[raiders72002]

45 computers in quick hands of blackjack? Nothing there.

What are the limits/hand that enabled him to win $70k?

[raiders72002]

$100 max bet per hand and he won $70k

Please wait for a BetOnline Account Manager to respond...
You are now chatting with Nikki
Your Issue ID for this chat is xxxxxx. Please record it in case of pending issue.
Nikki: Hello. How may I assist you today?
xxxx: What is the maximum amount that you can bet per hand in black jack?
Nikki: Let me check that xxxx, I dont think there is a max per hand
xxxx: ok
Nikki: but let me be sure
Nikki: Ok I see, xxxx max bet per hand is 100
Nikki: minimun is 1x
xxxx: Are you sure it's only $100?
Nikki: 200% want to check yourself?
Nikki: click here
Nikki: http://www.betonline.com/casino/rules/blackjack.asp
xxxx: LOL
xxxx: Thanks
Nikki: Hey I always check before saying something Final
xxxx:
Nikki: Im the insufferable Know it all of the Internet Department
Nikki: lol
Nikki: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
xxxx: no, thx


Blackjack Rules
Blackjack (also known as twenty-one), is a descendant of Baccarat and Chemin-de-Fer and is often considered one of the world's most popular casino table games.
Object of the Game
The object of the game is to achieve a higher card count than the dealer without exceeding 21.
Play Mechanics
The deck is shuffled after each hand.
The Bets - Select an initial bet amount and click Deal to begin the game. There is a minimum bet of $1 and a maximum bet of $100. The Cards. Aces may be considered 1 or 11. Face cards have a value of 10 and all other cards are counted as their face value.
The Deal - A card is dealt face up to the player followed by one to the dealer. A second card is then dealt face up to the player, and a second card face down to the dealer. At this point, the player may choose to stand or draw one or more cards to improve their hand total. The dealer takes additional cards only after the player has completed his or her hand(s), following specific rules (see Dealer Strategy below). The player's hand is completed when the player:
1. Draws Blackjack (a natural 21 consisting of an Ace and a 10 or face card)
2. Chooses to stand
3. Busts (the hand count exceeds 21).
The winner is determined by which hand's total is closest to 21. A Blackjack beats all other hands totaling 21 (this applies to the dealer as well). If both the dealer and the player draw a Blackjack, it is a considered a push (tie) and neither hand wins nor loses.
Player Options
The player is initially dealt two cards. After these cards are dealt, the player has the option of making the following additional wagers:
Splitting Pairs - This option is available to the player when the two original cards are of the same value (6's, 8's, etc).
The player splits the cards into two hands and plays each hand individually. Additional pairs can not be split again. A pair of Aces may be split but each Ace receives only one additional card. Except when splitting Aces, the player has the option to double down (see below) after splitting. In all cases, the player must wager an additional amount equal to the original bet when splitting.
Double Down - If the first two cards do not total 21, the player has the option to double down. Should the player feel that he or she can win with only one additional card, the player may double the original bet and receive one more card. The player may also double down after splitting a pair unless the pair consists of Aces. In this case the player is only entitled to receive one card after splitting.
Insurance - If the dealer's first visible card is an Ace, the player has the option of buying insurance. Insurance is a wager equal to one-half the player's original bet which pays two to one if the dealer draws a Blackjack. If the dealer does not draw Blackjack, the player loses his or her insurance.
Dealer Strategy
The dealer must:
· Be hit on a count of 16 or less
· Stand on Soft 17
· Stand on a Hard 17 or more
Soft Hand: A hand where an Ace may be counted as either 1 or 11 without the total exceeding 21.
Hard Hand: A hand with no Aces or one where the Ace must count as one so as to not exceed 21.

[raiders72002]

FWIW I went to the live chat and they immediately answered with no wait.

[bigboydan]

$100 max bet per hand and he won $70k

That must have been one hell of a run he had at that type of limit.

I'd love to see the history log in regards to see just how many times he lost during that unbelievable stretch.

[colt29]

I have an account there, and the max is 1000 a hand. How in the hell he ran it up that high I have no idea.

[raiders72002]

[Dark Horse]

I have an account there, and the max is 1000 a hand.

Doesn't quite have that 100 sound.

[bigboydan]

I'd really like to know what his high roller rewards were over this stretch.

[jokerfly]

raider's obviously has a hard-on for me and it's apparent that he has a little too much time on his hand. did it ever dawn on raiders that maybe they just lowered their blackjack limit until they figure out whatever they are trying to figure out? their limits were $500 a hand on the table where you could play 3 hands. On the single hand table, the limits were $1,000.

I will not be posting anymore going back and forth with people like Raider. There are people here that really want to see the outcome and could care less about the forums raider has owned. I have screenshots showing my balance, showing the table limits, and recorded phone conversations with BetOnline. Each and every facet of my story can be supported and I will provide that information to SBR should they request it. I will post again as soon as I have an update.

[raiders72002]

In earlier posts you said that you made a half dozen $500 deposits. You made deposits totaling $3000, lost in the sportsbook but somehow built your bankroll to $70,000.

How about giving us the screen shots.

[Patrick McIrish]

I tend to believe Joker here and feel comfortable he will get his money. I handled a case similar to this when at the RX, the player had a balance of 30k or so I think it was and the book did not want to pay out. First they used the internal audit excuse, they held the payment up for months hoping the player would go away. Eventually the guy found Sting over at 911 who sent him to me. When I got involved they said the software was manipulated, never once did I get a straight answer on what the player was doing to do so. Eventually the player got his money, I believe the book was BetJaguar, you can see how lucky he was to ever collect a dime.

BTW it was mentioned before but I strongly encourage coming to Bill Dozer or another mod here with your case before you come to the forums. Certainly so if it's a crap book to begin with. A book has much more incentive to do the right thing if they have not yet been run through the ringer out in the forums. You always have the option to share the story later, do what you can to get your money first though. Good luck Joker, if you are telling the truth I hope you get your money, my gut feeling is you are.

[jokerfly]

Here's a screenshot from back on the 26th. I don't need to prove anything to you raider.

[bigboydan]

jokerfly, I just replied to your PM just now.

[jokerfly]

and raider check out the LIMITS from my screen shots or look here

[4FUN.AND$$]

Raider has some alternative motive for being in this thread. If you do not believe joker then hit the road as you have nothing to contribute. When will SBR have an answer as I have money tied up in this book. I do not have near what joker has but money none the less. Is the "investigation" moving forward ?

[NiceMaaan]

oh how the shoe is on the other foot. Raider is the jerkoff now lol. But lets be real here.. 4 fun put investigation in quotes so he must be the same person as joker. I would like to put a wager on the fact that Raiders works for BOL--anyone with half a brian sees right through you brother.

[louis]

I myself looked into playing for their high roller bonus. I found a $1000 bonus for $1 million in action, 1/10th of 1% to not be good enough for me - although I respect and admire jokerfly for his courage to go for it.

Of course I checked their limits to see how long it would take me, and they were $1000 at the time.

I'm going to tell you something. If everyone here deposited a few thousand and started betting $1000 a hand, some of us are going to hit $50,000, and the fact that these people will have their account frozen, while a man having calls transferred to his cell phone figures out what basic strategy and variance is, bothers me.

Of course they have dropped their limits now. Bet Jamaica has a limit of $100. Most sportsbooks have casino managers that are smarter, and know that with $1000 limits people can win up to 6 figures sometimes, and they don't want to have to explain it to the owners.

[pavyracer]

Pay the man please. If he lost $70,000 would you have launched an investigation to see why he bet so pourly? If he was doubling down on 16's would you have refunded his money? When I was in college we used to play blackjack with quarters and I have seen people win $200 in one night with only a $5 bankroll.

[Dark Horse]

Betonline already losing some of that quickly gained shine. Pay the man his money.

[raiders72002]

I would like to put a wager on the fact that Raiders works for BOL-

Put up or shut up. How much?

[raiders72002]

I'm taking a realistic look at the odds. This guy says he deposited a total of $3000, lost in the sportsbook overall and has an obvious ghost.

His screen shot proves crap on where the money came from.

If he's owed money then I'll apologize.

[raiders72002]

Nicemaan- I'll give you 10-1 that I haven't worked for any book or any forum or taken advertising from any book for over a year.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[raiders72002]

Irish- Good post. For those that don't know he was the head mod at the RX at one time.

BTW it was mentioned before but I strongly encourage coming to Bill Dozer or another mod here with your case before you come to the forums. Certainly so if it's a crap book to begin with. A book has much more incentive to do the right thing if they have not yet been run through the ringer out in the forums

[louis]

It is absolutely time to pay this man. And the amount is not only what he won, but what he won plus the highroller bonus of $1000. He more than earned this bonus. Betonline made a promise that one million in action wins a $1000 bonus, the man gave him $3 million or 3 times that amount. If he played like this in Vegas he would be in a penthouse suite, with a private limousine, steak house dinners every night, and airfare comped. And I can guarantee you Vegas would treat him like this regardless of whether or not he won or lost. Betonline, in their infinite wisdom decides to do the opposite approach: treat him like crap. And yes it is total crap what has happend here.

The way Betonline is acting and stalling in this situation is extremely unprofessional. They have presented no evidence that this person cheated this software. In fact the evidence is that this person put out $3 million dollars in action, betting an average of $500 a hand from what I understand. Yes it is unusual for someone in this situation to win $50K, or $70K, or whatever, but most casinos have more than one player, right? So eventually out of the hundreds or thousands of players someone does pull it off.

The situation is that those who bet $500 a hand and lose their money they don't start threads here at SBR; so to say it is unlikely someone betting this amount could win $70K so he didn't do it is not a fair statement unless you are also taking into account all the hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands of people, who have lost all their money playing this software game.

Betonline, shame on you You are not acting like an A- book, and I suggest that your A- rating here at SBR is going to be in serious jeopardy if you do not apologize and do the right thing, here, immediately. There is no doubt in my mind, that each and everyone of the A- or better rated books, except for this one, would have paid this person by now.

I would like to take a poll here. If there is a possibility that someone cheated, is the burden of proof on the sportsbook to proove the cheating, or on the player to proove he did not cheat?

In this case I am suggesting bet online is putting the burden of proof on the player, and my vote in this poll is that the burden should be on the casino, and one week is enough time.

[JBC77]

Betonline already losing some of that quickly gained shine. Pay the man his money.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[pavyracer]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When a new book comes around and looks too good to be true then probably is worthless. Pay the man and then ban him for life if you think is such a sharp blackjack player. What I still don't understand is what advantage do you get by betting against the book. It's not like he was betting sports with opposite sides. He was only betting against the house and should be rewarded for his courage to bet 3 millions in action. This needs to be resolved ASAP! The only explanation I have is that the owners are betting the $70,000 this week on other books so they can pay him.

[paul Mordeeb]

If this guy is telling the truth, this kind of sucks. Why would you ever transfer a call to a mobile phone about a security check? The guy should get bonus money for winning in the casino beyond the high roller bonus just for playing those house games!!!!

[bigboydan]

I'm not speculating on this case until I hear the books side of the story. BTW, which I haven't as of yet

[louis]

In my opinion, as I've stated the sportsbook has the burden of proof, to provide evidence a player cheated or committed fraud.

Bigboydan, you have in fact heard from the sportsbook. What you have heard is they have nothing to say.

Obviously, they don't have any evidence, as you report in your post your haven't heard of anything.

[chano]

In my opinion, as I've stated the sportsbook has the burden of proof, to provide evidence a player cheated or committed fraud.

Bigboydan, you have in fact heard from the sportsbook. What you have heard is they have nothing to say.

Obviously, they don't have any evidence, as you report in your post your haven't heard of anything.

Louis , easy on BBD. Dont shoot the messanger. Afterall Betonline is a sponsor here. If they were not SBR would be shitting all over them. One week is too little time for an "A" rated book. In fairness, lets give them to the end of the month to figure this all out. Thats how long all the other "A" rated books would take. (joking, of course). "A" rated, once again is obviously for sale. Shame on you SBR.

[louis]

I want to be clear, I am not blaming SBR.

SBR has in the past given books A when they deserved them, for example WWTS, and then taken that rating away when they did not deserve them and advertisers have been dropped.

I am not upset at SBR for giving them an A- rating, I just think we are getting close to the time that this rating needs to be adjusted, depending on not only how I feel, but how everyone here feels about what is going on.

I am very happy with SBR overall, and their service.

Their line service in particular made me a lot of money yesterday.

I absolutely disagree that "A" ratings are on sale. The books rated A for the most part have deserved their ratings.

[chano]

I
I absolutely disagree that "A" ratings are on sale. The books rated A for the most part have deserved their ratings.

And the ones that fall under the non-most part. Were they 4 sale ?

[ShamsWoof10]

Yeah I agree that BDan does know something by now... As you guys pointed out the (S)BOL banner is up here and I doubt they want to start throwing words out like "theives" and "crooks"...

It's been a week and SBR hasn't heard anything.??? Yeah right...

Also I don't think people should refer to "A" books as if the rating came from "GOD"... It's SBR's ratings (opinions) that's all...

DH my shoes have more shine then (S)BOL ever did...

[BigBollocks]

Mark my words guys....BetOnline is the next Betcascade. This is just a sign of a lot of ugly things to come. Even some of SBR's moderators have come out and expressed discomfort with BetOnline. The majority of their management comes from books that have previously caved in and not paid players, and it won't change here. They can give out true odds on parlays and -105 on sides/totals without doing the work required to sustain at those odds for a simple reason...they're going to bail with everyone's money one day. It's somewhat hard to believe that he won +67 units at blackjack (from $3K to $70K with $1K max bets), but I one time won $500 at blackjack with all $10 minimum bets, so it's certainly not impossible.

Something is really fishy here, and I don't like it one damned bit to be honest with you...

[BigBollocks]

The entire time frame involved is what leads me to believe something weird is going down here. I get the feeling John didn't like the initial feedback he received from Betonline (i.e. they were blatantly guilty), and the parties involved are working on a way to excuse this no-pay attempt in the cleanest manner possible. Either way there is no way that this gentleman should have been kept in purgatory from Betonline with no feedback for as long as he has...