Another Sportbook.com update - a clarification

[RickA]

I posted this in another thread, but a it was suggest that I start a new thread:

Contrary to the earlier statement - the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning. I'm not sure how that was not relayed to the people making the statements - a real lack of communication going on.

I was told this earlier today by Sportsbook.com, and then I confirmed it with one of the customers involved.

Just wanted to pass that along.

Thanks
Rick

 

[steaktartar]

well still unfortunate it took so long since sept 1st for them to notice this was a losing proposition for them but at least they didnt completely fuck the players and if these players were warned at any time not to play these then this is very acceptable.....thanx rick

 

[teazeman]

Contrary to the earlier statement - the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning. I'm not sure how that was not relayed to the people making the statements - a real lack of communication going on.

that's good news, i'm curious as to whom has the lack of communication though as you made an earlier statement and failed to mention this. is the communication gap with you to us or with you and sportsbook.com? i would think something as important as this would need to get out immediatly so it can be confirmed. i still think viejo dinasour was correct in his assessment of the help sitiuation in their offices.

 

[GDEAD]

Look Ricky, take responsibility for the fact that your book let these wagers in in the first place. Any decent and honest book would swallow their fucking pride and take the hit! It was your fault that these bets were taken in the first place so dont try and blame the players. Was this the books first year of taking college football bets? Of course not! So why then was the system so fucked up as to allow the bets to go in? Stop making excuses! What you are doing to your book is putting it in the company of fellow scam shops like BetRoyal and BetUS. This is NOT a good thing Ricky!! We all know that the book has millions so why not do whats right and pay up? Save your future and stop losing customers by the day!hno:

 

[rayray]

yep, bad. labeled the bets "no action". an oversight by many who are in a hurry to place bets. easy explanation of why they feel it okay to take away winning bets and keep losing bet money. complete bullshit and now nothing this book says will ever be dependable. it wouldnt be so bad if they simply tried to return the money to the people who placed losing bets...if its no action... then its no action

 

[Biggamer3]

I posted this in another thread, but a it was suggest that I start a new thread:

Contrary to the earlier statement - the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning. I'm not sure how that was not relayed to the people making the statements - a real lack of communication going on.

I was told this earlier today by Sportsbook.com, and then I confirmed it with one of the customers involved.

Just wanted to pass that along.

Thanks
Rick

Let me get this straight, you are telling me the losing wagers were "No actioned" meaning no money was lost, and the winning bets were payed out?
For some reason i am having problems believing that, if they were no actioning losses, no way in fuck were they going to pay out winners

What really happened was, they saw they werent making as much money as they thought and some VP there decided he had the perfect plan to recoup some money by stealing from Correlated parlay winners, my money is on this theory

 

[PanchoSanza]

I think what they meant was net losers on these, assuming there were any, did not receive a refund.

Net winners had the net amount deducted from their account.

Correct me if Im wrong.

 

[5teamparlay]

the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning

How could they tell which ones were even correlated. If winners were credited at some point they weren't no action until months after I assume. And only no actioned for certain players I assume. THIS is very tricky and need more clarification here.

Especially when some players played all types (straight etc) of bets that this happened to.

 

[JayC]

I posted this in another thread, but a it was suggest that I start a new thread:

Contrary to the earlier statement - the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning. I'm not sure how that was not relayed to the people making the statements - a real lack of communication going on.

I was told this earlier today by Sportsbook.com, and then I confirmed it with one of the customers involved.

Just wanted to pass that along.

Thanks
Rick

Like it makes a difference.

This does not justify the robbery.

 

[wilheim]

Pretty simple actually.

The players that were penalised (31 is the number I have heard) all bet what were considered by the various books involved as correlated parlays. Some won and some lost.

Originally it was thought that these players were charged for the losers and had the winners graded no bet. Well the actual truth is all of the parlays that were ruled to be correlated (win or lose) were graded no bet. Natrually this made a significent difference in the amount of funds that were involved.

Players were not charged for losers and graded no action for winners, which theoretically could have saved a player money if he lost more than enough correlated parlays than he won so that the losses were greater than the sum total of the winners after they were theoretically graded.

I don't know if this actually happened but it is possible. Remember only a handful of the players who had funds confiscated came forward. The Rx.com is still working to get players paid that made a lot of bets, both straight and parlayed.


Thanks, wil..

 

[ZGB7]

well still unfortunate it took so long since sept 1st for them to notice this was a losing proposition for them but at least they didnt completely fuck the players and if these players were warned at any time not to play these then this is very acceptable.....thanx rick

There was no warning given to me or anyone else who I have talked to who was involved in the confiscations. It turns out all bets they considered correlated, winners and losers, were no-actioned on Oct 9th, dating back to Sept 1st. However, all they told me in their email was "we have deducted XXX amount from your account for placing illegal parlays". So as far as I knew at the time that number could have came from anywhere. Still, since most correlated parlays during thie time period were winners, I'm sure no one benefited from their decision to steal the net balance of the wagers back.

 

[steaktartar]

There was no warning given to me or anyone else who I have talked to who was involved in the confiscations. It turns out all bets they considered correlated, winners and losers, were no-actioned on Oct 9th, dating back to Sept 1st. However, all they told me in their email was "we have deducted XXX amount from your account for placing illegal parlays". So as far as I knew at the time that number could have came from anywhere. Still, since most correlated parlays during thie time period were winners, I'm sure no one benefited from their decision to steal the net balance of the wagers back.

agree of course they + money..........i not for the decision at all but this makes a very bad situation a little better

 

[sean1]

Great -

So now one of the SHITTIEST books is just a SHITTY book.

-Sean

 

[teazeman]

Great -

So now one of the SHITTIEST books is just a SHITTY book.

-Sean

did you play at this shop?? if so how much did they deduct from your account? no exact numbers just an around about figure will do?

 

[PPLTPPPLTP]

if they fucked up, they should have to pay.. if guys are warned they should stop.. nobody should try to win like that..

 

[PPLTPPPLTP]

a bad situation a little better.. a book open for business shopuld not take them, if they do too bad for them..

 

[cincy_]

With every post that Rick and Wil make in defense of sportsbook.com, they lose credibility.

You run a business, people need to get paid, the book is a good source of income, and even if you return their money, it’s not going to help anyone but sportsbook.com …

... that much I can understand …

What befuddles me is why you guys feel the need to open up threads in defense of a shit book? Do you think what you write will change anyone’s mind about this?

The credibility of the RX has taken a hit and EOG has basked in the glory ... especially since Rick said that the RX wasn't a watchdog site and Shrink ripped up their contract ... but you could have preserved your personal credibility ... but with each thread like this, even the personal credibility is taking a hit.

There is no doubt in my mind that sportsbook.com is a shit book ... the only debate left is whether they are OUTRIGHT CROOKS are not ... and I don't know why you guys want to participate in this debate, and I really can't understand why you would want to open new threads on it.

 

[PanchoSanza]

In their defence, they were a fine book until this happened.

I had never had any problems with them until they started having payment issues around last spring but in the last month have started to pay much faster.

 

[Doug]

How exactly does Sportsbook define a correlated parlay as to CFB ?

I've never heard their definition, they can be still be using different standards for different accounts.

It should be the same for every account, I doubt it is.

 

[PanchoSanza]

How exactly does Sportsbook define a correlated parlay as to CFB ?

I've never heard their definition, they can be still be using different standards for different accounts.

It should be the same for every account, I doubt it is.

No universal definition, each book has their own cutoff point.

sportsbook.com had NO cutoff point, which is why this is such a clusterfukk.