[custer]

Hi

This was posted by strink on the LVA sports forum with regard to the BetJamaica dispute:

post by shrink

SBR RULES IN FAVOR OF BETJAMAICA...

I was given permission by BILL DOZER from SBR to post the following at EOG and here. The following was also sent to the player, Oscar...

I was initially unclear about how your new limits translated to horse bets. I have been informed that you were capped at $500 per bet on horses. It should have been clear that the restrictions on your account were global and that “no dupes” applied to these nickel bets. I would be happy to discuss this further but with the facts at hand, you were adequately informed of the wagering restrictions

post by shrink


As I can't find anything on SBR confirming this, I'm posting to ask if its true. If in fact you guys did settle this dispute in favor of BetJamaica, I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning.

[Bill Dozer]

Hi Custer,

Yes, that is part of the email that was sent to the player. Ideally the book's software governs the player so it does not come down to interpreting rules. In this case BetJamaica's rules were clear and mgt. made sure the player was aware of the restrictions using the note on the log in screen as well as verbally informing him.

[bigboydan]

I read this complaint before over at Fez's site, and could see both sides of the story.

BetJamaica stated something like "strict limits no duplicates". Thats fine and all... However The one thing that puzzles me is the fact that a lot of books usually have their racebook and sportsbooks as separate businesses/entities. Not to mention the fact that the racebook S/W shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.

[JC]

Bill,

How do you look past them taking the losers and only cancelling half the bets once there was a big winner? I think that's pretty bad.

I have said this thing is real close with the edge going to the player. I am now moving closer to a tie. I still think the player should be paid. It's $10,000, not $100,000 we are talking about here.

[groovinmahoovin]

The player claims he was never informed that the limit applied to the racebook as well as the sportsbook, and as his racebook limit was explicitly $1000 (he reports that he could not bet $1500), it stands to reason that if his racebook limit was supposed to be $500, they'd have lowered it to $500 rather than leaving it at $1000.

Your interpretation of the English language is much different than mine if you believe a message consisting of nothing but "$500 limits, no dupes" is "clear."

I suppose it's no surprise that you would rule in favor of one of your advertisers. Congratulations for joining the RX, EOG, and Majorwager on the list of fora that will do anything to protect their precious advertisers. I've mentioned SBR for years on the boards as a legitimate site for dispute resolution but will no longer do so. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to the level of "anything for a buck."

[groovinmahoovin]

Originally Posted by bigboydan

I read this complaint before over at Fez's site, and could see both sides of the story.

BetJamaica stated something like "strict limits no duplicates".

That's a lie on Scotty's part. Scotty has posted on the gambling boards that the player was told "strict $500 limit," but the player has posted a screen cap which shows the actual message was "$500 limits no dupes." His ex post facto addition of "strict" is an attempt on his part to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Additionally, it is not necessarily clear that "dupes" means "duplicates." The "duplicate" definition of "dupes" is only the 3rd definition listed in Merriam Webster. If he wanted to say "no duplicate wagers," why not say that rather than the vague "dupes?"

Thats fine and all... However The one thing that puzzles me is the fact that a lot of books usually have their racebook and sportsbooks as separate businesses/entities. Not to mention the fact that the racebook S/W shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.

I agree completely which is why the player should certainly be played here. racebooks, sportsbooks, and casinos are routinely run as separate entities with separate limits and rules. The racebook S/W explicitly limited him to $1000. Why not limit him to $500 if that's what Jamaica wanted?

[Cloak & Dagger]

Originally Posted by JC

Bill,

How do you look past them taking the losers and only cancelling half the bets once there was a big winner? I think that's pretty bad.

I have said this thing is real close with the edge going to the player. I am now moving closer to a tie. I still think the player should be paid. It's $10,000, not $100,000 we are talking about here.

that was my opinion across the street....please dont tell me it was a "software error"...because if the bet lost....my call is...there would be no "software error"

now the mod over there....lets just call him "zil"

made it so now whenever I post he has to "review" it...I stated IMO I thought betjm was hurting for action...when they informed me I couldnt have their "card" unless I bet $1000 a month....lmfao

seems like "zil" would sell his mamas soul to get some advertising dollars??

I was just stating a opinion...I believe jjgold once said the same thing about a few mods over there

[groovinmahoovin]

The question you need to ask yourself is, had the player placed 10 $1000 bets, lost, and then asked BetJamaica to refund the extra $5000 because his limit was supposed to be $5000:

A) Would BetJamaica have paid him the $5000?
B) Would SBR have sided with the player that he should be refunded $5000 because the limit was supposed to be $500?

[oscark]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

Hi Custer,

Yes, that is part of the email that was sent to the player. Ideally the book's software governs the player so it does not come down to interpreting rules. In this case BetJamaica's rules were clear and mgt. made sure the player was aware of the restrictions using the note on the log in screen as well as verbally informing him.

Bill,

I of course am sorry to hear your decision. I will be sending you a detailed response.

I would like to clarify something above which is false. The only notice I ever received concerning limits was the message upon login. I never received any email with further detail (until I contacted him concerning the contested wager) and was certainly never verbally informed.

Oscar

[Thremp]

I'd really like someone to explain why everyone was up in arms when I said "SBR is just a website albeit a good one". Here's a clear case of a very poor judgment on their part. BetJ scammed a player and they side with BetJ. There really is no question to this case. He should be paid (and was previously before a big score).

Ridiculous.

[jjgold]

All $1000 losing wagers were accepted and not voided, Bet Jamaica has to pay player.

[Santo]

You say there is no question, yet about 50%* of message board posters have been siding with the book.

That implies there is a question.

* 50% is a rough guess. Not mathematically calculated.

[groovinmahoovin]

"Most message board posters" are idiots. Look at the thread on LVA, which has a significantly higher caliber of posters than shitholes like EOG, and you'll see it's closer to 90/10.

In that long thread where the guy was past posting halftime bets by 10 minutes, "most message board posters" thought that having a 10 minute advantage in halftime bets, or an advantage where one team already scored a field goal, was "not that big a deal."

[Santo]

Well firstly, "most message board posters" shouldn't be in quotes, as I never said that ;-)

I selectively read for the people I respect, and my impression is that in this case they're pretty much 50/50, a lot of them are saying things like "Tough case, but I lean to the book", "Tough case but I give the player the edge".

Secondly, in that case (the past-post bets) you have a point. I think the book was right in that case.

In this one I'm not as clear cut. I don't know enough about horse racing book practices as I don't bet it, so can only go on others opinions.

What would be very interesting is if there is another poster out there in forumland who has experience of having different (or the same) horse/sports limits at Jamaica.

[Thremp]

Santo,

So 50% of posters are idiots?

[trixtrix]

this is sad sad day, sbr.. this type of behaviour even 2 years ago was unthinkable by any elite rated book.. and now it appears common place across the board not matter what the book ratings are..

as bad as fezz's ego is, i almost wish he was still running lva's sportsbetting forum b/c i'm almost positive he would've stripped oly/betj banner in this case had they still been up..

how could ANYONE justify that

1.) books run sports/poker/casino/horse as separate entities? if i've been limited 500 in sports, what happens if i'm betting 500 a hand in casino and in need of a split? do i only get back 500 and not 1k if i win the split?

2.) book has never expressly told the player that he can only bet 500 in HORSES?

3.) book as accepted 1k bets in horses and even paid out the WINNERS?

4.) book chose the cheapest route in offering the player losers refund instead of paying his winnings?

quick q sbr: had the situation reversed and the player came to sbr and asked for his loss refunded b/c it exceeded 20k+ and offered to use this login message to his sports acct as proof, who will sbr rule in favour of: the house or the player?

[groovinmahoovin]

Good point, "message board posters" should have been in quotes.

I also selectively pay attention to people I respect and with almost no exceptions, they've sided with the player. Someone whom I respect a lot who's a former TheGreek employee, and is often accused of being a TheGreek apologist, sided with the player, no questions asked, which carries a lot of weight with me.

Additionally, a lot of the pro-book posts are a missing a key detail. That seems to be the case with SBR, as one moderator already mentioned the "strict limits" phrase that was only added by Scotty after the dispute (the actual wording was $500 limits) and Bill Dozer is reporting the player was "repeatedly informed, including verbally" when the player claims he was only informed by a pop-up box and was never informed verbally.

Someone did post in a thread that his horse limits were less than $1000 on BetJamaica, so I'll see if I can slog through all the threads and find that post.

[Santo]

Originally Posted by groovinmahoovin

Good point, "message board posters" should have been in quotes.

I also selectively pay attention to people I respect and with almost no exceptions, they've sided with the player. Someone whom I respect a lot who's a former TheGreek employee, and is often accused of being a TheGreek apologist, sided with the player, no questions asked, which carries a lot of weight with me.

Additionally, a lot of the pro-book posts are a missing a key detail. That seems to be the case with SBR, as one moderator already mentioned the "strict limits" phrase that was only added by Scotty after the dispute (the actual wording was $500 limits) and Bill Dozer is reporting the player was "repeatedly informed, including verbally" when the player claims he was only informed by a pop-up box and was never informed verbally.

Someone did post in a thread that his horse limits were less than $1000 on BetJamaica, so I'll see if I can slog through all the threads and find that post.

Didn't the guy you refer to say they could either pay the winner or refund half of the losses, or am I getting the wrong guy?

I have bet UK horse racing, and in that case a sportsbook limit always applies with horses, but that horse racing is fixed odds not tote, so may be different.

[trixtrix]

it's pretty obv to all that out of the 3 boards mentioned: lva, therx, eog

lva has the highest signal-to-noise ratio in terms of intelligent posting

[groovinmahoovin]

Before BetJam agreed to refund half the losses, the person I was referring to (PerpetualCzech) said he'd give the player the choice of full payment and his account closed, or the "refund half the losses on the losers" option. The player wants to be paid in full. Since the player make that clear, PerpetualCzech has posted several times that the player should be paid.

[groovinmahoovin]

Also, with offshore horse bets, it is pretty common to have different race book limits. I.e. I have quite a few accounts where the max race book payout is $2500. Needless to say, these books have never had a problem with paying me more than $2500 on various sports bets.

Offshore, the sportsbook, racebook, and casino (or poker room, if they have one) are often 3 or 4 separate entities.

As I mentioned, a lot of the posts from the "message board posters" don't have all of the information here, no thanks to the Shrink posting various lies and insinuations to try to derail the thread, the worst of which that the player has "no credibility" because his real name isn't "Oscar."

[Santo]

Ok. For me then I guess it would come entirely down to past precedent, both at BetJam and offshore books in particular.

[Bill Dozer]

Originally Posted by bigboydan

BetJamaica stated something like "strict limits no duplicates". Thats fine and all... However The one thing that puzzles me is the fact that a lot of books usually have their racebook and sportsbooks as separate businesses/entities. Not to mention the fact that the racebook S/W shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.

Originally Posted by JC

How do you look past them taking the losers and only cancelling half the bets once there was a big winner? I think that's pretty bad.

I have said this thing is real close with the edge going to the player. I am now moving closer to a tie. I still think the player should be paid. It's $10,000, not $100,000 we are talking about here.

The amount shouldn't matter. If BetJam was allowing duplicate bets and he bet it 5x for $100k, he should get it. The player had $500 limits and was told "no dupes." The only way he is able to get more than $500 would be to duplicate the $500 max, bet which he did. Had he been able to bet 1k in the racebook like other players, and argue he didn't realize the max was meant to be enforced on races, he would have a case. The limits are not as much of the issue as the prohibited account activity.

[SBR_John]

Im not sure we even had all the info we requested mainly the bet history.

As I understand it the player was cut to $500 with no dups. So he places a $500 racebook bet. Then he tries a dup to see what the software does. It takes it. Tries a 3rd dup.

Without seeing the bet history it appears this player was told "No Dups", he decided to put in a duplicate bet anyway.

So then the only thin leg for the player to stand on is that several duplicate over his limit bets were taken without incident.

[Dark Horse]

Here we go. Now A books start to f*ck around retroactively.

(I didn't read the details of the case. Just stunned at the willingness across the board to accept bets and decide afterwards if they are valid or not)

[SBR_John]

The book may want to pay this guy and send him away. Its pretty clear the player knew he was duplicate betting and calculated BetJam would eat the software mistake.

[groovinmahoovin]

The original bet limit was in reference to the sportsbook. Given that the racebook and sportsbook are usually run by books as separate entities with separate limits, bonus requirements, etc, how is one to assume that the sportsbook limit applies to the racebook? I have tons of accounts at various books where my sportsbook and racebook limits are different.

For that matter, how is the player, whose native language may not be English, supposed to know what "dupes" means? "duplicates" is the third listed definiton of "dupes" in Merriam Webster. Why not say "duplicate wagers" if you mean "duplicate wagers?"

[groovinmahoovin]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

The book may want to pay this guy and send him away. Its pretty clear the player knew he was duplicate betting and calculated BetJam would eat the software mistake.

What advantage does the player have "duplicate betting" a horse bet at BetJamaica when the horse payout is the same anyway no matter where you place it? He could just as easily bet the other $500 at any book that takes horse bets. Use some common sense here.

[oscark]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

The book may want to pay this guy and send him away. Its pretty clear the player knew he was duplicate betting and calculated BetJam would eat the software mistake.

I am sorry, this just makes no sense. Why on earth would I bother to try and get away with a duplicate bet on a horse wager? Please explain that to me John. As I stated in my original email to SBR, my standard horse wager is $1500. When I learned Jamaica would only allow me to bet $1000 on a win bet, I placed the $500 bet at another major competitor. I have offered to provide proof of this. If BJ had only allowed $500, I would have placed $1000 elsewhere.

It would just make no sense for me to try and take advantage of my limits on a horse wager. Please explain one logical reason why I woul want to do so John?

Oscar

[Santo]

Originally Posted by groovinmahoovin

What advantage does the player have "duplicate betting" a horse bet at BetJamaica when the horse payout is the same anyway no matter where you place it? He could just as easily bet the other $500 at any book that takes horse bets. Use some common sense here.

There are racebooks that cap payoff at 15/1. So he's gaining an advantage from playing at BetJam vs those. But who knows where he holds accounts..

[Santo]

Originally Posted by oscark

I am sorry, this just makes no sense. Why on earth would I bother to try and get away with a duplicate bet on a horse wager? Please explain that to me John. As I stated in my original email to SBR, my standard horse wager is $1500. When I learned Jamaica would only allow me to bet $1000 on a win bet, I placed the $500 bet at another major competitor. I have offered to provide proof of this. If BJ had only allowed $500, I would have placed $1000 elsewhere.

It would just make no sense for me to try and take advantage of my limits on a horse wager. Please explain one logical reason why I woul want to do so John?

Oscar

Can you name the "major competitor", and can somebody check your limit there?

[groovinmahoovin]

Fine, "any book that pays actual track odds."

However, the fact that you specified "there are racebooks that cap payoff" is pretty clear evidence that most places treat the sportsbook and racebook as two separate entities, is it not?

[oscark]

Originally Posted by Santo

Can you name the "major competitor", and can somebody check your limit there?

Sure, WSEX. Anyone who has connections there can feel free to confirm this.

And in fact, ever since this debacle, I have been betting $1600/horse there.

Oscar

[Dark Horse]

Why is an A+ book so concerned about whether the player bet $500 or $1000?

[Santo]

Originally Posted by groovinmahoovin

Fine, "any book that pays actual track odds."

However, the fact that you specified "there are racebooks that cap payoff" is pretty clear evidence that most places treat the sportsbook and racebook as two separate entities, is it not?

Yes and no. A lot of places also cap payoff on sports parlays.