amount (say $1,000) made a $100 bet (win or lose) should now come back asking for $900.00 claiming they had wanted to cash out $900 but the system wouldn't let them and they only continued to wager due to an unstated rule. In short let's refund every player who has ever deposited at BetOnline the difference of all deposits less initial wager made. This way we can be sure it is fair? Make sense? If you lose money online and are seeking revenge on the bookmaker maybe it does make sense to most. If you're a winning gambler the concern should be getting it right - holding operators accountable but certainly not encouraging freerolls against them. The time to dispute the 1x rollover was prior to making a bet, once it's made that right is lost imo - there is no case on that issue.

i am not defending expecting a refund on the wager, I am saying he should not have had to make the wager in the first place.. the win or loss of the wager is not the issue here, the fact that he was told this was a requirement/rule is the issue.. there is nothing even close in the rules that states this..

just goes along with every other shady thing betonline does

[mtneer1212]

they clearly dont want people to deposit on the site just to play poker. thats fine and they have every right to have a sportsbetting rollover in place IMO. it just needs to be clearly stated

Well, Bookmaker doesn't require a poker player to make a sports bet to cash out. Bodog doesn't require a poker player to make a sports bet to cash out. They have NO risk with poker, they just collect a rake. If they don't want to allow people to play poker only, they should not offer it.

[princecharles]

Two points I have not read yet worth mentioning.

1) Sportsbooks typically keep poker accessible through their site (link up with a major room and slap their own skin on it), ie 5dimed and Truepoker.
I remember having this discussion with Wally from TheGreek a while ago.
He hated having poker linked, but understood the mentality and wisdom of keeping a sports bettor who also plays poker on your site.
However this is where it gets murky:

2) Alex from BOL came into this forum extolling the virtues of this 'great little
room he just picked up', and as recall this was post black Friday.
Now is this room BOL's?
Is it a room on a network (Action?).
This is very important because who has to come up with the 65k first depends on it.
It may be safer for a poker player to come onto a network through a sports book skin, as this will provide a bit of 'dual payout' responsibility, ie: if the network craps out, the sportsbook still owes the player his funds.

[Patrick McIrish]

Without the forums this theft would have happened! It probably has already with a non forum guy. Crooks!

Concur. I think a move like this is more serious than oh come on guys, the player got paid in the end, that's all that counts! Something like this speaks volumes even if the right thing was eventually done with SBR assistance. If you try this 10 times and it only works once it's still a +EV move for the book. Some guy in the middle of nowhere that doesn't know about these forums might have taken it up the ass. This speaks loudly to anyone listening.