[reno cool]

I just read through this entire thread, and aside from the laughter and giggles, I have a few observations. I'd originally written a lot of questions, but since I'm new here, I figure it would be better not to stir the pot so much right away, so I'm only going to share observations.

I think this guy has less than zero credibility, but I hate seeing people convicted of a future crime they haven't even committed yet, especially when it's based solely on circumstantial evidence. Yeah, he probably would have charged back betphoenix if that 4-team parlay had lost, but this isn't Minority Report and I'd lay out a lot of money that says this guy ain't Tom Cruise. Although they clearly had good reason, I don't like how betphoenix canceled a bet they had originally accepted.

First, he claims after he requested his withdrawal at sports-1.com, the money was never deducted from his betting account. Delays in payments, electronic glitches when transferring money, etc., I understand, but once the withdrawal is requested, the funds should be removed from the betting account immediately. Maybe it was an honest mistake on the part of sports-1.com, but they're leaving themselves open to criticism. It's too easy for someone to come along and say they left the money there hoping he would get drunk, play more blackjack (while impersonating his 13 year old poodle), and blow his whole bank again. I totally think he was wrong for initiating the chargeback, and even more wrong for later lying about it here. But it takes two to tango, and both sides are looking bad right now in my eyes.

My guess is that he wasn't a top priority to betphoenix and hadn't done anything to draw attention to himself until they realized he had a pretty decent chance of winning that parlay. THAT and only that is what got their attention. Then they quickly investigated his account history at the sister book and discovered information that would have given them legitimate reason to suspend all his accounts for life, irrespective of the pending parlay wager.

I believe Richard when he says he got the call when he was on the freeway and made the decision without considering the possible outcome of the parlay. But the timing of it stinks like high hell. Again, this family of books is opening itself up to criticism, because it's easy for someone to come along and say they were freerolling the player by taking his bet without having any intention to honor it if it would have won, which it ultimately did. It's important to nip these cancers in the bud before they turn into a total debacle, which I think this is.

It's simple really. In the future, anyone who first blows $6000 in black jack and then gets half of it back by basically crawling back to the bookie crying about it and claiming it was his 13 year old kid, and then does a chargeback, should be banned for life from the entire family of books.

Why he was allowed to register and deposit at betphoenix is beyond me. Since they accepted his bet, they should honor it. Part of the risk of taking ************ is that it will inevitably attract deadbeats to the site who try to freeroll the book. Due to the nature of gambling, if a bet is placed and accepted, it should be irrevocable by either party unless they mutually agree to cancel it, which is why I think BetEd couldn't have been more wrong with their recent $6600 scandal. If the player loses, don't be a pussy or a scammer and initiate a chargeback. If the player wins, the book should stand by its acceptance of the bet, even under trying circumstances such as this. In the BetEd case, all the mundane details about what rules were broken are tangential to the fact that a wager was placed and accepted by the book. That's all that should matter, ever.

yep good assessment

[rufcut]

Yes, and a decent regulator or a court would say the same.
Is this book beyond the law? It certainly seems to behave that way.

[Karla]

Wow! we should then stay away from this book if that so.. Anyway, does any other here who has this sort of mess with them??

[BouncedCheck]

Guys the problem here is that he has already deposited AND charged back for no reason TO THIS SAME GROUP OF BOOKS,

You're right that it's a problem. The proper solution would have been for the group of books to first have a set internal policy that says someone of this person's character should be banned for life from all the books in the family. Then they should have better filters in place to enforce that policy. They didn't do that here.

once again i only charged back because i was tired for waiting for the money to be refunded. yes it was wrong to charge back but the money was supposed to be refunded anyway. I now no they get hit with chargeback fees from these processors but I didn't know that at the time. That being said I would of had them take the fees out of my account. This situation is wrong becuase if richard didn't want me to deposit via betphoenix he should of told me that when I sent him an email saying I was opening a betphoenix account because I thought the real problem with sports-1.com was the managers who were running it not the managers who ran betphoenix

You're a complete ****ing idiot. You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to post. You charged back because the book took 12 DAYS to pay you? Have you read the two sportsbook.com threads? People have been waiting 10 MONTHS for their money with no end in sight. You're a complete retard at best and likely a total con artist. Even worse, you lie, make up totally bullshit stories, string everyone along with your garbage in an attempt (a poor one at that) to gain sympathy, and abuse the SBR advocacy system that's FREE. Tell me this... WHY DID YOU INITIALLY LIE HERE ON THIS THREAD ABOUT THE CHARGEBACK? To me, that's at least as bad and probably worse than the chargeback itself. Just admit the truth. Otherwise, your character will always come into question.

I think this situation was handled poorly by the book, but I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for you. In an ideal world, they never would have let you register and deposit at betphoenix, but since the deed was done, I can't blame them for not paying you. I really think Richard made his decision without considering the probability of you winning the parley, and I truly hope they stick by their guns and do not pay you. I don't want it to seem like I have any delusions of self-grandeur, and I realize there's probably not anything that could change their mind at this point, but I would feel horrible if my post somehow led them to pay you. You don't deserve a ****ing penny, and I hope you lose every bet you make for the rest of your life.

[BouncedCheck]

what are you talking about? I didnt charge back because of the 12 days and the money still sitting in my account issue? I charged back because FRANCO was supposed to refund all of my deposits and it didn't happen. do you know how to read

What difference does it make? It's INCONSEQUENTIAL. They were supposed to send you a refund/withdrawal/cash-out/whatever and you got impatient after only 12 days and initiated a chargeback, and then you got pissy that a sister book canceled your bet. Stop whining and STFU. How about answering my other questions instead of just spouting off. The fact that you're engaging in this discussion with me is evidence of your inferior intelligence, since (not to pat myself on the back, because I'm starting to regret it now) I posted what was probably the best reason for them to pay you in the entire thread. Yet you're so dumb it only took you a single response to get me to turn against you.

This situation is wrong becuase if richard didn't want me to deposit via betphoenix he should of told me that when I sent him an email saying I was opening a betphoenix account

Hey retard... why would Richard give a shit if you e-mailed him saying you were going to open a betphoenix account?

How do we know he even knew of your situation with sports-1.com?

Why would your e-mail to him raise any kind of flag in his mind?

You said he took over responsibility on your sports-1 account from Franco, but there was nothing for him to do relating to your account because you did a chargeback you fool. Richard works for betphoenix. Unless you have some kind of smoking gun, I have no reason to believe Richard had any responsibility to personally remember you were the same person who charged back sports-1. Look at it from his perspective. He gets hundreds, probably thousands of e-mails every day. He got one from you that said, "Hey Richard, I just opened a betphoenix account and I deposited $497." Is he supposed to somehow know that you're toxic right then and there and ban you? I've already stated they should have better filtering integrated into their software to prevent deadbeats like you from placing bets with them, but your contention that Richard knew every detail of your history and allowed your account to stay open anyway it is preposterous. Do you know what preposterous means? It means you're STUPID.

Again I ask, WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT THE CHARGEBACK?

And even if you had a smoking gun and posted it, nobody would believe a ****ing word of it, so I'm done with this thread. The situation is done, you're not getting paid, and hopefully betphoenix won't allow something like this to happen again in the future.

[frostno98]

This has to be one of the most comical thread yet, since Credit wagering first came out. The dog ate my homework excuse, what an idiot.

[SlappyWhite]

Four points of order to illustrate OP is a douche

1. Played the international lawyer card for a few hundred bucks - yeah right.
2. Charged back after losing.
3. Blamed non-existent 13 year old kid
4. Most sites log you out fast if you are idle, sometimes I get logged out while working in another tab.

I don't like that the book canceled the bet after tip off, then again I understand their motivation. I have always felt a book should be bound by the same rules as a player on a wager.

[turnip]

It's a gray area for me, but for those who think BP screwed the player, you probably still see it this way:

1. Player screws family of books
2. Player gets greedy and tries to screw them again
3. Family of books screws the player

The score seems even to me. Your opinion of BetPhoenix may diminish, but I don't think it's worth any effort to help bearcats regain the money he stole in the first place.

[reno cool]

What difference does it make? It's INCONSEQUENTIAL. They were supposed to send you a refund/withdrawal/cash-out/whatever and you got impatient after only 12 days and initiated a chargeback, and then you got pissy that a sister book canceled your bet. Stop whining and STFU. How about answering my other questions instead of just spouting off. The fact that you're engaging in this discussion with me is evidence of your inferior intelligence, since (not to pat myself on the back, because I'm starting to regret it now) I posted what was probably the best reason for them to pay you in the entire thread. Yet you're so dumb it only took you a single response to get me to turn against you.


Hey retard... why would Richard give a shit if you e-mailed him saying you were going to open a betphoenix account?

How do we know he even knew of your situation with sports-1.com?

Why would your e-mail to him raise any kind of flag in his mind?

You said he took over responsibility on your sports-1 account from Franco, but there was nothing for him to do relating to your account because you did a chargeback you fool. Richard works for betphoenix. Unless you have some kind of smoking gun, I have no reason to believe Richard had any responsibility to personally remember you were the same person who charged back sports-1. Look at it from his perspective. He gets hundreds, probably thousands of e-mails every day. He got one from you that said, "Hey Richard, I just opened a betphoenix account and I deposited $497." Is he supposed to somehow know that you're toxic right then and there and ban you? I've already stated they should have better filtering integrated into their software to prevent deadbeats like you from placing bets with them, but your contention that Richard knew every detail of your history and allowed your account to stay open anyway it is preposterous. Do you know what preposterous means? It means you're STUPID.

Again I ask, WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT THE CHARGEBACK?

And even if you had a smoking gun and posted it, nobody would believe a ****ing word of it, so I'm done with this thread. The situation is done, you're not getting paid, and hopefully betphoenix won't allow something like this to happen again in the future.

Whatever your opinion of the player is, and your right he should not have charged back, the important point you make is regarding the books acceptance of the bet. It's a shame to see you go overboard attacking this guy, for he is an easy target.
The books want to take ************ but they don't want to take the risk associated with cc. I think you made that point well and I hate to see your venom towards the player take away from that.

[BouncedCheck]

You're right, I went a little overboard, but I've been watching a lot of Judge Judy lately. Not that I'm using it as an excuse, but this player is the type of guy who would get reamed by Judge Judy much worse than what I'd ever be capable of. I said what I said and I take full responsibility for it.

For me, it's a two-part issue. The first is that under the given circumstances, I don't think this guy deserves to get paid, and I think I got really angry and spouted off like I did because I entered this thread by pretty much almost defending him, albeit with a few caveats. Then he came back and responded by being a total idiot. That really upset me and I reacted poorly.

The second is that although I totally understand betphoenix's decision and I agree with it under the circumstances, it focuses a spotlight on them in a negative light. Their system was unable to prevent this debacle, and more importantly, I hate that they're setting the precedent of canceling bets after the event has started. In this one case, I don't blame them, but I'm always the first to bring up the slippery slope argument, and it doesn't sit well with me.

Overall, this was a complete mess and everyone has crap on their face, including me. I suppose part of what got me so riled up is that my first inclination in cases like this is to come down on whichever side prevents the bad precedent that leads to the slippery slope, and this player's blatant and obvious lack of integrity put me in a position where I made an exception in my own philosophical beliefs. All things being equal, I think he should get paid because they accepted the bet. But his whining in this thread was too much for me to bear, and I pretty much changed my mind against my own beliefs in this one isolated case. My own opinion doesn't sit well with me, so I lashed out. I'm sorry. FWIW I still think my characterizations of him are accurate. But I agree that much of it was unnecessary.

As far as I'm concerned, they already gave him $3000 that he didn't deserve, so the real issue is $2800, not $5800. I swear, if I ever get $3000 for free from any book, I will come here and bend over backwards to defend them against anybody and everybody, not initiate a chargeback against them and try to ruin their reputation. The extenuating circumstances of this case are so extreme and overwhelming that they trump the slippery slope argument, even in my ACLU-loving, bleeding-heart-liberal eyes.

[dark star]

[shipitkthx]

To all of you in this thread complaining about BetPhoenix' actions:

- Is it not painfully obv this guy is a scammer?
- Learn to pick your fights better.

Phoenix has probably been one of the more active books in even discussing issues on this forum. Put yourself in their shoes. It is pretty ****ing clear this guy is a scammer, anyone with a brain can see that. By siding with the player here you make it that much less likely that the book is going to continue to deal with problems in the open like this. Stick to dealing with the more obvious problems like payout processing and actual scam books. This whole thread is pretty ridiculous.

And FWIW this a rare rare occurrence I side with the book on anything.

[big joe 1212]

They scammed the scammer

[BouncedCheck]

shipitkthx, I don't see anyone calling for the book to actually pay him, so pretty much everyone is siding with the book at this point.

I think it's possible to side with the book while still criticizing it for making a slight contribution to the entire situation. This guy is clearly 100% wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make the book 100% right. They should have prevented this in the first place.

That being said, Richard's willingness to discuss matters on the forum is a credit to him and to betphoenix. I'm not a big time gambler at all. I found this forum within the last several weeks because I fronted $2k for a friend to bet on the stupid bowl (I mean super bowl) and he won, and I was having some difficulty getting my documents approved by sportsbook.com and sportsbetting.com to get his (and my) money out. After reading several dozen threads here, and posting about 30 times, I'm probably going to start gambling a little here and there (but not until after I get all the money out and settle up with my friend), and I don't know where I'm going to start, but I have to strongly consider betphoenix simply because Richard is easily accessible on this forum.

[frostno98]

Dude's a douche bag, if I was the book I would stiff him for being just that. Then he tried to take another shot by posting up at the sister's book.

[shipitkthx]

shipitkthx, I don't see anyone calling for the book to actually pay him, so pretty much everyone is siding with the book at this point.

I think it's possible to side with the book while still criticizing it for making a slight contribution to the entire situation. This guy is clearly 100% wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make the book 100% right. They should have prevented this in the first place..

I was referring to all the "stay away from this book" posts. A question that is commonly asked in this situation is "if the player lost would the book give him his money back?" Well in this situation they credited back his losing wagers as well. I don't see why this incident, by itself, would make anyone consider avoiding the book. People stuck up for Greek canceling a bad line after an event ended and it had sat there pending for a long ass time. But yet somehow a book canceling a pending parlay of a guy who is clearly freerolling them isnt ok? Books do a lot of ****ed up shady things that should make you consider avoiding them, this is not one of them. And if I was in the guy at Phoenix's shoes I would have done the exact same thing.

[reno cool]

I was referring to all the "stay away from this book" posts. A question that is commonly asked in this situation is "if the player lost would the book give him his money back?" Well in this situation they credited back his losing wagers as well. I don't see why this incident, by itself, would make anyone consider avoiding the book. People stuck up for Greek canceling a bad line after an event ended and it had sat there pending for a long ass time. But yet somehow a book canceling a pending parlay of a guy who is clearly freerolling them isnt ok? Books do a lot of ****ed up shady things that should make you consider avoiding them, this is not one of them. And if I was in the guy at Phoenix's shoes I would have done the exact same thing.

The whole point, at least for me, is to show them that this is unacceptable, should not be tolerated by players and push them to set a better standard.

[shipitkthx]

The whole point, at least for me, is to show them that this is unacceptable, should not be tolerated by players and push them to set a better standard.

So once a book accepts a deposit and a bet and the game has started, under no circumstances should they void it? I'm sure that would work real well.

- Find place that will take your CC.
- Bet immediately before the game starts.
- Freeroll

[reno cool]

This can happen under current policy. That's the risk they take. If it's a real problem for the books they need to stop accepting cc. Canceling a live bet is not an answer.

[Stumpage]

it woulda been his 5 yr old Golden Retriever banged on the keyboard while he was away and left his computer on and logged into BetPhoenix had he lost and his lawyer told him Golden Retrievers cant bet online so hed better do a chargeback and deposit into another book

Now that was bloody funny, a true laugh out loud moment.

Hopefully this thread is nearing it's end, which I'm obviously working against by posting. However, the simple fact that the OP continues to chime in here from time to time defending his position is an absolute insult to the intelligence of this site across the board.

The thing that bothers me most is that there are probably a number of people queuing up here at SBR who have legitimate gripes or complaints, and I'd hate to think that a single nanosecond is being wasted by any of the SBR staff on this initially comical but increasingly annoying scam attempt. He took a shot and it didn't work out: Next case.

[durito]

This one was fun.