[louis]

Originally Posted by curious

I heard this "logic" from SBR. They claim if they made any book that robbed any customers an F that they would all be F. I don't believe that. Would you find cases of The Greek robbing customers? I couldn't find any.

What I was doing was explaining what I think is SBR's policy, which is to reserve the F rating only for books that stiff everyone.

I don't necessarily agree with this policy. Perhaps F+ should be for books that frequently stiff some players, F should be for books that stiff a lot of players, and F- should be for books that stiff everyone.

I absolutely agree with you that there are a lot of books that do not stiff anyone.

In the case of sportsbook.com and SBG they flat out stoled, period. There is no controversy. They have no case. Sportsbook stoled from EVERYONE who bet (over and fav) or (under and dog) because if they had been lucky enough to have a winning streak, they would have been included amongst the 31.

Curious, I had not money stolen, but I am absolutely on your side. I posted over at eog.com and asked shrink to take down the banner to SBG because my friends had money stolen there. I would ask all other posters here at SBR to do the same. Go to the other sites that continue to advertise SBG and ask them to take down the link to SBG now. By the way, eog's response was for the 18 people effected to email theshrink@eog.com, but if you have already emailed Bill or SBR, I don't know the appropriateness of having two representatives negotiating at the same time. I would email shrink, tell him you already have a negotiator and tell him to pleast take down his SBG link as there is going to be a boycott of not only SBG but sites that advertise them as well.

[curious]

edit

[atakdog]

oops: double post

[atakdog]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

...SBG already has a rating indicative of a book that keeps winnings. An ESB & WorldWager as F books kept deposits. We are talking about the difference between death row and jail in a lot of cases...

So you're saying that stealing customer's money isn't so bad as long as they got that money by using the services the books advertised, putting other money at risk in the process? That's crap.

The money belongs to the customer, whether it was deposited or won. If SBR is going to treat some thefts as being more serious than others, you're essentially validating out of your own mouths the innuendos that have been spread regarding the slow ratings move in question.

Admitting that you were completely in error might be a better idea.

And for the future: theft is theft.

[curious]

edit

[ProlinePlayer]

D- or F?
Here's a thought John. Why not add an E rating? That way you can still reserve the F for deposit only books but have a new class for 'outright theft of funds is common' books.

ProlinePlayer

[Bill Dozer]

Originally Posted by atakdog

So you're saying that stealing customer's money isn't so bad as long as they got that money by using the services the books advertised, putting other money at risk in the process? That's crap.

The money belongs to the customer, whether it was deposited or won. If SBR is going to treat some thefts as being more serious than others, you're essentially validating out of your own mouths the innuendos that have been spread regarding the slow ratings move in question.

Admitting that you were completely in error might be a better idea.

And for the future: theft is theft.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying.

There is only so many ways we can categorize bad books and warn players. We have a Blacklist which both books are members of. We have news history which lists complaints of for the past five years. We also give our assessment of the book with a rating.

As said previously, when it comes to low rated books we need to give players with those books an idea of how risky the situation they are in actually is. If it was only for preemptive measures we could rate all of the offending books at F.

Unfortuantely, there will be players who read about this scam and still try for the bonus or juicy line at Sportsbook.com. It matters that players are much more likely to be paid than at BookTheBet or ESB. Some people will play with a rattlesnake but wont swim with a shark.

[SBR_John]

Who in their right mind would view our ratings and send money to a book rated D-?

I think F is too low of a rating for SBG.

They have ripped some of you guys off and if I was you I would be out for my money and a few pounds of flesh too. But the ratings are based on many factors. They were a D- before they ripped you guys off. The rating indicates this kind of action by them is/was possible hence the D- rating. To me, they are living up to their already very low rating.

[20Four7]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

Who in their right mind would view our ratings and send money to a book rated D-?

The rating indicates this kind of action by them is/was possible hence the D- rating. To me, they are living up to their already very low rating.

LOL John, I guess I"m not in my right mind. I play with them. I sent them $800, got $450 in bonus's from them have withdrawn 4K from there and still have about 3K in money there. I went in with my eyes wide open. After my original deposit I haven't re up'd. This is Royal, and I went there before SBG bought them. But when you can get -105 there and others are at -115 to -125 you bet there. When the yankees are -225 everywhere and -175 there you bet with them. I never want my balance to get over 5K because that's where the danger comes in IMO. As Bill said I'm willing to play with the rattlesnake, but I realize they may bite me.

[bigboydan]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

Who in their right mind would view our ratings and send money to a book rated D-?

I wouldn't send them a penny even if I didn't view the SBR rating on them. Their are just waaaayyyyy to many horor stories about this place all over every forum out there.

[Bill Dozer]

SBG/Royal Players,

There may be some good news shortly.

Please send your balance information to Help@SportsbookReview.com. I understand some players can access their accounts only to see their balances. Take a screen shot (for help with screenshots) of this page.

[increasedodds]

The problem is for years, D books were ok books...

Books like Sportsbook, Millenium, Hollywood, etc were all Ds (Maybe some Cs, I don't remember) but they paid. Sure they took 5 days for neteller or they asked for ID when Pinny could do 5 minutes, but they paid and rarely ever stiffed anyone and if they ever did stiff anyone it was semi legit (Bonus abuse, multiple names from one IP, etc). A lot of people like me got used to using a, b, c, and d books and I've never been stiffed since globalcasino back in 1997.

Problem is now it seems D books are acting like F books from a few years ago, stiffing in bulk with no good reasons...

I think any outright theft where the player did not use multi IPs, extra bonuses, fake IDs, circumvent limits, etc should be an automatic F.

Sean

[Hap]

Curious, I read your message about not letting SBG get away with it. My reaction is, I want to help because I want revenge. Then I read Bill Dozer's message about possibly good news shortly. So I'll wait for that, but if my money is stolen, I want to do what I can to make sure SGB loses more than I do.

[Bill Dozer]

Originally Posted by Hap

Curious, I read your message about not letting SBG get away with it. My reaction is, I want to help because I want revenge. Then I read Bill Dozer's message about possibly good news shortly. So I'll wait for that, but if my money is stolen, I want to do what I can to make sure SGB loses more than I do.

There are some things in the works that may lessen the blow but it's not coming from SBG's side. We spent a few hourse talking with them and outside of a few thousand more going to small winners the decision hasn't changed.

We even have a 4k stiff job from a player who was referred by the same source but not betting Sebastian's plays. Guilty by association with the innocent.

[Hap]

I am the player "guilty by association with the innocent". Bill has the details. Here is the longer version of the story.

After losing minor amounts over a few years, I heard about Sebastian and bought his service, betting his picks (winning)and mine (losing) in Sportsbetting.com, Matchbook, and Tradesports over the summer. Of course, only SB has parlays (I think), so I wanted another book to get more flexibility, etc.

His phone messages often referred to the Heritage book, which also has phone service. When I tried to open an account, Heritage said, "no new US customers", so I asked Sebastian if he knew of others, and he recommended Betroyal.

I opened at Betroyal with $4000 in late Aug as football was starting, and got $1000 cash bonus and credit for western union fee. I was betting some Sebastian picks and some of my own there. Then Heritage called me back with a change of heart, so I opened an account there with $2400, where I began to bet most of my Sebastian picks, partly because of the -107 Midday madness.

By mid to late Sep, my Betroyal account was showing a loss, but just at the time that other Sebastian clients' accounts were frozen, mine had gone up to about $9000 when my Betroyal side of some large middle attempts happened to be the winning side. I could not tell you if the games were games that Sebastian was even on.

So the betting history in my Betroyal account was totally independent of Sebastian's picks, and the account was not frozen when I heard Sebastian's message about others being frozen. Then he asked in a phone message for those of us with Betroyal accounts to send him our account #s, which he sent to Betroyal. THEN my account was frozen at $8503.

I have asked Betroyal repeatedly to look at my betting history. I think all of Sebastian's clients are innocent, but I was not even betting his picks at Betroyal, for the most part!

At the same time, I WAS betting Sebastian's picks at Heritage, and my account there grew to $10,000, at which time Heritage terminated that account. They paid me in full. This was a business decision on their part that I did not like, but fully understand and respect.