View Single Post
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:51 PM
areeff areeff is offline
Private 1st Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Send a message via AIM to areeff
Default

Java from RXposted one of the most eloquent pieces on this issue. I will not even try to steal his ideas so i will just paste them here.

"
Why Dave Johnson's post is inconsistent:
1) Dave admits that the +605 line was available since 9:45pm
the previous night AND that a line manager was there the
whole time. So, of the nine bets he got, he is honoring 5.
The other 4, bets he is breaking up into two groups of 2
and saying one group is a separate case from Areef.
(Notice the backing off of the rumor they put in
bettorspub and here that Areef had 4 accounts, without
any apology to Areef).
2) He said the other 5 accounts also got paid, because they
didn't exceed their wager limits. Areef didn't exceed
his limit either. The limit on Tennis was $1000, and
that is what Areef bet.
3) How can Dave claim a line that was available for 8-9 hours
is a BAD LINE, if a line manager was available the whole time?
How long does a line have to be up for it to be THE line?
According to Dave's story, Areef was at the tail end of the
8+ hours? So, if Areef had made the bet the night before, and
mentioned it to a buddy 8 hours later, would Casablanca have
still honored both bets? What if there is an injury
report overnight? What if Areef bet $120 each hour for
all 8 hours?
4) If Casablanca really knew about the problem at the time of the
bet, why was it graded a winner? Why not hold off grading while
you investigate? Seems more likely that they didn't know anything
about it until they noticed a big loss for the day, then they had
to scramble to figure out why.
5) He claims that Areef used a spider program and
"I do not throw out players who use these types of programs".
He invites them to continue to use spider program and scalp.
But, he complains that the Areef has bet weak numbers in the past
(Duh),
and then uses Areef's past history of betting weak number as
an excuse to not pay the full amount on the bet.
6) BTW, Dave, how is the Spider program YOU started building
2 months ago working out for you? Could this be your reason
for declaring spiders okay (for when you get caught)?
7) If he paid all the other players, how is honoring Areef's bet
"giving away the store"? How small is the store?
Sounds to me like Areef is being punished for speaking out.
8) The IP address argument is VERY weak. Areef admitted he told a
buddy about the number. Gosh, two guys in the same state that
know each other and discussed a play. What are the odds?
Gee, could they have the same ISP (maybe same cable company)?
9) If Dave is really going to declare these two as one account,
then it should be one max bet of $1000 for the +605 he is
honoring. Because, if Areef didn't call his friend, there
would only be one bet, and Areef would have gotten grouped
with the 5 that Casablanca is honoring. (I find the
'same account' argument weak, but if true, then $6050
to one account would be fair amount, not $1500 each.)
10) This "average bet" argument is also nonsense. What is the guy's
previous MAX bet, not average bet? Don't forget, Dave Johnson
tried lying to Areef earlier, claiming the limit on Tennis was
really $200.
11) Hot head is an understatement. Ranting and raving lunatic is
the more common description. The reputation is well earned."

Reply With Quote