EGD is right. Would you guys come on here and praise you books tonight if you grabbed TB +1.5 at +200, but they decided to "do the right thing" and only pay you +180 because that's what other books had up????
No, of course not. Dave is only a semi-crook instead of a complete-crook, but a crook nonetheless.
No, of course not. Dave is only a semi-crook instead of a complete-crook, but a crook nonetheless.
How can one be an "almost honest", "almost standup guy" ?
Frankly, this whole situation smells of bovine excrement.
Apparently there are so many clients to go around that you can write the rules and keep the money however you like.
VVV
p.s. If you ever get an e-mail from a sportsbook saying "thanks for the $660, sucker" please do not delete it from your mailbox.
p.p.s. That's right isn't it Dave (Cascade)?
p.p.p.s. Be sure you understand the rules of your sportsbook because if there is an opportunity to use them against you YOU MUST be prepared for a prostrate ckeck.
p.p.p.p.s. If you notice the pressure of a hand on each shoulder during your prostrate exam, you are fvcked up the ass, my friend.
V
Frankly, this whole situation smells of bovine excrement.
Apparently there are so many clients to go around that you can write the rules and keep the money however you like.
VVV
p.s. If you ever get an e-mail from a sportsbook saying "thanks for the $660, sucker" please do not delete it from your mailbox.
p.p.s. That's right isn't it Dave (Cascade)?
p.p.p.s. Be sure you understand the rules of your sportsbook because if there is an opportunity to use them against you YOU MUST be prepared for a prostrate ckeck.
p.p.p.p.s. If you notice the pressure of a hand on each shoulder during your prostrate exam, you are fvcked up the ass, my friend.
V
I commend Dave on paying what he did. Yes, he should of went ahead and paid the entire amount. Hopefully an industry wide bad line rule will come of this. I commend and thank JJ and Areef for keeping this at the forefront of the RX over the past few weeks.
I have and will continue to play at Casa. They are one of my favorite books. I have never had a problem with them.
I have and will continue to play at Casa. They are one of my favorite books. I have never had a problem with them.
Interesting post. Let's do a little math...
Casablanca associated 2 accounts with Areeff. There were two $1000 winners @+605 for a total payout of $12100. Casablanca 1st "final" offer was $1500 each = $3000 total. This is just under 25-cents on the dollar.
The new settlement (final because Areeff accepted) is two $1000 bets @+435 (the price at Pinnacle) for a total of $8700 (almost 72-cents on the dollar).
When I was in school, a 72 was a D-
However, since Pinnacle is a much more respected book than Casablanca will ever be (even in Dave Johnson's wet-dreams), the use of the +435 line is not unreasonable. Not ideal either, but just not unreasonable.
I hope that once Dave has a definition of "bad line" on his site, he will include a list of "established" sportsbooks, like Pinnacle, Casacade, Olympic, etc.
Also, once the list is complete, a copy should be posted by Shrink to this forum, so that Dave can't alter his webpage if he gets hits near a borderline value in the future.
Just so he doesn't think I'm picking on him, I think that any other sportsbooks establishing similar policies should post their rules to this forum as well. It's too easy to edit a webpage and alter a rule when no one is looking.
Casablanca associated 2 accounts with Areeff. There were two $1000 winners @+605 for a total payout of $12100. Casablanca 1st "final" offer was $1500 each = $3000 total. This is just under 25-cents on the dollar.
The new settlement (final because Areeff accepted) is two $1000 bets @+435 (the price at Pinnacle) for a total of $8700 (almost 72-cents on the dollar).
When I was in school, a 72 was a D-
However, since Pinnacle is a much more respected book than Casablanca will ever be (even in Dave Johnson's wet-dreams), the use of the +435 line is not unreasonable. Not ideal either, but just not unreasonable.
I hope that once Dave has a definition of "bad line" on his site, he will include a list of "established" sportsbooks, like Pinnacle, Casacade, Olympic, etc.
Also, once the list is complete, a copy should be posted by Shrink to this forum, so that Dave can't alter his webpage if he gets hits near a borderline value in the future.
Just so he doesn't think I'm picking on him, I think that any other sportsbooks establishing similar policies should post their rules to this forum as well. It's too easy to edit a webpage and alter a rule when no one is looking.
In the what is a bad line thread I had posted:
"I've never heard of a place like Grande or Pinnacle cry bad line, and I was under the impression that situations like this don't come up that often, especially with programs like Don Best which I would assume all the offshore books subscribe to. The problem of bad lines seems to be a result of poor management and poorly trained employees. Although I would agree that you are asking for trouble and aggravation betting into what you would consider a bad line, I'm getting the impression from this thread that bad lines are much more prevalent than I thought they were. If there are that many bad lines out there then maybe the reason is that there are too many books out there that shouldn't be in business in the first place. Think about it-- Who would you rather post your money with, a well run shop like Grande or Pinnacle or a shop run so poorly that they constantly make mistakes? The way I see it eventually the poorly run places will find a way to poorly manage the money you posted. The best way to solve the bad line problem is for the books to honor the bad line bets (they are welcome to offer the player the option of get paid or get booted), but a book allowed to cry bad line has no reason to care whether they ever have them right. If they had to pay each time then they would be more careful and put more safeguards into place and eventually bad lines would become extinct. I do advocate telling a book if they have a questionable number because down the road that good will usually gets reciprocated. Bottom line however is books will always continue to have bad lines if they are not held accountable for posting them, booking them and crying about them."
I still believe a survival of fittest or I guess most accurate line posting books is the ultimate solution to creating the extinction of bad lines.
Although I am displeased that areff wasn't paid in full and personally would not have settled for the lesser payment the important thing is that areff is satisfied. If in fact he is satisfied then I think we should all be happy since he was the one that made the complaint in the first place.
As for the BEST solution for the bad line problem in the future, I recommend to Dave that he hire better help and implement better safeguards to prevent these situations from happening again. Should another situation like this arise I recommend all accepted wagers be paid in full and then he can make a determination as to whether he wants to keep or boot the player/players involved. After that he can double check the quality of all his personnel as well as all his safeguards and continue to do so until he no longer makes mistakes. Paying for mistakes makes you sharper in the long run and less likely to make them in the future.
As for Dave's proposed new rules it is a step in the right direction and consistent with the way he finally resolved this matter. I will comment further when I see the new "bad line criteria", but for now Dave just put your safeguards in place and hire an overnight manager that will do more than just stare at a bad line for eight hours without adjusting it.
Dave,
If you are still out there which I am sure you are since the painfulness of the reading seems to have subsided could you please clarify something for me as well as the other posters who have been following this saga:
1) You said you paid areff 2000 @ +435 does this mean that areff did in fact have two accounts and admitted to circumventing the wagering limit or did you just mean that both same state players each got paid on 1000 @ +435?
2) Can we also have a clarification on the two players that you had changed your mind about. Did you pay them :
a) plus 605 at their average wager amount
b) plus 605 for the full 1000 bet or
c) plus 435 for the full 1000 bet.
Please clarify these two issues so that we can all finally have a complete and accurate understanding of exactly how this was resolved and begin moving on to bigger and better things. The repurcussions of your initial decision had to have been an enormous strain on you, your business and your prior stellar reputation in the industry, but at least now you can unequivicably claim that Casablanca will spare no expense to achieve the satisfaction of an unhappy customer.
Since this situation lasted as long as it did maybe you can recoup some of the expenses by selling the rights to the story. This would make a great made for TV movie or mini-series.
Paula
"I've never heard of a place like Grande or Pinnacle cry bad line, and I was under the impression that situations like this don't come up that often, especially with programs like Don Best which I would assume all the offshore books subscribe to. The problem of bad lines seems to be a result of poor management and poorly trained employees. Although I would agree that you are asking for trouble and aggravation betting into what you would consider a bad line, I'm getting the impression from this thread that bad lines are much more prevalent than I thought they were. If there are that many bad lines out there then maybe the reason is that there are too many books out there that shouldn't be in business in the first place. Think about it-- Who would you rather post your money with, a well run shop like Grande or Pinnacle or a shop run so poorly that they constantly make mistakes? The way I see it eventually the poorly run places will find a way to poorly manage the money you posted. The best way to solve the bad line problem is for the books to honor the bad line bets (they are welcome to offer the player the option of get paid or get booted), but a book allowed to cry bad line has no reason to care whether they ever have them right. If they had to pay each time then they would be more careful and put more safeguards into place and eventually bad lines would become extinct. I do advocate telling a book if they have a questionable number because down the road that good will usually gets reciprocated. Bottom line however is books will always continue to have bad lines if they are not held accountable for posting them, booking them and crying about them."
I still believe a survival of fittest or I guess most accurate line posting books is the ultimate solution to creating the extinction of bad lines.
Although I am displeased that areff wasn't paid in full and personally would not have settled for the lesser payment the important thing is that areff is satisfied. If in fact he is satisfied then I think we should all be happy since he was the one that made the complaint in the first place.
As for the BEST solution for the bad line problem in the future, I recommend to Dave that he hire better help and implement better safeguards to prevent these situations from happening again. Should another situation like this arise I recommend all accepted wagers be paid in full and then he can make a determination as to whether he wants to keep or boot the player/players involved. After that he can double check the quality of all his personnel as well as all his safeguards and continue to do so until he no longer makes mistakes. Paying for mistakes makes you sharper in the long run and less likely to make them in the future.
As for Dave's proposed new rules it is a step in the right direction and consistent with the way he finally resolved this matter. I will comment further when I see the new "bad line criteria", but for now Dave just put your safeguards in place and hire an overnight manager that will do more than just stare at a bad line for eight hours without adjusting it.
Dave,
If you are still out there which I am sure you are since the painfulness of the reading seems to have subsided could you please clarify something for me as well as the other posters who have been following this saga:
1) You said you paid areff 2000 @ +435 does this mean that areff did in fact have two accounts and admitted to circumventing the wagering limit or did you just mean that both same state players each got paid on 1000 @ +435?
2) Can we also have a clarification on the two players that you had changed your mind about. Did you pay them :
a) plus 605 at their average wager amount
b) plus 605 for the full 1000 bet or
c) plus 435 for the full 1000 bet.
Please clarify these two issues so that we can all finally have a complete and accurate understanding of exactly how this was resolved and begin moving on to bigger and better things. The repurcussions of your initial decision had to have been an enormous strain on you, your business and your prior stellar reputation in the industry, but at least now you can unequivicably claim that Casablanca will spare no expense to achieve the satisfaction of an unhappy customer.
Since this situation lasted as long as it did maybe you can recoup some of the expenses by selling the rights to the story. This would make a great made for TV movie or mini-series.
Paula
Lander- You said it all. Why is this clown being praised for first stiffing the guy on the original wager and then after taking the much deserved heat, only paying him a portion of the money he rightfully has coming? Java's math lesson looked right on the button to me. Now some people are actually praising BETCBS for doing the "right thing". Unbelievable.
i dont think its praising goes to the book for their actions it goes to admiting they were wrong. it should not have take that long to do the right thing. the play shoud have been cancled before the match went off. it was a bad line. but you cant cancel a bet after the game. i think that by admiting he was wrong its a step in the right direction. sure in a perfect world areff would have been pd in full at the line he took. but it beats the original **** off stance they had at the start of the dispute.
everyone has the right to their own opinion and wether or not they want to play there.
arref said that would be a satisfactory resolution and he got it. live and learn
everyone has the right to their own opinion and wether or not they want to play there.
arref said that would be a satisfactory resolution and he got it. live and learn
Let me say only this for now but i will post a complete reply when i get back from jamaica on thursday.
There was no 2000$ wager at +435.
There was a 1000$ wager at +435.
and there was another 1000$ wager at +435.
originally it was claimed that i was 4 people. Then it was claimed that i was 2. In reality i was only 1.
originally it was thought that i was colluding with 3 other people. I have said and never denied that i told other people about the line but as i have said from the start i told MANY people about the line but only 1 bet the line
He dabbles in stocks and casinos and exchanges ideas with me. he was pretty sure he was never going to get paid as he has been stiffed more times than me.
Dave offered to pay ME +605 assuming we were 2 people(remember it was said i was 4 people before) but this would very much create heat between me and a man i do business and exchange ideas with. I talked to dave and discussed +435 as being a fair line even though both me and the man i do share lines
with would take a loss. I believe that people and their minds are more valuable than a few dollars. I will probably pay this guy in the long run back on the loss so that i do not lose a valuable contact because he makes up with brains what i make up with ambition.
I will share more information later as i did not want to think this thread was ignored.
Scalping, betting, etc all carry risk of win/loss.
I have come out of this down about 800$ or so and Dave has come out of this with a poorer reputation. I am sorry to see that this event ever happened. It is strange because normally when you get a 3am message from a buddy aboout a good line and you pass it on usually the dog price (which is slightly inflated) loses and all is well.
Dave has agreed to pay +435 (pinnacle price) on anyones bet that has placed this bet.
I believe Dave has learned alot from this matter.
I have learned alot from this matter.
More will come of this but i will chat with dave more when i get back from Jamaica as it costs 3.50 PER MINUTE to call him from here and for some reason the phones here are horrible as i can't even dial his direct line nor his 866#
Again i will make a seperate and unique post with all my thoughts later but i just wanted to post so that this was NOT ignored.
There was no 2000$ wager at +435.
There was a 1000$ wager at +435.
and there was another 1000$ wager at +435.
originally it was claimed that i was 4 people. Then it was claimed that i was 2. In reality i was only 1.
originally it was thought that i was colluding with 3 other people. I have said and never denied that i told other people about the line but as i have said from the start i told MANY people about the line but only 1 bet the line
He dabbles in stocks and casinos and exchanges ideas with me. he was pretty sure he was never going to get paid as he has been stiffed more times than me.
Dave offered to pay ME +605 assuming we were 2 people(remember it was said i was 4 people before) but this would very much create heat between me and a man i do business and exchange ideas with. I talked to dave and discussed +435 as being a fair line even though both me and the man i do share lines
with would take a loss. I believe that people and their minds are more valuable than a few dollars. I will probably pay this guy in the long run back on the loss so that i do not lose a valuable contact because he makes up with brains what i make up with ambition.
I will share more information later as i did not want to think this thread was ignored.
Scalping, betting, etc all carry risk of win/loss.
I have come out of this down about 800$ or so and Dave has come out of this with a poorer reputation. I am sorry to see that this event ever happened. It is strange because normally when you get a 3am message from a buddy aboout a good line and you pass it on usually the dog price (which is slightly inflated) loses and all is well.
Dave has agreed to pay +435 (pinnacle price) on anyones bet that has placed this bet.
I believe Dave has learned alot from this matter.
I have learned alot from this matter.
More will come of this but i will chat with dave more when i get back from Jamaica as it costs 3.50 PER MINUTE to call him from here and for some reason the phones here are horrible as i can't even dial his direct line nor his 866#
Again i will make a seperate and unique post with all my thoughts later but i just wanted to post so that this was NOT ignored.
Areeff-
Gentleman-like post.
You stayed consistent with your previous posts and didn't rub Dave's nose in it. When you mention that Dave took a hit on this, you acknowledge that there was cost to yourself as well and you both learned from the experience. Sounds like you are trying to be a stand-up guy for your friend as well.
I wish you the best of luck and thank you for the assorted compliments you have made about my own posts (though I felt many others made even better posts).
Hopefully, you will become the "Norma Rae" that got the "bad-lines" rules defined for the players "union".
Gentleman-like post.
You stayed consistent with your previous posts and didn't rub Dave's nose in it. When you mention that Dave took a hit on this, you acknowledge that there was cost to yourself as well and you both learned from the experience. Sounds like you are trying to be a stand-up guy for your friend as well.
I wish you the best of luck and thank you for the assorted compliments you have made about my own posts (though I felt many others made even better posts).
Hopefully, you will become the "Norma Rae" that got the "bad-lines" rules defined for the players "union".
Nice work Dave! Hopefully Areef will go to betmacao or luckys to take his shots. You guys all should have a bad line rule that is a bit more defined but, I'm starting to think that the people here that bitch about bad lines are those fuks that take shots knowing full well that a mistake was made. As for you Dave, you crushed me monday but I got you yesterday and today!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by areeff:
Dave offered to pay ME +605 assuming we were 2 people(remember it was said i was 4 people before) but this would very much create heat between me and a man i do business and exchange ideas with. I talked to dave and discussed +435 as being a fair line even though both me and the man i do share lines
with would take a loss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-huh...i don't know all the deatils but this in combination with paying other folks at +605 reeks of an admission by Dave that he was wrong and all bets should have been paid at +605.
-dave..not that you care about my opinion BUT way to step up and make a good business move. you won't get accolades from me for being a "stand-up" guy because you ARE NOT but finally you did something good for your business and that i respect.
-areef...at least you got something. close your account with betcbs.
-the real WINNER here is the rx!!!! it appears that the public pressure placed on dave and his book by the folks (posters and staff) here at the rx got areef at least a portion of what was due.
GOOD JOB POSTERS AND NICE JOB Rx STAFF.
Dave offered to pay ME +605 assuming we were 2 people(remember it was said i was 4 people before) but this would very much create heat between me and a man i do business and exchange ideas with. I talked to dave and discussed +435 as being a fair line even though both me and the man i do share lines
with would take a loss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-huh...i don't know all the deatils but this in combination with paying other folks at +605 reeks of an admission by Dave that he was wrong and all bets should have been paid at +605.
-dave..not that you care about my opinion BUT way to step up and make a good business move. you won't get accolades from me for being a "stand-up" guy because you ARE NOT but finally you did something good for your business and that i respect.
-areef...at least you got something. close your account with betcbs.
-the real WINNER here is the rx!!!! it appears that the public pressure placed on dave and his book by the folks (posters and staff) here at the rx got areef at least a portion of what was due.
GOOD JOB POSTERS AND NICE JOB Rx STAFF.
