[Scottyj]

Gentlemen,

I have given great thought on this unfortunate situation and regardless of win or loss my only intention is to do the right thing. The account holder violated the specific Bet Jamaica nickel limits / no dupes by placing multiple nickel tickets. This was recently discovered when a winning ticket was flagged for time check. The account was audited and discovered other violations had also recently occurred. The balance correction was made with both refunds and forfeitures.

However despite the pop-up limit message there are a couple of valid points to also be considered to be completely fair.

1.) The account did have an opportunity to lose the wagers.
2.) The bets were placed on correct odds.
3.) Some people that I do respect also felt since the horse software didn’t block duplicate tickets that the pop-up limit message should have been more detailed.

For security purposes I have a couple of remaining questions to ask the account holder. I have emailed the account holder to contact me today so that we may resolve and conclude this situation by honoring the duplicate nickel horse ticket in question.

Thank you all for your assistance and feed back and support in discussing this situation.

Please feel free to contact me personally at anytime.

Scotty

800 329 2640
www.betjm.com

[eric dy]

Now this seems like a first class sportsbook.

[chano]

Bet Jam Sucks. Thats just my opinion and i am entitled to it.

[JBC77]

BetJam is a solid book. As solid as it gets. Been with them 2 years and I have never even had to call customer service. That tight.

I don't loose a wink of sleep putting money with these guys.....and thats rare these days.

[groovinmahoovin]

While I applaud you for doing the right thing in the end, it is alarming that you shared this bettor's real name and location with an unsavory individual, despite the fact that your signup sheet says "Fill out this confidential form." I suggest you take greater measures to protect your customers' confidentiality in the future.

[TLD]

I respect your decision a lot on this one Scotty.

I did not think you were intentionally cheating the player with your initial ruling, though I disagreed with it on its merits. I felt it was a close enough call that reasonable people could disagree about, and that your reputation and that of Bet Jamaica provided sufficient reason to believe you’d sincerely believed your decision was justified.

Had you stuck to your original decision, Bet Jamaica would have dropped slightly in my estimation, but certainly not enough for me to feel unsafe playing there or to steer others away from there.

I’m sorry some of those who disagreed with your initial ruling felt a need to keep slamming those on the other side for acting in bad faith. Had I been in the shoes of yourself or the principles of SBR, I would have been sorely tempted to tell them and this player where they could shove their complaint and their abusive accusations. But I hope instead I would have been able to remain clear headed enough to ignore all that and look solely at the substantive reasons that were raised, as it appears you were able to do. Because as I say, I believe on the merits the $1,000 horse wagers that were accepted—winners and losers—should be honored.

[Scottyj]

Grovin,

Thanks for the response and feedback.

I want clarify that personal info was not released. By discussing country and gender with SBR and the other mediator is not what another reader may get from your above post. We do respect and protect clients personal details.

That's no different that saying a male from the U.K. or a female from C.R.

No offense to you however I don't want someone to take your comment out of context.

Feel free to call me personally at 800 329 2640.

Thank you,
Scotty

[jjgold]

Good Move Scotty

I just think it was unclear about no duplicate bets, most assume just for sports because that is what he was betting at the time.

[CrazyLou]

Is telling people to call you personally over and over again supposed to make you look any better here?

[custer]

I talked to Scotty and firmly believe that all information Scotty gave out was relevant and necessary.

I think he should be applauded for taking the time to gather all of the possible information in order to make a fair, reasoned, and honorable decision.

[bigboydan]

I'm glad to see this issue has been resolved.

[Scottyj]

Hello Crazy,

lol, sorry to offend you. I have an open door policy and often email discussions or debates are inferior. Emails are nice but when there is a problem to solve nothing can beat a live call. No I don't think it makes me look any better or worse.

Scotty

[michael777]

good move scotty,i am depositing with you tonight

[groovinmahoovin]

Originally Posted by Scottyj

Grovin,

Thanks for the response and feedback.

I want clarify that personal info was not released. By discussing country and gender with SBR and the other mediator is not what another reader may get from your above post. We do respect and protect clients personal details.

The Shrink posted to LVA that he knew OscarK's real name. Where else could he have gotten it if not from you? Revealing the bettor's gender and country without the bettor's permission is still a breach of the confidentiality agreement that you agreed to when the player signed up for an account. What else does "this information is confidential" mean?

Additionally, calling the Shrink "a mediator" might also give the reader the wrong impression. OscarK never asked the Shrink to mediate the dispute, and the Shrink has a horrid reputation in the offshore world and I know exactly one person that I respect (Fezzik) who thinks he's an ok guy. The rest believe he's a crook.

If you say that the Shrink is lying and that you never told him OscarK's real name, I would probably be inclined to believe you, but calling him "another mediator" when he was never asked to mediate is a bit disingenious.

[Scottyj]

Hi Grovin,

Wow I'm just geting a relief from this whole headache. Let's just please leave well enough. I've already spend more time on this to even go into different directions.

Thanks for the feedback and hopefully this hot potato can rest and the readers can focus on the Bronco's game tonight instead of more he said she said stuff.

I know some readers don't want to see this but "feel free to call me if you'd like".

Happy holidays,
Scotty

800 329 2640
www.betjm.com

[Bill Dozer]

Thanks Scotty for updating the board and highlighting the factors... Some good points also noted by posters, who had opinions on both sides. In the end, a top book taking full responsibility for its part in a dispute.

[jjgold]

groovy don't believe anything the Shrink says, he is a ****** *******, sells peoples emails for cash, promotes bad books for cash, ect.

He is a non factor in the industry.

JJ give the man a break - john

[SBR_John]

Good show BetJam.

Scotty is great to work with. This is one of the reasons players should stick to an A+ book like BetJamiaca. As mentioned early in another thread I had no doubt whatever was fair would be worked out. Thats one of the benefits of playing at an A book.

[20Four7]

This resolution sure beats the thievery that's been going on. I've never funded my betjam account maybe it's time to do so.

[capitalist pig]

Ive been with bet jam for quite awhile, and have always had good experiences with them.

later

[The HG]

Classy move, and good to see. Except in egregious cases, an A book that accepts a wager should honor it.

[Gary_Philly]

After further review, the player's win stands.

I would expect nothing less from an A+ book.

[RickySteve]

Having negotiated past disputes with the honorable Scotty, I was confident from the original post on LVA that he would do the right thing in this case.

[Dark Horse]

Good to see an A+ book living up to the standard, and not bend the rules in its favor just because it can.

Interesting week. SBR, is Wagerweb looking at a downgrade if they don't pay the player in the other dispute?

[SBR_John]

Not sure Dark. This is a close one too. I think we need to find some middle ground in that one.

[Patrick McIrish]

No surprise here, BetJM has earned a great reputation since coming on the scene, they always do the right thing.

[louis]

I very much admire that Scotty here is going to do the right thing. It is absolutely unfair to bash him for his imperfections, when the bottom line is bet jamaica is going to take responsibility for this dispute. The fact he is open to anyone calling him to discuss issues is a good thing. The fact he comes here and posts and listens to what we say is a good thing. I really appreciate this Scotty guy, and will absolutely keep betting at his book.

[tblues2005]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

Good show BetJam.

Scotty is great to work with. This is one of the reasons players should stick to an A+ book like BetJamiaca. As mentioned early in another thread I had no doubt whatever was fair would be worked out. Thats one of the benefits of playing at an A book.

This is why I have an account there and I still plan to keep my account with Bet Jamaica, I have had no problems and they have been fantastic.

[tullamore]

Scotty, thanks for taking the time to visit the site and explain yourself. I have account with BETJM and I think it says a lot about the book that the head guy is willing to discuss issues. If all books did this we all would be better off. I always felt safe at BETJM and this dialogue reafirms my original position.

[chano]

You guys are all LIARS!!. You may have accounts there, yes. Are they funded? Probably Not. Will you fund it ? Probably Not. The juice is too high, why would you play there ? Lets tell the truth, you dont play at BetJam. Why the hell would you. All Shills, probably,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[DaveRabbit]

Originally Posted by chano

You guys are all LIARS!!. You may have accounts there, yes. Are they funded? Probably Not. Will you fund it ? Probably Not. The juice is too high, why would you play there ? Lets tell the truth, you dont play at BetJam. Why the hell would you.

Maybe because many people don't line shop and play with just one reliable out.

[ChuteBoxe]

Great to see BetJam and Scotty doing the right thing here.

[groovinmahoovin]

Pardon me for not being inclined to give my phone number to a book who would gladly give personal information about one of their customers to a crook like the Shrink.

It is an absolutely awful policy, in my opinion, for a book to allow any random person to call himself "a mediator" and receive confidential customer information. At no point did OscarK ask the Shrink to mediate, and in fact, he specifically refused the Shrink's intervention after the Shrink repeatedly posted "Why won't you call me to let me help???" The customer asked SBR to mediate, so sharing information with SBR is one thing, but sharing information with some random crook who calls himself a mediator is something else entirely.

I urge you to reconsider who you share confidential customer information with in the future.

[louis]

I am a little baffled why you guys are blasting bet jamaica. The manager came on here, and said he was going to pay this guy and take responsibility for the dispute. What do you want to do, discourage books from doing this in the future because you are going to blast them anyhow? He may have been tricked into thinking Shrink was authorized to resolve this dispute. He isn't perfect. Shrink is known as someone who helps resolve disputes. I'm sure Scotty will try to keep personal information private for now on. He can be forgiven for this mistake, if he even made a mistake.

[Scooter]

One of the many disturbing things about this incident is that I've previously felt that SBR is the only watchdog with any integrity.

SBR rules for BetJam.
BetJam rules for the player.
Shouldn't this have been the other way around, or both of them ruling for the player?

Both the book and the Shrink did the further research which I would have hoped SBR would've done before rendering their decision.

It also seemed clear that SBR wasn't fully informed or was fed incorrect info - e.g., that the player had been "verbally" informed of the new limits.
Actually, neither side ever stated that.

A credible poster at the RX's thread about this incident twice stated that BetJam's software limits him on horse wagers - something BetJam claims their software cannot do.

All or most of the sources BetJam and the Shrink checked with felt that limiting someone in the sportsbook does not mean that the player is limited in the racebook.

SBR rushed to judgement on this one.

I expect a lot more from SBR.
In this case, they uncharacteristically fell to the low level of their competitors.