Corey up to no good again, this time at Heritage. Hits 2 Royals and is owed 43K

[raydog]

sorry pal...you are completely way off base and fwiw, there are quite a few guys asking me how you can be so completely blind to the situation...

cory does not exist to heritage...he has no acct...if he plays at all, the plays are voided...what dont you understand here? ...because they refuse to pay cory, a person who doesnt have an acct. you think there is a freeroll going on...you are so wrong its scary....and it is cracking me up to see you get so pissed, when you are wrong...

did cory have a chance to win? he did until getting busted....the incompetent payment + the payback of deposits proves this... that acct. had a chance to win and was ahead and was getting paid...why cant you see this? banned players dont get paid...unreal

[MonkeyF0cker]

Do I think they exercise it when they suspect someone is following my definition of bearding ie I place bets for you because you've already bet the max? No, I suspect not. Do I think they'd exercise it if they booted you out and then suspected you were controlling my account? I really don't know.

I'm your wife and we separate. Somehow I can get IDs in both my maiden name and married name (still not sure how that works but I trust Cory that that's now normal in the US). Pinny's banned you for whatever reason and I open an account. If they establish (from my admitting it) that we are in fact related and they determine - in their sole discretion, as they say - that my wagering mirrored yours, how do you think they'd handle it? According to their rules, my wagers would be cancelled. You're saying otherwise. I'm not doubting you but is there a way to share how you know without giving too much away or is it simply because it's Pinny and they get the gold star? Has this ever been documented in a case anywhere?

We already have someone from another sportsbook who stated that they would have paid Cory and booted the beard account. You can infer what Pinny's actions would have been from that. Any legitimate sportsbook wouldn't want this circus to occur and they certainly wouldn't have a casino if they didn't either understand it or feel "comfortable" with a player's play in it.

[prop]

And that's exactly why I didn't mention the LV part. Because they said they apply when any rule or wager is not already covered yet in the first rule it states "All wagers accepted by Pinnacle Sports are subject to these rules".

Sorry we're discussing two different things. This is meant to say Pinnacle has covered all basis in their rules. They have several clarifying points if this rule conflicts with another which will be valid. They then have the catch all where if shoot we don't have a rule they default to that. Was giving why Heritage rules are no comparison to Pinnacle's rules.

My point is Heritage has rules that can be used to steal. Pinnacle does not.

[raydog]

steak is a great guy...he is the only person at peeps that is involved with books that you can trust what he is telling you... he said out of ease, he would have just paid him and banned him again, but he had no problem whatsoever with only paying the deposits back too... too many people think they know what this book or that book would have done... those people are purely guessing...its comical

[MonkeyF0cker]

sorry pal...you are completely way off base and fwiw, there are quite a few guys asking me how you can be so completely blind to the situation...

cory does not exist to heritage...he has no acct...if he plays at all, the plays are voided...what dont you understand here? ...because they refuse to pay cory, a person who doesnt have an acct. you think there is a freeroll going on...you are so wrong its scary....and it is cracking me up to see you get so pissed, when you are wrong...

did cory have a chance to win? he did until getting busted....the incompetent payment + the payback of deposits proves this... that acct. had a chance to win and was ahead and was getting paid...why cant you see this? banned players dont get paid...unreal

Oh, yes. There are "quite a few guys asking" you. Of course. There are also "quite a few guys" who aren't in this thread supporting you. There are also "quite a few guys" who can't find and post a definition of freeroll that agrees with your make-believe definitions.

What would have happened if Cory had lost $50k, Ray? He would have had his money returned? Yeah. Right.

Your definition of freeroll is like saying that if I'm holding AK of spades and you're holding AK of clubs with a flop of A of hearts, QJ of spades, I'm not freerolling if the turn and river aren't spades. It's pure stupidity.

Just because the player won and is getting the deposits returned, doesn't mean that Heritage didn't stand to gain if the player lost and never hit a royal. It's such a retarded, assbackwards argument. And nobody here is supporting it.

You are completely wrong. Nobody here is telling you that you are right. Nobody. Get it through your thick skull. It is a freeroll.

[MonkeyF0cker]

steak is a great guy...he is the only person at peeps that is involved with books that you can trust what he is telling you... he said out of ease, he would have just paid him and banned him again, but he had no problem whatsoever with only paying the deposits back too... too many people think they know what this book or that book would have done... those people are purely guessing...its comical

What's comical is someone who's telling people what books should do when they don't even know the defintion of a freeroll.

[Optional]

I've asked them to post a rule regarding this the same as minors have their wins confiscated and losses returned in regulated brick and mortars here. They refused.

But by refusing they are simply "reserving the right". Not exercising it. So it's cool no?

[Optional]

What's comical is someone who's telling people what books should do when they don't even know the defintion of a freeroll.

LOL. I like you more than I used to Monkey, but that's a classic. All you have been doing is telling the book how to manage their business and who they should or shouldn't ban!

Now I know what a freeroll is too I might try and get a consultant gig at one of these books.

[prop]

We already have someone from another sportsbook who stated that they would have paid Cory and booted the beard account.

We actually have more than one, three books have said they would pay, but what does it matter? One of the user names that was debating here early on is from another book (not well rated, but not a scam) and the other two the discussion was elsewhere (both very high rated) but in fairness (and these are all huge buts)... 1) Just on the two high rated both long term employees with big rolls but are they actually the ones to say who gets paid? 2) It's easy to say would pay when discussing someone else's book not your own 3) in both cases we're talking books with much higher risk tolerance. Their response was basically "yawn". While it very well might be how they would handle it, Heritage is a much smaller much more risk adverse book than those two. Of those two one is for sure professional friendly, the other is moderately so and professionals do use them.

[shari91]

Sorry we're discussing two different things. This is meant to say Pinnacle has covered all basis in their rules. They have several clarifying points if this rule conflicts with another which will be valid. They then have the catch all where if shoot we don't have a rule they default to that. Was giving why Heritage rules are no comparison to Pinnacle's rules.

My point is Heritage has rules that can be used to steal. Pinnacle does not.

"Sole discretion"

"Pinnacle Sports reserves the right to take any and all steps it deems appropriate"

"including but not limited to"

We could also say Pinny does too if that's how you want to interpret it. And I guess that's what it all comes down to. In fact, maybe we should be commending Heritage for being so detailed with their rules instead of Pinny style and leaving them open to who knows what? However we - including myself since I have more money in Pinny than I currently do even in all of my bank accounts combined - wouldn't think they'd do that. Why do we feel that way? I haven't seen or heard anything about Heritage to think otherwise of them either. Yes the phone rule isn't great and hopefully they'll amend it. But neither was Tony's super overs cricket rule until yesterday until an SBR poster faced a problem, stated his case on here and with a few of us urging him he contacted Tony who corrected it to reflect the reality of 2012.

I've never heard of Heritage stealing. You know better than most how little the dollar value involved means to the book or even to SBR. And hopefully those who can't be bothered reading at least grasp that ONE ROYAL WAS PAID AND THEN ALL DEPOSITS RETURNED. It's not about the cash at all. I love hearing the different arguments for and against and MF is one of my dearest friends in forumville but I seriously get stuck on how anyone thinks that someone who is banned from a book should get paid. I truly don't see the point of rules at all if that's what some think should be the standard.

[MonkeyF0cker]

But by refusing they are simply "reserving the right". Not exercising it. So it's cool no?

The only right they are reserving by not posting a rule is the right to freeroll and steal.

[raydog]

Oh, yes. There are "quite a few guys asking" you. Of course. There are also "quite a few guys" who aren't in this thread supporting you. There are also "quite a few guys" who can't find and post a definition of freeroll that agrees with your make-believe definitions.

What would have happened if Cory had lost $50k, Ray? He would have had his money returned? Yeah. Right.

Your definition of freeroll is like saying that if I'm holding AK of spades and you're holding AK of clubs with a flop of A of hearts, QJ of spades, I'm not freerolling if the turn and river aren't spades. It's pure stupidity.

Just because the player won and is getting the deposits returned, doesn't mean that Heritage didn't stand to gain if the player lost and never hit a royal. It's such a retarded, assbackwards argument. And nobody here is supporting it.

You are completely wrong. Nobody here is telling you that you are right. Nobody. Get it through your thick skull. It is a freeroll.

dude, your words dont hurt me when i know i am right and your stupidity here is killing me...you are the one looking like an asshole...completely clueless...

you still think deposits should be returned to banned players AFTER they are caught or else they are getting freerolled...you are completely wrong...there is a risk to committing fraud pal and besides that, they had no idea it was his mom.

how did the sportsbook GAIN from paying deposits and a 3k withdrawal? they didnt...you are completely wrong

[prop]

Ray, you are the only one arguing that this isn't a freeroll. You are wrong. It is simple. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. I'm not spinning shit. You're just fukking wrong.

I would say agree to disagree, but perhaps can just agree Ray is a troll. This debate makes no difference. 99% of gamblers call this a freeroll. Again, pulled several references. One involved catching a fraudulent player, others were definitions, one was voiding a win after the fact, three came books on spots betting, one from the think tank and I could find 100 more, but is no point. You can argue with Ray and tilt all you want.. but you're not going to get anywhere. Why bother?

[MonkeyF0cker]

LOL. I like you more than I used to Monkey, but that's a classic. All you have been doing is telling the book how to manage their business and who they should or shouldn't ban!

Now I know what a freeroll is too I might try and get a consultant gig at one of these books.

Wait. Are you agreeing with Ray on the definition of freeroll?

[MonkeyF0cker]

dude, your words dont hurt me when i know i am right and your stupidity here is killing me...you are the one looking like an asshole...completely clueless...

you still think deposits should be returned to banned players AFTER they are caught or else they are getting freerolled...you are completely wrong...there is a risk to committing fraud pal

Yeah. And what is that risk called if it's not called a FREEROLL?

how did the sportsbook GAIN from paying deposits and a 3k withdrawal? they didnt...you are completely wrong

You don't have to gain in a freeroll. They could have gained if the player lost. They had no chance to lose. This is the PUSH part of the freeroll, guy. Really difficult to comprehend.

They didn't pay deposits AND a 3k withdrawal. They paid back deposits. You can't even get the facts right. You're lost.

[Optional]

The only right they are reserving by not posting a rule is the right to freeroll and steal.

I'm sure you actually do know what I meant, ya difficult bastard. But, yes, same as Pinny.

I seriously get stuck on how anyone thinks that someone who is banned from a book should get paid. I truly don't see the point of rules at all if that's what some think should be the standard.

This thread could go on forever if everyone can't at least agree on that basic principal.

[Optional]

Wait. Are you agreeing with Ray on the definition of freeroll?

how on earth did you read that into what I said.

I still agree with your definition from earlier in thread.

I also agree with Ray that Cory/Helena has not been subject of a freeroll here. They would have to have lost to play that card, but they didn't.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I love hearing the different arguments for and against and MF is one of my dearest friends in forumville but I seriously get stuck on how anyone thinks that someone who is banned from a book should get paid. I truly don't see the point of rules at all if that's what some think should be the standard.

I think I've made my case quite clear. It's the same reason there's a law in AC and why there are cases in LV where minors have had their losses returned to them. If they win, the transaction can be voided. So, in order to avoid the freeroll situation that we have here, minors are returned their losses. It's an inherent fairness issue.

[MonkeyF0cker]

how on earth did you read that into what I said.

I still agree with your definition from earlier in thread.

I also agree with Ray that Cory/Helena has not been subject of a freeroll here. They would have to have lost to play that card, but they didn't.

Ok. Do you agree that the account could have lost money?

I think that should be an obvious yes.

Was the account allowed to win money?

No.

Freeroll.

End of story.

[raydog]

Yeah. And what is that risk called if it's not called a FREEROLL?



You don't have to gain in a freeroll. They could have gained if the player lost. They had no chance to lose. This is the PUSH part of the freeroll, guy. Really difficult to comprehend.

They didn't pay deposits AND a 3k withdrawal. They paid back deposits. You can't even get the facts right. You're lost.

holy shit, are you fukking drunk? how do you miss the 3k withdrawal after the 1st royal? you have competely lost it man... you keep saying that the acct. could have never won...you are completely wrong now about just about everything you are saying... if heritage doesnt put harnash and roth together and totally fukk the beard attempt, 100% the acct. gets paid...its not freerolling when fraud is committed...there is no freeroll in this case...ill say 1000 more times.

[Optional]

99% of gamblers call this a freeroll.

99% of gamblers don't agree on anything.

But I'd bet more than 60% of people reading this thread are not thinking "Cory got freerolled here". Oh heck, let's go 75% of people reading.

Weird that we are both so certain about our beliefs of what others might think eh? #mindreading101

[MonkeyF0cker]

[/B]
holy shit, are you fukking drunk? how do you miss the 3k withdrawal after the 1st royal? you have competely lost it man... you keep saying that the acct. could have never won...you are completely wrong now about just about everything you are saying... if heritage doesnt put harnash and roth together and totally fukk the beard attempt, 100% the acct. gets paid...its not freerolling when fraud is committed...there is no freeroll in this case...ill say 1000 more times.

They paid the deposit balance after the mediation, dumbfukk. They had already paid the $3k withdrawal. Or do you not think that Heritage is smart enough to realize that they paid out $3k already?

What is it called if it's not called a freeroll? LMAO. It is the definition of a freeroll. It doesn't matter if you think it's justified or not. The term freeroll does not have negative/positive dependencies or connotations. It is an advantage for one side only. That's it. Fraud or whatever the circumstances are don't fukking matter. How dense are you?

[Optional]

Ok. Do you agree that the account could have lost money?

I think that should be an obvious yes.

Was the account allowed to win money?

No.

Freeroll.

End of story.

yes yes, it's a free roll situation by definition.

BUT, can you at least concede that Cory/Helena have not suffered from being freerolled this time? I think you know that's the point of contention most people arguing over the freeroll word have.

[HedgeHog]

Wait. Are you agreeing with Ray on the definition of freeroll?

How about the definition of banned? Do you need this explained to you for the 100th time?

[MonkeyF0cker]

99% of gamblers don't agree on anything.

But I'd bet more than 60% of people reading this thread are not thinking "Cory got freerolled here". Oh heck, let's go 75% of people reading.

Weird that we are both so certain about our beliefs of what others might think eh? #mindreading101

Why do you two think that freerolling implicitly has a negative connotation? It does not.

[cory1111]

Ill say it one more time, since this whole thread is just going in circles. My mother didnt receive the 3k check after the 1st RF. She made the withdrawal a day before she hit the 2nd RF. She received that 3k check 2 weeks ago, followed by the other remaining deposits. That first withdrawal was on the Sunday when she was on the ship right before she hit that 2nd RF the following Tuesday. My mother cc she used at ** for most of her 53 deposits had the same last name as mine. She couldnt of used her maiden name, or Heritage wouldnt be able to pick up the deposits.

[MonkeyF0cker]

How about the definition of banned? Do you need this explained to you for the 100th time?

Have I argued that the player wasn't banned? Great argument.

Am I on a playground? This is unbelievable.

[MonkeyF0cker]

yes yes, it's a free roll situation by definition.

BUT, can you at least concede that Cory/Helena have not suffered from being freerolled this time? I think you know that's the point of contention most people arguing over the freeroll word have.

If it's a parakeet by definition, it's a parakeet.

If it's a banana by defintion, it's a banana.

If it's a porcupine by defintion, it's a porcupine.

But...

If it's a freeroll by definition, it's a... not a freeroll.

Am I beginning to understand the logic here?

[prop]

Shari we're talking two different things. Someone brought up the rules of Heritage. A couple others have too. You said Pinnacle had the same rules, I said Pinnacle doesn't have rules they can steal. I'm not referring to this case.. we're all on a different topic there.

Heritage rule that the address must be correct at the time of the deposit or can void win and bonuses... is an extremely logical reason for Helena making inconsistent statements. And that's true even if she was guilty or not. She could of been guilty and lost her story over that. She could be innocent and been ruled guilty over statements she believed she needed to make.

Okay so maybe is guilty (and I said maybe because I don't believe this has been anywhere close to proven).. but there are other ways by having al these catch we can steal your money any time we want rules that could in the future make a player who is innocent make a statement they think they need to make and later are accused of something and this statement they so happened to make (because they made a mistake and thought a gotchya rule would be enforceable at some earlier time) is used in a ruling that somehow tilts the evidence enough to towards guilt when player is in fact innocent.

But moving all past that.. Heritage has in their terms and conditions they can void correlated bets. This is a vague rule, for how long.. can they go back in account history for 15 years and just wipe out someone's big jackpot win saying we're adjusting for your past correlated bets. Whether or not they are or are not the type of company that would do this they have it in their rules nonetheless. A simple edit could make it a fair rule. As it stands now it's a potential instrument they can use to justify theft. Pinnacle has fair rules Heritage does not.

But really the rules don't matter: those rules I just said were "catch we can steal your money any time we want rules" again my quoted post from earlier with statement at end..

Right that's the only argument there is not to pay the player. One side's story, and a bunch of bias put together with some limited suggestive strung evidence that when all pieced together has at least one, maybe more, extremely simple "no more / no less likely" possible explanation(s) exist for. But more so the reason not to pay is the fact simple: you don't like Cory. That's what you got.

Then the only ones who control the fate of the disputed cash start spreading the arbitrator of Cory's own choice concluded he bearded and the monkeys all repeat. As if the player didn't go to the only place anyone would go for assistance in a Heritage dispute and fill out a request for assistance. Player alleges the first dispute analysis to contact him was not interested in facts but in a less than friendly tone demanded a confession of his guilt. Where the arbitrator of choice spin comes in is at this point Cory contacted Heritage and asked Justin be assigned instead. At no time was this ever a hearing, it was not an arbitration, the player had no representation. During the spin that the player's arbitrator of his own choice was being repeated this almost went as far as saying he should of chosen Winner_13 to arbitrate instead. This was at the very least a dishonest sell.

During this time it's alleged Heritage Sports attempted a bullying attack on the player. There was this we have an expert looking at this but you need to shut up for 3 weeks and what strongly appears to be the suggestion of if you give us bad press on forums your chance of seeing a dime are diminished or at least greatly reduced. When confronted with this Heritage Insider made a statement that appears to be a lie, perhaps there's some room for semantics that we can call it dishonest.

We also have that in what was likely a PR attempt Heritage claimed that the disputed winnings are going to Cory's side or to charity. Repeated requests if concrete proof of such a donation should it get to that point will be provided have been continuously dodged. These requests were posted inside several back and forth dialogues and reiterated and even asked why the statement was dodged, to once again no response. All that was said is that they will go to charity several times. So again still waiting on that response, and forgive me for being a little sceptical with a company that made several attempts I perceive as highly dishonest to spin this story, not all of which are included in this post.

As time progressed Heritage Insider went as far to attempt to sell the player received a third party arbitration two times, once with Lou and once with Justin. Cory's rebuttal was along the lines of why doesn't Heritage just say my mother had three arbitrations the first is when she requested to be paid. He then clarifies his statement that all he did was fill out a complaint form, his guilt was assumed, a confession demanded so he asked for Justin to take over. This wasn't an arbitration and the sell an arbitrator of his own choice ruled against can at the very best be worded as a misleading sell.

Then we have the element of you can have a UK arbitrator as well. This is offered by the same person who jumped in right away to debate deposits should be taken too. This was then later sold by Heritage Insider as this super fair how great we are we went through 2 arbitrations already and we're such a super great company we're willing to give a third.

The problem with UK is several terms and conditions Justin7 has a history of not considering valid in disputes have been repeatedly upheld there. He and others have made critical statements about such terms in the past. The guys lobbying it's more than fair and that there were two arbitrations already are wrong. There was never a first, nor a second. There was a request for assistance and was a mediation which the player decided to stop participating in leading the mediator to have no choice in how he ruled (that part is fair, but at least one and maybe more "no more / no less likely" reason(s) for dropping out do(does) exists though, and it's too bad if they were not confronted sooner).

So no arbitrator has decided this dispute, no hearing took place, no totality of evidence was considered, and now it's being sold more than fair to give one final last recourse of agreeing to an arbitration in a country where the chances are stacked against him. He is not from that country, nor is the company is he is dealing with. Plus there's another big issue too, but will leave it at that for now. Sounds fair? Of course: because we don't like Cory.

What it comes down to is when you deal with Heritage Sports you have no recourse at all but SBR. John played a big part is setting what only other recourse the player has and was in thread quickly. Basically, if Heritage is certain of your guilt, and John is certain of your guilt.. then wtf can you possibly do? This is like the only site that delivers them players. All that matters is the spin here, having enough shills, having enough bonuses fed etc. that people post looking for the scraps.. All the diversions to show player's unquestionable guilt.

How this resembles the EZStreet case in another way... TONS of People at TheRX thought he should be robbed. TONS. Why because EZStreet Shills, scrap seekers etc.. plus TheRX paid posters are over there.. have less interaction on SBR. That's why.. it's because it is easy to control public perception on a forum.. So what does it matter what their rules say anyway, because really their rules are a moot point. If Heritage thinks you're guilty and John thinks you're guilty, innocence or not will never matter. On most other forums there isn't a lot of interest but it is definitely far less anti-Cory posters and very few raving about Heritage. (this only forum on the internet that raves much about Heritage, sure some comments here and there.)

And to be clear: John could be the most stand up guy in the world, and Heritage could be the greatest company in the world.. but if they're both sure you're guilty even if you're not.. wtf can you do?

[HedgeHog]

Have I argued that the player wasn't banned? Great argument.

Am I on a playground? It's unbelievable.

Thank you, it really is the key point. If not for Cory violating this ban, none of this would happened. Thus both parties should be put back to their original position--which is what Justin7 did. Glad you're finally starting to get the big picture.

[prop]

99% of gamblers don't agree on anything.

Sorry it was street talk. I don't call recreational players gamblers in everyday conversation, usually when I say gambler I mean someone who makes part of their regular income from gambling. Before reading into that, I do mean "sorry, it was street talk" that's all (nothing more to infer from this post), your other point made and received.

[raydog]

Ill say it one more time, since this whole thread is just going in circles. My mother didnt receive the 3k check after the 1st RF. She made the withdrawal a day before she hit the 2nd RF. She received that 3k check 2 weeks ago, followed by the other remaining deposits. That first withdrawal was on the Sunday when she was on the ship right before she hit that 2nd RF the following Tuesday. My mother cc she used at ** for most of her 53 deposits had the same last name as mine. She couldnt of used her maiden name, or Heritage wouldnt be able to pick up the deposits.

my bad...exact same thing...the acct. was getting paid before the fraud was discovered...

cory, why didnt your mom deposit with a Harnash cc ? she signs up under harnash and then uses roth cc for deposits...too stupid to realize that at some point in time, this would be picked up on...heritage incompetence that they didnt look into it until further investigating the acct. .. do it better next time kid

[MonkeyF0cker]

Thank you, it really is the key point. If not for Cory violating this ban, none of this would happened. Thus both parties should be put back to their original position--which is what Justin7 did. Glad you're finally starting to get the big picture.

So you agree that the player should have the chance to return to their original position if the player loses? Good. So do I.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[raydog]

there is no player...he does not exist on their books...his original position is 0...he isnt circumventing limits...he is dead to them...there was no freeroll...you can scream they are simply stealing from him (which would be wrong too), but freeroll, in this case is the wrong term imo, buddy...sorry to get you so fired up

[HedgeHog]

I guess you haven't been reading. Does the player have a chance to return to their original position if the player loses? No.

Maybe/Maybe not--how can you be certain? However,for the 101st time, who committed the original transgression? Hint: C_RY.

PS Would you like to buy a vowel?