[SoCalFisher]

For the record, I looked at rules for the A-rated books and higher. About half of them had a rule disallowing this; about half (seem to) permit it.

well, there ya go.

(seem to) = scam = beted

[betpartners]

ROFL. Like anybody who doesn't work for a book could come up with that line of nonsense and think it makes any sense. I'm accusing you of being a shill because that's where the evidence points. -1000 that you know somebody who works at/owns BetED or got involved here at the behest of someone who does.

So let's see what you're actually saying here, since you don't try to make a coherent big-picture argument.

1) Beted has been in the wrong, for as long as they've accepted echecks, by not refunding every 3rd party deposit. Let's not even mention willfully failing to identify them unless the player wins.

2) Beted shouldn't pay the current player in full.

So, according to you, beted shouldn't attempt restitution on past 3rd party deposits (not that they could because they willfully fail to detect most of them), and they shouldn't pay winnings here. So, in conclusion, it's perfectly ok for them to scam and they shouldn't refund losers or pay winners. Yeah, that's the logic of somebody who doesn't shill for a crapbook. Really.

IF- and that's a big IF- BetED refunded all 3rd party deposits in full, I would agree that this player shouldn't be paid. I made that point in the other thread, and made that question the central issue of the decision. Beted's two actions aren't independent. If they don't refund losers (and they haven't refunded a single one, ever, despite lying about it to SBR, and then clarified their position that they won't refund a loser), and they don't pay winners, then they're running a scam. They need to remedy one of those problems to not be a scam, and since they won't (and can't) refund all past deposits, their only choice to not be a scam book is to pay the current player. Sure, they don't HAVE to, but they absolutely 100% deserve the scambook label and a huge downgrade if they don't.

If they want to avoid this problem in the future, then they should take the basic steps that reputable books that accept *************** deposits take, but that doesn't solve the problem of their conduct up to this point.

You lost me after the first couple of lines, at that point i thought what the hell this guy just cannot help himself, he cannot have a debate without making false accusations, no point debating with you any more if you keep throwing wobblies because someone disagrees with you.

I thought purecarnage summed you up perfectly

If you want to make your point post the whole thing you stupid ****.

Justin7 tempered his comments with the words "seem to" which to me makes it vague, unlike SoCalFisher i wont draw far fetched conclusions on that.

But i will respond to what Justin7 has said though

For the record, I looked at rules for the A-rated books and higher. About half of them had a rule disallowing this; about half (seem to) permit it.

Justin if that does indeed turn out to be the case and some bookies do accept funding on someone elses card then i will stand corrected on that point, i would be surprised to be honest if it is allowed but if i am wrong then i will of course admit it, thats not an issue.

I also did reflect on some of my comments and realised that in the past i have indeed used a fellow family members CC to book airline tickets, though of course the seats were booked in my own name, but the point is that i used someone elses funding to purchase something, so i suppose the principle of it is accepted in some quarters.

But i would have thought gambling is a completely different scenario from that, in that you are not booking a bet in your name but i think you get what i am saying.

But i stand my opinion in so far as that BetEd did have a rule that disallowed this, a rule that is enforceable and now that purecarnage has reminded some that Beted allowed this 3 years ago and not since then that just reinforces my stance on this.

To me this is like a policemen letting me off for smashing a window, does that mean that the law against criminal damage is now void, that i and everyone else is free to smash windows wherever they want because a policemen let me off once, gave me the benefit of the doubt once.

No it does not, a bit of a strecth that comparsion but the principle behind what i am trying to say is clearly there.

Finally from what i have read the only people that are backing this lads side of the story as 100% fact are his father, i dont think he would do anything else.

I am not saying that this lad is not telling the truth, he may well be, but he also may not be, we have zero proof that he is and yet some of you are taking what he says as gospel and that his word is 100% without any proof whatsoever

The only cold hard fact in all this is that a specific rule was broken, not a mundane rule but a fundamental rule.

I just dont see how this lad could have expected any other response from the bookies in this instance.

[reno cool]

There has been an investigation done and the players claims have been verified.
As someone stated earlier you might want to re-read the thread.

Maybe it's good to keep the thread alive, but really there is no legitimate debate here.

I think Dark Horse said: "How can freerolling players be wrong if it feels so right". That's the bottom line.
They didn't want to see some punk run $50 into 7k, realized he's not likely to lose it back and found a way to cheat him on a technicality that doesn't hold any water.

[betpartners]

There has been an investigation done and the players claims have been verified.
As someone stated earlier you might want to re-read the thread.

Maybe it's good to keep the thread alive, but really there is no legitimate debate here.

I think Dark Horse said: "How can freerolling players be wrong if it feels so right". That's the bottom line.
They didn't want to see some punk run $50 into 7k, realized he's not likely to lose it back and found a way to cheat him on a technicality that doesn't hold any water.

Reno, yes i have read the whole thread and am fully aware that Justin gave the conclusion in the very first thread and naturally i accept that decision.

But i have a different opinion thats all, does not mean anything other than that, a difference of opinion, but listening to some on here you would think i am the devil reincarnated.

If BetEd accept SBR arbritation then whether they like it or not they should pay up, i dont disagree with that, a ruling is a ruling.

But as in anything some have a different opinion on rulings made, i mean some thought the decision to give George Bush the presidency back in 2000 was wrong even though your supreme court gave it to him.

Surely within a free society we are allowed to debate such matters, its a shame that in doing so some see fit to become insulting and throw false accusations around which in my eyes makes them no better that what some of these bookies are accused of.

[Robust]

You lost me after the first couple of lines, at that point i thought what the hell this guy just cannot help himself, he cannot have a debate without making false accusations, no point debating with you any more if you keep throwing wobblies because someone disagrees with you.

I thought purecarnage summed you up perfectly

Justin7 tempered his comments with the words "seem to" which to me makes it vague, unlike SoCalFisher i wont draw far fetched conclusions on that.

But i will respond to what Justin7 has said though

Justin if that does indeed turn out to be the case and some bookies do accept funding on someone elses card then i will stand corrected on that point, i would be surprised to be honest if it is allowed but if i am wrong then i will of course admit it, thats not an issue.

I also did reflect on some of my comments and realised that in the past i have indeed used a fellow family members CC to book airline tickets, though of course the seats were booked in my own name, but the point is that i used someone elses funding to purchase something, so i suppose the principle of it is accepted in some quarters.

But i would have thought gambling is a completely different scenario from that, in that you are not booking a bet in your name but i think you get what i am saying.

But i stand my opinion in so far as that BetEd did have a rule that disallowed this, a rule that is enforceable and now that purecarnage has reminded some that Beted allowed this 3 years ago and not since then that just reinforces my stance on this.

To me this is like a policemen letting me off for smashing a window, does that mean that the law against criminal damage is now void, that i and everyone else is free to smash windows wherever they want because a policemen let me off once, gave me the benefit of the doubt once.

No it does not, a bit of a strecth that comparsion but the principle behind what i am trying to say is clearly there.

Finally from what i have read the only people that are backing this lads side of the story as 100% fact are his father, i dont think he would do anything else.

I am not saying that this lad is not telling the truth, he may well be, but he also may not be, we have zero proof that he is and yet some of you are taking what he says as gospel and that his word is 100% without any proof whatsoever

The only cold hard fact in all this is that a specific rule was broken, not a mundane rule but a fundamental rule.

I just dont see how this lad could have expected any other response from the bookies in this instance.

i respect you! I respect your opinion.. didn't we go thew this yesterday??? you are not a poster looking to read on peoples opinions on what is a good bet.. you are a shill for BETXXXXXXX...

gimme another winner and I will go away!! HAHAHAHAHA

kidding.. i gave you the benefit of the doubt.. you let me down.. anmd I gave you a winner too.. a parlay.. (you said you did not understand).. a partay is 2 or more teams.. my bet would have net you more than what you gave me.. but that is not the point.. I am still dissappointed..

Robust

[betpartners]

Hey Robust, did it not win? did yours win? damn i never even checked, well i never did claim to be a tipster thats for sure, i know my limitations on betting.

Actually you popping up reminds me of yesterday and now i do see that all new posters must be subjected to abuse etc all over the place, like some sort of initiation thingy.

Better get my book out "insults for dummies" and brush up if i am going to survive on here

[betpartners]

Well i have checked and i see my little prediction did indeed win and now i have a signature, i may get to like this place now, especially with my little book of insults

If you cannot beat em join em i say, i may as well get used to it down there

[reno cool]

once Justin made the official SBR opinion he started a new thread this one. There was another thread named: "Player makes $6900 mistake". or something. You might want to look that one up as it will show you the progression of the case. Not saying it will change your opinion just fyi.

[Robust]

Well i have checked and i see my little prediction did indeed win and now i have a signature, i may get to like this place now, especially with my little book of insults

If you cannot beat em join em i say, i may as well get used to it down there

I am dissappointed because you said you were your OWN person giving an opinion (forget you nick here).. I see you are championing BetEd's case.. I was serious when I said good luck.. I gave you a winner to prove it.. you returned the favor.. but you were NOT honest in our talk about it being JUST an opinion...

Robust

[betpartners]

oh i see, you dont like my opinion so i have in some way let you down, i have a difference of opinion and that makes me not honest? wow never saw that one coming, jesus get a grip, i am not going to roll over to please you and follow your opinion because it makes you feel better, forget that.

I have my opinion and no matter what insults get thrown at me or false accusations are directed it wont change the fact that i have an opinion and wont be afraid to express it.

I suggest you get a more robust skin mate, not everyone is going to follow your opinion in fear of them being branded dishonest, may work on some people not me

[Robust]

oh i see, you dont like my opinion so i have in some way let you down, i have a difference of opinion and that makes me not honest? wow never saw that one coming, jesus get a grip, i am not going to roll over to please you and follow your opinion because it makes you feel better, forget that.

I have my opinion and no matter what insults get thrown at me or false accusations are directed it wont change the fact that i have an opinion and wont be afraid to express it.

I suggest you get a more robust skin mate, not everyone is going to follow your opinion in fear of them being branded dishonest, may work on some people not me

once again.. I respect you.. you took my words wrong.. although i LOVE to debate... I don't have a stake in this one.. if you persist in this thread... I, and everyone else, will KNOW, you do..

good day!! (wish I could give ya another bet as good faith, but I am barely starting to cap now...)

Robust

[betpartners]

once again.. I respect you.. you took my words wrong.. although i LOVE to debate... I don't have a stake in this one.. if you persist in this thread... I, and everyone else, will KNOW, you do..

good day!! (wish I could give ya another bet as good faith, but I am barely starting to cap now...)

Robust

Fair enough, sorry if i misunderstand, just been on the defensive it seems from the minute i got on here.

I will take your advice, no point antagonising people.

Have a good day yourself.

[andywend]

I sure do wish it was Betpartners that got scammed out of almost $7,000 by BetEd.

How anyone can defend BetEd after reading all the facts is either affiliated with them in some way or simply brain dead.

By the way Betpartners, the Supreme Court did NOT give Bush the presidency in 2000. They stopped Al Gore and the democrats from stealing it.

[tomcowley]

I sure do wish it was Betpartners that got scammed out of almost $7,000 by BetEd.

Indeed. He's not even trying to respond to points anymore- just randomly misrepresenting and questioning SBR established facts that BetED doesn't officially dispute, making things up about other books, and arguing that BetED's rule is somehow "fundamental" when half the A-books don't have it, but not accepting that "if you don't refund the losers, you have to pay the winners" actually is fundamental and practiced by almost every C or better book.

i have indeed used a fellow family members CC to book airline tickets, though of course the seats were booked in my own name, but the point is that i used someone elses funding to purchase something, so i suppose the principle of it is accepted in some quarters. But i would have thought gambling is a completely different scenario from that, in that you are not booking a bet in your name but i think you get what i am saying

Nobody gets what you're saying. The *************** was authorized and the funds had cleared. Beted had the money. They were collecting if he lost. WTF does "booking a bet in your name" even mean, and what does it have to do with this case?

I just dont see how this lad could have expected any other response from the bookies in this instance.

Some people start with the basic expectation that if the book can win their money, then they can also win the book's money. How ridiculous. Obviously from your side of the fence, that's a completely unfair assumption.

[betpartners]

Indeed. He's not even trying to respond to points anymore- just randomly misrepresenting and questioning SBR established facts that BetED doesn't officially dispute, making things up about other books, and arguing that BetED's rule is somehow "fundamental" when half the A-books don't have it, but not accepting that "if you don't refund the losers, you have to pay the winners" actually is fundamental and practiced by almost every C or better book.

Nobody gets what you're saying. The *************** was authorized and the funds had cleared. Beted had the money. They were collecting if he lost. WTF does "booking a bet in your name" even mean, and what does it have to do with this case?

Some people start with the basic expectation that if the book can win their money, then they can also win the book's money. How ridiculous. Obviously from your side of the fence, that's a completely unfair assumption.

No i wont respond to this case anymore as per Robust advice, i gave my opinion in the same way others have done and thats it.

You on the other hand spread false lies, throw abuse at people when they have an alternative opinion and lower the tone of debate.

Why do you even bother to discuss issues if you refuse other peoples opinions? why do you feel the need to be abusive and spread false accusations just because someone has a different opinion?

Is it really that difficult to just debate the points?

And to agree with some other poster that you wish someone else lost that amount of money again just because they have a different opinion is quite disgusting.

Just try being civil one time when you have a debate, it really is not difficult

[tomcowley]

Pointing out that your opinions are most consistent with a bookmaker with some sort of personal attachment to the case, and not at all consistent with a random player, is doing a service for anybody who reads this thread. You haven't denied working for a book- and being from Malta, home of Betway, BetChance, and their crapbook friends, having your perspective, and using terms like "gratuity payment", which is corporate-speak if I've ever heard it, strongly suggest you work for a book (or have worked for a book).

As far as opinions, your opinion on this case is, effectively, "any player who breaks any rule does not deserve any consideration", which again is pretty consistent with Maltese crapbook philosophy. As far as it goes, your opinion is meaningless. It has no basis in contract law, and your "logic" has no relevance to SBR's decisions and ratings process. You completely miss the big picture, probably intentionally. SBR evaluates the fairness of a book's rules and procedures (under the framework of common law) in totality- SBR understands that the book's decision in this case is not independent from how it handles losers in similar cases.

You don't express your opinion in a relevant framework. You attempt to judge this case in a vacuum, and you refuse to give an opinion on the totality of beted's actions- their stated policies of not refunding losers and not paying winners- and instead repeat talking points in the spirit of an uninformed political partisan. At the level you interact, there is no such thing as debate. All you do is state your beliefs, out of context, and with no consideration of the implications, and repeat ad nauseum. If you don't take beted's failure to refund losers into consideration, then your opinion in this case (whatever it is, however you got to it) is logically meaningless.

If you want to make a big picture argument why beted's policy of not refunding losers and not paying winners isn't a scam, I'd be glad to read it. That's the big picture. Do beted's two policies cause it to be running a scam on players? The answer based on the evidence presented here is a clear yes. If you want to debate that, and take the side "freerolling isn't a scam", I'll be happy to debate.

[betpartners]

Pointing out that your opinions are most consistent with a bookmaker with some sort of personal attachment to the case, and not at all consistent with a random player, is doing a service for anybody who reads this thread. You haven't denied working for a book- and being from Malta, home of Betway, BetChance, and their crapbook friends, having your perspective, and using terms like "gratuity payment", which is corporate-speak if I've ever heard it, strongly suggest you work for a book (or have worked for a book).

As far as opinions, your opinion on this case is, effectively, "any player who breaks any rule does not deserve any consideration", which again is pretty consistent with Maltese crapbook philosophy. As far as it goes, your opinion is meaningless. It has no basis in contract law, and your "logic" has no relevance to SBR's decisions and ratings process. You completely miss the big picture, probably intentionally. SBR evaluates the fairness of a book's rules and procedures (under the framework of common law) in totality- SBR understands that the book's decision in this case is not independent from how it handles losers in similar cases.

You don't express your opinion in a relevant framework. You attempt to judge this case in a vacuum, and you refuse to give an opinion on the totality of beted's actions- their stated policies of not refunding losers and not paying winners- and instead repeat talking points in the spirit of an uninformed political partisan. At the level you interact, there is no such thing as debate. All you do is state your beliefs, out of context, and with no consideration of the implications, and repeat ad nauseum. If you don't take beted's failure to refund losers into consideration, then your opinion in this case (whatever it is, however you got to it) is logically meaningless.

If you want to make a big picture argument why beted's policy of not refunding losers and not paying winners isn't a scam, I'd be glad to read it. That's the big picture. Do beted's two policies cause it to be running a scam on players? The answer based on the evidence presented here is a clear yes. If you want to debate that, and take the side "freerolling isn't a scam", I'll be happy to debate.

Well fair enough a better response without some of the silly accusations you been throwing around.

even your assumptions in the first paragraph are more civil.

I wont debate the Beted situation further because we obviously disagree vehemently with each other and even though i am in the minority i am not alone in my opinion judging from some of the responses.

My only gripe with you is the false accusations

No i dont work for a sportsbook, no i have never worked for a sportsbook, i live in Malta with my family because its a mediterean island that uses English as its first language with gorgeous weather and its the only place in Europe outside the UK and Ireland that uses English as its national language that does not have the crime and crappy weather associated with it that plagues the UK and Ireland.

I work in the gambling industry mainly securing advertising deals between websites and bookies, we have many bookies that we have placed advertisments for, but i have never ever worked for, acted on behalf of , had any communication with BetEd

Damn never even knew they existed until i came on this site

In fact i joined this forum for the sole purpose of informing Justin of a sportsbook that we have had and have been dealing with that i belive was shilling as you put it, hardly the actions of someone that works for a sportsbook.

I have my own company which i suppose is an advertsing agency, thats it

In the past we have been badly burned by sportsbooks from all over the world that have not paid their fees, i have also been badly burned myself from sportsbooks that have gone under with my cash, pointbet springs to mind as one.

Now whether you choose to belive that or not is your perogative but at least i ahve answered your accusations and so maybe in future when we disagree with each other you will refrain from making false accusations and stick to the points in hand.

I bare you no malice and wish you a nice day.

[tomcowley]

Fair enough. That explains the exposure to book management without working for one.

[robmpink]

Yeah Chump, Grown men aren't perfect. BetEd is crooked and scam artists so you live with the fact of backing shitty people like them. I'm communicating with the respected people from here on a one on one basis. Cases such as this take time even though the ruling has been stated to PAY ME IN FULL chump. It may take days, months, and sometimes they say longer. So why don't you grow a pair when you spoke up once. Then try to take back your claims b/c your were intimidated by the rulings or something. Face the truth they got their asses handed to them. Whether its my only run or not. It happened with me winning fair and square. I enjoyed the hell out of it, and will even more once they are reprimanded and served papers from my lawyer. Whether money shows up at my door step or not, them losing tons of business, their reputation, and keeping people like you at their beckon.....I'll love every minute of it.

Get paid yet, chump? Are you loving every minute of it?

[purecarnagge]

This kids a crack head...has to be...

[cbhoemrbry]

Yeah Rob "PINK PANTHER" the chump himself, yeah I'm loving every minute while the men are at work. Never seen such a tool come back in a thread to start some noise and cause some attention to himself. The one who renigs on his state of fame. And PURE....the real crack head hear let me tell ya.....either support the issue or get off the boat.....BetEd give you two a few free dollars....that they'll never pay ya...Wish the best for you two clowns

[robmpink]

Yeah Rob "PINK PANTHER" the chump himself, yeah I'm loving every minute while the men are at work. Never seen such a tool come back in a thread to start some noise and cause some attention to himself. The one who renigs on his state of fame. And PURE....the real crack head hear let me tell ya.....either support the issue or get off the boat.....BetEd give you two a few free dollars....that they'll never pay ya...Wish the best for you two clowns

What do you have to worry about? There were a bunch of others it really happened to according to you. Maybe you will fair better with them.

I just wanted to know if you are loving every minute of it? I guess you are. What a high! You must feel euphoric. Oh, what a feeling! Right now at 6:29 am est, are you loving it? I'd bet you really aren't loving it. Every now and then I will bump this to see if you are loving it. Mostly around the holidays. You could use it as a reminder so you could bring your checkbook and not have to use daddy poo poo's.

[robmpink]

What do you have to worry about? There were a bunch of others it really happened to according to you. Maybe you will fair better with them.

I just wanted to know if you are loving every minute of it? I guess you are. What a high! You must feel euphoric. Oh, what a feeling! Right now at 6:29 am est, are you loving it? I'd bet you really aren't loving it. Every now and then I will bump this to see if you are loving it. Mostly around the holidays. You could use it as a reminder so you could bring your checkbook and not have to use daddy poo poo's.

The 4th is right around the corner. Just a heads up. Any progress? Remember don't use dads account.

[Justin7]

The 4th is right around the corner. Just a heads up. Any progress? Remember don't use dads account.

Nothing new... but thanks for reminding me. Dozer and I will take another look at this one.

[cbhoemrbry]

I'm back and still no pay...LOL!!! what a joke BETED is.....months later and they still don't have any justice to make things right after time to rethink the situation. I was wrong in the beginning but had all the evidence to support my account and deposit to be valid....Hope all is well

[robmpink]

I'm back and still no pay...LOL!!! what a joke BETED is.....months later and they still don't have any justice to make things right after time to rethink the situation. I was wrong in the beginning but had all the evidence to support my account and deposit to be valid....Hope all is well

What happened to the lawyers and the fluff? Listen, Labor Day will soon be upon us. If you want to deposit be sure to have your checkbook, not dad's.

[CrackerZack]

N/T