[Justin7]

In the dispute involving MyFootballGame, Wagerweb claimed that some of the 9 accounts were ficticious. ID was requested for all 9 accounts (even ones with no balance) since money was repeatedly transferred between the 9 accounts.

On June 30, I requested proof of ID from all players. There were some discussions between me and the players, but no IDs
have been provided. The players initially agreed to provide them, but did not. One of the players (who controlled one of the conclusively linked fraudulent accounts) subsequently refused to produce ID.

As the players are refusing to cooperate with my investigation, I am assuming that Wagerweb's assertion that one person controlled multiple accounts is true. Wagerweb provided proof that the players committed fraud. The players did not successfully refute this (with either an explanation of what happened or proof of identity).

Wagerweb and the players entered into an agreement. In the agreement, Wagerweb agreed not to forfeit money the players won via bonus fraud. In exchange, the players received part of their winnings, and agreed to a substantial rollover on the balance before being allowed to withdraw any more money. I cannot say this agreement was unfair - each side received a benefit.

The players entered a subsequent agreement with WagerWeb. They would forfeit their balances (and rollover requirement on that balance) in exchange for another lump-sum payment. This agreement was valid as well. The players received that money, and their balances were set to $0 per the agreement.

I have spent over 100 hours investigating many angles on this dispute. I have heard a lot more details in confidence that I am not disclosing. I would note that there are a myriad of other factors that make WagerWeb's version more credible, and the players' less credible (which I cannot disclose unless all parties waive confidentiality).

My conclusion on this dispute: Wagerweb handled a very complicated case of bonus fraud properly.

[BigBollocks]

I think it's hard to argue with your conclusion here Justin.

Thanks for the time you put in as I think a lot of us neutral observers were interested to see what would come out of all of this...

Justin there's one sentence I disagree with however..."I would note that there are a myriad of other factors that make WagerWeb's version more credible, and the players' less credible (which I cannot disclose unless all parties waive confidentiality)."

MFG gave you permission earlier, and he's the one found to have been controlling said accounts. In addition, he's been allowed to post repeated diatribes against wagerweb despite warning, which should have instantly called for both sides' facts to be disclosed by a neutral party in a neutrally started thread. I think the facts should have all come out then, and I still think they should all come out now in the spirit of fairness as well as to have both sides' story instead of just one side's smear campaign. This is supposed to be a forum of information above all. I hope you'll reconsider this one for all of our sakes....

[Bill Dozer]

Providing your identification is standard. It appears this is a hurdle for MFG and his coworkers which would begin to explain the odd choice of consolidating the accounts.

[20Four7]

Justin,

On behalf of us legit players, we owe you thanks. If I run into any problems I would appreciate half of the effort you gave these guys. If all sides are happy I'd say a great balance was reached. From reading what some of the "posters" had put on the board I think they took a large shot at the book and the book fired back. While I don't have a wager web account, this would not stop me from opening one. I"ve been ID to receive a bonus and them refusing to be ID'd seems to be the nail in their coffin.

good job SBR and Justin.

[jjgold]

I guess right decision was made

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Wagerweb and the players entered into an agreement. In the agreement, Wagerweb agreed not to forfeit money the players won via bonus fraud. In exchange, the players received part of their winnings, and agreed to a substantial rollover on the balance before being allowed to withdraw any more money. I cannot say this agreement was unfair - each side received a benefit.

The players entered a subsequent agreement with WagerWeb. They would forfeit their balances (and rollover requirement on that balance) in exchange for another lump-sum payment. This agreement was valid as well. The players received that money, and their balances were set to $0 per the agreement.

I wish I had a clearer idea of what this whole thing means. Some of the wording is confusing and of course "lump-sum payment" can mean anything.

I don't expect a full dollar-by-dollar rundown. Basically what I'm wondering is: did this scammer end up profiting on the deal?

[ritehook]

Just perusing what is known of this case "at arms length," as lawyers like to say, it seems that Justin did a very commendable and fairminded job as a kind of referee.

Let's hope this case is closed now and forever.

[raiders72002]

Nice work Justin.

[wrongturn]

Without Justin, they probably won't get anything back. Good work.

[BigDog]

Nice job Justin and the SBR

[MYFOOTBALLGAME]

Justin,

There must be some misunderstanding here. One of the guys claims he has been waiting two weeks for you to respond to an email. He and the other guy claimed they they emailed you saying they wouldn't be comfortable sending their id in until they knew where their case stood. You told me that you needed all 9 id's before we could move forward, so we have been waiting on them to work out their individual situations with you before we sent the id's in. We want to move forward but were waiting on them. So we are waiting on them to hear back from you from what they told me. If I'm missing something please email me or call me. Thanks

P.S. I didn't put that green smiley there and don't know how to make disappear with this edit.

[tacomax]

Originally Posted by MYFOOTBALLGAME

There must be some misunderstanding here.

Where is the misunderstanding? You've accepted an offer from Wagerweb and the case is closed. Fair enough, you (meaning you as a group) might not have wanted to provide IDs - that's your prerogative. And your failing to do that was the difference between you getting what you wanted and what you actually got. SBR acted as a no-cost judge for you on this case. If this was a real court then not providing your defence evidence for your claim would give you little chance of winning. From your actions, you should be grateful that you got anything at all.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by MYFOOTBALLGAME

Justin,

There must be some misunderstanding here. One of the guys claims he has been waiting two weeks for you to respond to an email. He and the other guy claimed they they emailed you saying they wouldn't be comfortable sending their id in until they knew where their case stood.

Are you asking people to believe that anyone would be comfortable sending in a large amount of money -to an offshore book-, but not be comfortable enough to send in an ID (to receive his money back)?

[raiders72002]

Are you asking people to believe that anyone would be comfortable sending in a large amount of money -to an offshore book-, but not be comfortable enough to send in an ID (to receive his money back)

[tatehill2000]

Raiders, Dark horse,,,, you hav e no idea whats heppening here,,,,

If you DID then you would of read the THREATENING LETTER WW sent ME and my bro,,,, if u DO a search you will find it on this site,,, I will REPOST IT if NOONE does the research,,,

this is what the PROBLEM IS,,, I personally have been threatend by someone with SERIOUS capability to carry out any threat they CHOOSE,,,,

There is a good bi t of SCRATCH here on the table,,,, I dont represent MUCH of it,,,, But enough,,,,

For what its worht I am sooooooo grateful,, thank you SO much Jason for dedicateig TIME on this case,,, ty very much,,, I swwear I know your AGGRIVATED with it Jason,,,,

BUT MAN I WAITED for 2 months on WW to "NOT COME UP WITH INFORMATION" and now Im given a week or 2 to bring u my info,,??????
ugh,,, not fair,,,, I know your dealing wiht my friend,,, he is handleing my negotiations to my account I honestly dont know what to say,,this thing is complicated for you as well as meeee?????,,

I am sad by what I personally feel is a premature decision,,,, and I am very very sad that I wasent EMAILED that this FINAL decision wasent sent to me first, ,,

anyway,,,,, PLEASE KNOW I am posting this with complete respect to you and your organization,,,, I have said LITTLE to NOTHING over this issue on the boards,,, I am asking for only 1 thing Jason and thats to NOT close my case 100%,,,

all the best
tater

[Dark Horse]

I believe his name is Justin, not Jason. But no worries. No need to take identities too literally.

[JoshW]

Justin you seemed to have gone above and beyond on handling this situation. Well done.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Yeah that almost sounds believable Tater. A week or two is hardly enough time to provide a copy of your ID. Usually takes me at least 6 months. Also, it makes sense that you would let your "friend" handle the negotiations. I always let my friends control the fate of my money. If I were you, I'd take the settlement and run for the hills before it's not on the table any more.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

I believe his name is Justin, not Jason. But no worries. No need to take identities too literally.

That's one of the sharper lines I've seen in recent history.



In my previous post I was focusing on the $$$ issues of the settlement. (I still would be curious to know what happened with that. Did he profit? Get he get his deposits back? Was there any kind of punitive measure?)

But what I failed to say was: thanks Justin and good job.

[Justin7]

The parties had an agreement before I got involved. I'm not looking at my notes, so I won't guarantee perfection on it.

The players made about $500k on bonuses, but lost about $300k in juice to win the bonuses. The agreement from January paid the players 50k, and imposed a huge rollover (I don't remember whether it was 5m or 10m). The players lost a lot of money trying to reach that rollover, and reached a second agreement - give up on their balances and rollover, and collect $40k.

In the end, the players lost money on the whole deal. Neither agreement was changed - at the case's closing, the agreements were left intact.

[tatehill2000]

This is why Ive not said a Gdam thing this whole time,,, Yall are a bunch of scabs that dont know the whole story Chimeing in on 1 tiny point,,, (Sorry about the Jason comment Justin),,,, I've had been on vacation for a few weeks and Justin had mostly had one contact person for the group and I thought all was going fine until now. I was informed Justin needed all 9 id's before he could do anything else and that a couple guys that had issues of placing a few bets for one another didn't think it was necessary to provide their id's if they weren't going to get any of their money back,,

this is jacked,,, oh well,,

tater

[Mudcat]

I thought someone already buried that corpse.

[tacomax]

Originally Posted by tatehill2000

I was informed Justin needed all 9 id's before he could do anything else and that a couple guys that had issues of placing a few bets for one another didn't think it was necessary to provide their id's if they weren't going to get any of their money back

If you're in court and you don't provide a defence, you're not going to win the case. SBR is the most player-friendly arbitrator out there so that was the best chance of you getting your money. As it turns out, it was the failure of those two guys who refused to provide their IDs (for whatever reason) so don't have a go at WagerWeb, don't have a go at SBR - have a go at those two guys who cost you the resolution you were after. If they exist, that is.

[SBR_John]

I would stop short of calling these players scammers despite the opinion of SBR.

Many times they are pushing the rules to the max to try to cut a profit. Nothing wrong with that. It does not per se make them scammers.

The burden always falls on the book as it should. They make the rules, offers, ect., not the players.

It would appear in this case WagerWeb had the goods. In the nearly 9 years I have been in this racket I've never had a single problem getting proper ID's from players in the right.

The book may have won this one but that doesn't mean the players are scammers.

[BigDog]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

I would stop short of calling these players scammers despite the opinion of SBR.

Many times they are pushing the rules to the max to try to cut a profit. Nothing wrong with that. It does not per se make them scammers.

The burden always falls on the book as it should. They make the rules, offers, ect., not the players.

It would appear in this case WagerWeb had the goods. In the nearly 9 years I have been in this racket I've never had a single problem getting proper ID's from players in the right.

The book may have won this one but that doesn't mean the players are scammers.

Scammers or not....either way you look @ it this type of activity is not good for the industry....These guys were in the wrong but they still go to every forum crying their story....Wonder what that kind of advertising did for WWeb?(not too good I'd bet)

Keep up the great work SBR!