[raiders72002]

I'd guess 95%.

[SBR_John]

Bill could say for sure but I'd guess out of complaints we receive maybe 7%-9% have broken a rule on purpose in order to gain an advantage.

The majority of complaints are the books fault. The most common is when they hang a poorly worded and over generous bonus to lure suckers and the net catches a few bonus scalpers, middlers or just very good cappers. The book cries foul and the dispute is on.

[Mudcat]

Interesting. And what % of posters on your forum are shills who lie through their teeth trying to con other posters to send money to STIFF books like BETonSPORTS but then think maybe their own scammy and scummy past won't look so bad if they try pointing fingers in other directions?

[tacomax]

Mudcat, I've got a feeling who you're talking about but I can't quite put my finger on it. Any clues?

[bigboydan]

Hey John, Nobody told me it was "attack Raiders night".

From some of the complaints I've fielded over the years. I think 95% is way off. A lot of those complaints were legitimate actually. Books were grading prop bets wrong, or grading a game a loser in stead of a winner. Hell... 5Dimes is famous for that, but always corrected the error.

[tacomax]

Hey John, Nobody told me it was "attack Raiders night".

No, that's on Thursday.

[raiders72002]

Mudcat- How many bailouts have you had? How many problems with books have you had? How many bad lines have you played and then whined about it later?

[tacomax]

Mudcat- How many bailouts have you had? How many problems with books have you had? How many bad lines have you played and then whined about it later?

That was either a good piece of improvisational comedy or someone who hasn't got a clue how to formulate a coherent argument. I'm stuck between the two here.

I'll give you a hint. Mudcat said that you try pointing fingers in other directions to mask your scamming tendencies. And what do you do to combat that? Point a finger at someone else.

Since you have seemingly got something against people who have taken bailouts then why has your past history been full of you "trying" to secure bailouts for the scam books you tout (as long as their name isn't Baus, for reasons that change as often as the wind changes)?

[raiders72002]

I don't think much of a player that has multiple bailouts and plays BAD LINES.

[tacomax]

I don't think much of a player that has multiple bailouts

If someone played all the scam books you've shilled on the boards, how many bailouts would they have accrued?

[SBR_John]

Even in the dispute with BoS that raiders worked against SBR and the player, raiders agreed he should be paid. He also agreed that BoS should not pay him. Both hats fit.

And raiders BoS case is typical of how third partys act when they are trying to settle a dispute with a book that pays them.

The BoS case was dissapointing because Archer of BoS was on the fence. He was leaning towards paying. In the end he did not.

Thats why we tell people with a complaint let us settle it without any fanfare. It only takes one raiders type to throw the whole thing off.

Dan this is not pick on raiders day. What happened cant be ignored either. We all make mistakes. Raiders is not a bad guy. He tried to make some things happen and imo took a few short cuts.