ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:05 PM
jjgold jjgold is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,795
Default

Good Post Peep,

cbs does not belong in business period anymore.

Show your support and pull out of the book.
__________________
"JJ Call me a 2'x4' again on the forum and your going to pay" Sportman.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:10 PM
areeff areeff is offline
Private 1st Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Send a message via AIM to areeff
Default

Peep is totally right. Unless you are a complete sh*t book you will get action if you have the best line. If i wake up tomorrow and decide i like SEA (MLB) i'm going to load up a few browsers and see who has the best line. It's very simple. If two books tie for the best line and they are both reputable then it comes down to who has the best kicksbacks(many will give 5-10% back on losses, etc). If there are no kickbacks i go with whoever is the most solid between the solid books.

The fact remains that Dave's management let this bet ride knowing it was a 6:1 dog in there book and figured it would certainly lose and they would figure a way out of paying if they lost shows that Dave's management wanted a win/win situation here where he won if his bet lost, and he won if his bet won
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:16 PM
jjgold jjgold is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,795
Default

Areeff welcome to majorwager.

Lots of solid guys here like across the street. some different styles.

You were to sharp for them and they thought they had a sure win.

Dave stole your money!!!!!!

Biggest thievery in the history of offshore gambling
__________________
"JJ Call me a 2'x4' again on the forum and your going to pay" Sportman.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:23 PM
TTinCO TTinCO is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,937
Default

Areef, maybe you need a little review of "Bookmaker-Player Dispute Resolution Best Practices"

Rule #1....If you want to get paid, never be rude or abusive with the staff.
Rule #2....Inform site mods or owners of your dispute, and let them see what answer they get from the book. Ideally, find a forum where the particular book advertises. Until they get an anwer from the book, keep your mouth shut.
Rule #3....If you take your complaint to the forums, you probably lose 50% of whatever chance you had of getting paid.
Rule #4....If you go to the forums, and you lie about the details. You're done. People WILL find out the truth.
Rule #5....If you go to the forums and relentless bash the book, you're done.

Did it ever occur to you that you were made an example of due to your conduct in the forums....even after being told that Dave would be back on Tuesday? You undeniably LIED about the other lines available. You ranted on & on before Dave was able to respond. Books will NOT give in to you once you have pulled shit like this.

Live & learn


Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:25 PM
jjgold jjgold is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,795
Default

Tico you could be right but CBS is done now.

I see a massive pullout coming
__________________
"JJ Call me a 2'x4' again on the forum and your going to pay" Sportman.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:37 PM
areeff areeff is offline
Private 1st Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Send a message via AIM to areeff
Default

Let's go over ttinco's post since he obviously has not been following the story since day 1


rule #1....If you want to get paid, never be rude or abusive with the staff.
I was vey polite on the phone but they told me i had no chance of getting paid and would not discuss it. They had told me dave made the decision(they lied) and he would not speak with me about it then they emailed me under daves name and said it would not be looked into.


Rule #2....Inform site mods or owners of your dispute, and let them see what answer they get from the book. Ideally, find a forum where the particular book advertises. Until they get an anwer from the book, keep your mouth shut.
Right, that worked with the Taylor Dent NOT to WIN @ 5dimes. Nothing came of it.


Rule #3....If you take your complaint to the forums, you probably lose 50% of whatever chance you had of getting paid.
I had 0% chance of getting paid before. So 50% of 0 is still 0. Do the math, it was the smart thing to do


Rule #4....If you go to the forums, and you lie about the details. You're done. People WILL find out the truth.
This is true but there have been no details lied about. All the truth has and will be stated. You must be more specific

Rule #5....If you go to the forums and relentless bash the book, you're done.
You're done what?

Did it ever occur to you that you were made an example of due to your conduct in the forums....even after being told that Dave would be back on Tuesday? You undeniably LIED about the other lines available. You ranted on & on before Dave was able to respond. Books will NOT give in to you once you have pulled shit like this

Again this is more ignorance? Why? Let me explain

They may make an example of anyone they like but they had already made an example of me by refusing to pay. They did NOT say dave would be back on tuesday (Is it tueday already? Ha it's sunday) and they originally told me that dave was in and already made his decision. After they said that they had lied and dave did not say the things he said but someone else did using his name i toned things down CONSIDERABLY until dave made a response. Others lit the fire but i just responded to questions posted.

there was no lie about other lines available. It was clearly posted that this price was available at +650. Sure it was a treble parlay but that just shows that the line was available. Noone has a log of betbrains information but this was not the highest line. I have stated that and will continue to state that. My guess was that WH and VC had a higher line because usually they had shit lines. This was merely a guess when asked. But the +650 line is plenty good even if it is a parlay line because if i would've saw that line iw ould've just parlayed Serena and Agassi Moneyline intot hat sucker and got a risky scalp. So with that said +650 is a sweet line. Give me that again and i'll load any book on max bet.

I ranted on and on before dave was able to respond?

this was NOT the case. Dave claimed to respond but then his management came back later saying they responded under dave's name. is it my job to knows that is not really dave?

Please

Your have no argument.

Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:42 PM
jjgold jjgold is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,795
Default

PLAYERS ARE PULLING OUT OF CBS AS WE SPEAK, SPREAD THE WORD
__________________
"JJ Call me a 2'x4' again on the forum and your going to pay" Sportman.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2003, 11:49 PM
The Actuary The Actuary is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 20,122
Default

the truth is the guy is a shot taker and should've taken what was offered initially and said thank you,

you can blast CBS till your fingers fall off,
it won't change the fact the guy knew he was betting into a bad number which is stealing.

In the old days guy's like this would be too ashamed to show their face to collect. Now they mislead, and extort.
__________________
In 1998 the Department of Justice brought charges under the Wire Act against 22 American citizens involved in managing foreign-based sites. "You canít hide online," Janet Reno, the attorney-general, warned Internet betting operators, "and you canít hide offshore."
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 12:04 AM
Peep Peep is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,977
Default

The truth is any of us that use more than one book are "shot takers" by Dave Johnson's definition.

One of the reasons he refuses to pay the bet is, in his own words:

"Every wager made up until that point was only made on lines that were weak or there was considerable value. These players were 'shoppers' who used betCBS only when a line had value".

This is scarey stuff for me. He wants players who bet into a line that has no value?

I would never ever play at this book.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 12:10 AM
TheGuesser TheGuesser is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,322
Default

Sorry TA, but it seems CBS and Dave were the shot takers in this instance.
Dave wrote some very interesting stuff. But it has no relevance to the case at hand. His Place took a bet from a player, and didn't notify him until 8 hours after the event completion that he was voiding or lowering the bets, after they won. Those are the only facts that matter, everything else is camoflogue(sp?).
Did Areef use a spider program, and is he a line shopper who only bets weak lines? Irrelevant!!!
The only way I would side with CBS is if they can prove that Areef and his in-state friend are the same person, who made identical bets every time, solely to circuvent bet limits, ala that iwinoridie scammer and SIA. Since that does not seem to be alleged, CBS has no case, and anything other than FULL payment to Areef and the other person, like is being made to the other 7 people, is thievery on the part of Casa Blanca. Dave's explanation reeks of that idiot for Scam Book Black Rhino, who came on here and tried to get sympathy, by alleging that the player was a Shopper!!! Not putting Dave's book in Black Rhino's class, but this act is a Black Rhino like act unless it's made right.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 12:11 AM
cash cash is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: thailand
Posts: 4,813
Default

Dave's backpeddling here is ill conceived.
Top guy is weak. Seems reasonable the underlings
will also be weak as shown by a badline being
allowed to exist for hours while supposedly being
monitored.

Got to call 'em like I see 'em.
Can't see ever posting up here.
__________________
I savor the flavor by being no stranger to danger
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 12:28 AM
Wiz Wiz is offline
Private 1st Class
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 39
Default

Let's look at the 5 criteria (assuming most important first):
1st) Wager Type
Q: Do these players normally wager on Tennis or any other
Matchup sports?
My A: Well, Tennis is not that common, so hard to claim that a
player betting a number he liked (that was posted since
9:45 pm the previous evening) is abnormal behavior.
What if a football player gets the itch to bet a hockey
game one night? Is he at risk to have the bet voided?
Conclusion: criteria #1 not violated.
2nd) Wager Amount
Q: Was the amount wagered representative of the normal
wager amount...?
My A: Well, has the player ever bet $1000 (the limit for Tennis)
before? If this was a typical $50 or $100 player, it might
be different. But if the player has bet dimes before,
then $1000 is within range of player risk.
Conclusion: criteria #2 not violated.
3rd) Wager History
Q: Is the player and everyday player or simply someone who
comes in and only makes a wager on an obvious mistake?
My A: Dave admits that player has bet weak line, but not
mistaken numbers before. He says that he doesn't throw
out shoppers and scalpers (who might be sporadic).
Conclusion: criteria #3 not violated.
4th) Past Offenses
Q: Has this player ever been warned previously about
'bad line' policy?
My A: Dave said no. This was first incident.
Conclusion: criteria #4 not violated.
5th) IP Information
Q: Is there anything strange in regards to the information the
player registered and the IP address being used?
My A: Dave admits that the only IP connections are that
they are in the same state (not same house or computer,
just state) and they both used a spider program.
Could they just be two friends that shared some information?
Conclusion: criteria #5 not violated, as merely conferring
with a friend in your same state is not strong enough
for a no-pay on charge of collusion.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 12:28 AM
cerberus cerberus is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,229
Default

TA,

I totally agree that this guy took a shot, but when Dave said,

<< We took many bets on the Matchup throughout the evening and right up until it went off the board. The line manager did not realize the mistake until three bets came in minutes apart on Nadal for the maximum limit(total of $3000). >>

<< The Matchup was immediately closed and we started to investigate the situation. >>

They were aware of the situation. They should immediately have cancelled all these wagers. Not cancelling them put the ball in their court to possibly keep the money if the bet lost.

If the bet had lost, do you think they would have refunded it? I have never played at Casablanca, and do not know of the integrity of the operators, so I would have to assume no.

Players should not take advantage of obvious errors. But books have to realize that they have to be more careful when they post their lines, and maybe they should just eat their mistakes. This would probably prevent them from making them in the future. Perhaps they can pay a guy $10 an hour to scour all their lines, and make sure that they are good. Many books are just too cheap to do this.

Being a player, I am usually pro-player. I don't condone what Areeff did, but the actions of Casablanca also leave much to be deisired. I think books get off way too easy when they don't spent the proper time, money, and resources to make sure that they have accurate lines. I would rather bet at a book that puts up their lines last, but puts up their lines correctly. That way, you know that a bet is a bet.

Besides, this is gambling isn't it? This line was a little off compared to other books, but who is to say that Casablanca did not decide to take a bold stance on this tennis match because they had a strong opinion on it? I think Roddick will crush Srichipan tommorrow at Wimbledon, and I see some +400s on Paradorn. Let us say I own a book, and decide to offer +800 on Srichipan. If Srichipan wins, can I simply claim that it was a bad line?
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 01:45 AM
The Actuary The Actuary is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 20,122
Default

Cerb let there be no mistake CBS' actions are reprehensible, and I posted that he should be paid,
that still doesn't change the fact that the guy tried to steal and his name should be shared amongst books as a crook.

Even with all the yea buts, it was a coordinated effort amongst a group of knowledgable bettors, it is pure BS to suggest they knew anything but exactly what they were doing.

All these posts about the number being in the gray area and all the other bullshit, is being posted either by folks purposefully misleading the crowd or those not current on CBS tennis betting or for that matter the current tennis market. It is more likely that Elvis is alive then CBS' posting a tennis number outside the market.

They are shot takers, they portrayed the incident as a poor poor pitiful ignorant me had no idea that the price was absurd, then mischaracterized the tennis market all in an effort to extort money. Pigs would've taken the original offer and said thank you, hogs get slaughtered.
__________________
In 1998 the Department of Justice brought charges under the Wire Act against 22 American citizens involved in managing foreign-based sites. "You canít hide online," Janet Reno, the attorney-general, warned Internet betting operators, "and you canít hide offshore."
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 01:48 AM
woody stephens woody stephens is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 556
Default

Cerberus,

Your example shows you do not have a clear understanding of booking. The plus 400 which was 50 larger than most would be taking a stand. Going to 600 or your example of 800 would not be required to write all you wanted.

TA is correct which is standard procedure for him. Never discount the wisdom of this good poster. He might not always be correct but he is most of the time.

This play should not have been made without calling the book to verify the line. Anything short of that was taking a chance that you would not be paid and likely have a nude play on the other side if your amount was significantly above your normal level.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 01:54 AM
jjgold jjgold is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,795
Default

Dave is the shot taker, CBS is going down fast.

stay away
__________________
"JJ Call me a 2'x4' again on the forum and your going to pay" Sportman.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 01:55 AM
woody stephens woody stephens is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 556
Default

jj,

I saw on the other side of the road were a poster suggested you take off your hairpiece and get some oxygen to your brain. I think he has a point.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 02:06 AM
The Actuary The Actuary is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 20,122
Default

Guesser I agree with everything in your post almost,
but still doesn't change the fact that the bettor knowingly took a shot at a bad line.

Do you think CBS posted it on purpose?

__________________
In 1998 the Department of Justice brought charges under the Wire Act against 22 American citizens involved in managing foreign-based sites. "You canít hide online," Janet Reno, the attorney-general, warned Internet betting operators, "and you canít hide offshore."
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2003, 02:09 AM
TTinCO TTinCO is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,937
Default

TA, that's something that we will never know for certain-but given that they didn't say anything to the players until after the event, it's ALWAYS going to be a big ????? over the books head.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6