Mike is now looking at what was initially said to be a closed case. Hopefully more information can be brought to the table to support the decision or it will be reassessed.
The player used to play at sports.com and deposited thousands there. He claims they over charged him $135 (3 extra 45 dollar charges). So he took back what he says was "only what they over charged". SBT CS and the player confirm this. The player could have charged back thousands.
He ends up at linesmaker unaware that they are closely related. He wins a parlay 900/ 18000. They cite these chargebacks as reason not to pay. The audit department then tells him to WU the $135 and everything will be fine. He does and gets an email from linesmaker telling him he will receive the 1k he deposited.
I happened to come accross the Linesmaker owner's email and hope to proceed with this issue getting individual attention.
If this was not categorized as a closed case and individual ownership wanted to work with it before the wire we would still be working on it vs reporting it. It does look as if we need to reassess how SBT governs the books under their name. For that reason I am still looking to speak with the top level of SBT management.
SBR will report how Linesmaker handles this situation.
The player used to play at sports.com and deposited thousands there. He claims they over charged him $135 (3 extra 45 dollar charges). So he took back what he says was "only what they over charged". SBT CS and the player confirm this. The player could have charged back thousands.
He ends up at linesmaker unaware that they are closely related. He wins a parlay 900/ 18000. They cite these chargebacks as reason not to pay. The audit department then tells him to WU the $135 and everything will be fine. He does and gets an email from linesmaker telling him he will receive the 1k he deposited.
I happened to come accross the Linesmaker owner's email and hope to proceed with this issue getting individual attention.
If this was not categorized as a closed case and individual ownership wanted to work with it before the wire we would still be working on it vs reporting it. It does look as if we need to reassess how SBT governs the books under their name. For that reason I am still looking to speak with the top level of SBT management.
SBR will report how Linesmaker handles this situation.
from the linesmaker (not sports.com ) site
Bonus Policies & Rules
Initial cash bonuses have a 2x wagering requirement (deposit + bonuses).
Other bonuses may have specific requirements as listed in the individual offer.
Bonuses are not cumulative. For example, we have a 10% bonus on first deposits and we also have a 10% bonus on all bank wire deposits. This does not result in a 20% bonus if the first deposit is by bank wire.
One bonus offer per household may be redeemed. Active accounts are eligible for bonuses.
Bonuses are exclusively for recreational players.
We have a generous bonus program and a zero tolerance policy for bonus abuse.
Any attempt to manipulate our bonuses with multiple accounts, systematic withdrawals and deposits, beard accounts, syndicates, joint wagering or other methods, as determined by LinesMaker management, will result in an immediate forfeiture of your account.
Your account will be closed and your deposit refunded less applicable fees, if any.
Bonus Policies & Rules
Initial cash bonuses have a 2x wagering requirement (deposit + bonuses).
Other bonuses may have specific requirements as listed in the individual offer.
Bonuses are not cumulative. For example, we have a 10% bonus on first deposits and we also have a 10% bonus on all bank wire deposits. This does not result in a 20% bonus if the first deposit is by bank wire.
One bonus offer per household may be redeemed. Active accounts are eligible for bonuses.
Bonuses are exclusively for recreational players.
We have a generous bonus program and a zero tolerance policy for bonus abuse.
Any attempt to manipulate our bonuses with multiple accounts, systematic withdrawals and deposits, beard accounts, syndicates, joint wagering or other methods, as determined by LinesMaker management, will result in an immediate forfeiture of your account.
Your account will be closed and your deposit refunded less applicable fees, if any.
Assassin,
This has nothing to do with bonuses. If he only charged back $135 out of thousands, then it means he probably got to frustrated dealing with efs, and decided the chargeback was the easiest way to go. Of course then your name gets flagged as a scammer. So Linesmaker seeing that this guy is listed as someone who does chargebacks, obviously assumes that had this guy lost his parlay, he would have done a chargeback, therefore he has no right to his winnings.
IF the polayer isn't a scammer (from what Bill is saying, doesn't sound like he is) I feel really bad for him. I know i've definitely gotten to points where I just wanted to do chargebacks to EFS, out of total frustration of dealing with thier cs.
It would be very interesting to know just how many people have done chargebacks simply because they found no other way to resolve thier issues.
This has nothing to do with bonuses. If he only charged back $135 out of thousands, then it means he probably got to frustrated dealing with efs, and decided the chargeback was the easiest way to go. Of course then your name gets flagged as a scammer. So Linesmaker seeing that this guy is listed as someone who does chargebacks, obviously assumes that had this guy lost his parlay, he would have done a chargeback, therefore he has no right to his winnings.
IF the polayer isn't a scammer (from what Bill is saying, doesn't sound like he is) I feel really bad for him. I know i've definitely gotten to points where I just wanted to do chargebacks to EFS, out of total frustration of dealing with thier cs.
It would be very interesting to know just how many people have done chargebacks simply because they found no other way to resolve thier issues.
Marc,
I understand your point. I was showing the mindset at linesmaker that all scammers will be delat with harshly (I do not remember this being on linesmaker when I joined, but it very well could have been).
It may very well have been an honest situation with the player, exasperated with dealing with a book over $135 he believed was rightfully his. However, a chargeback would raise serioous red flags, and yes, I'm sure he was flagged at Linesmaker once they made the connection.
I've never had this type of problem ,but have had others of the no pay slow pay type, but never used CC .
Just curious why books still allow CC play, given the chargeback risk, unless the volume of square action is suffcient to offset it.
Later
I understand your point. I was showing the mindset at linesmaker that all scammers will be delat with harshly (I do not remember this being on linesmaker when I joined, but it very well could have been).
It may very well have been an honest situation with the player, exasperated with dealing with a book over $135 he believed was rightfully his. However, a chargeback would raise serioous red flags, and yes, I'm sure he was flagged at Linesmaker once they made the connection.
I've never had this type of problem ,but have had others of the no pay slow pay type, but never used CC .
Just curious why books still allow CC play, given the chargeback risk, unless the volume of square action is suffcient to offset it.
Later
Assassin,
I know for myself, the only reason I play at any sportingbet site is becasue I can use my cc. Certainly in the case of sportingbet, I think if they got rid of the CC deposits, they would lose a lot of customers.
What is suprising about sportingbet/efs is that even when I tried threatining them that i would do a chargeback, if they wouldn't let me speak to anyone in a posiiton of authority, the response I got was go right ahead. The clerks simply didn't care. SO I even called thheir credit card proccessor to tell them I was having a dispute with efs and may be forced to do a chargeback, and they also didn't care.
So i can definitely see how someone could get so frustrated dealing with EFS, that simplest thing do might seem like a chargeback. And i defintely give this guy credit that he only charged back the amount that he was owed.
I'm sure at the end of the day, the issue will get resolved fairly. Linesmaker knows they offer the best promos out of any sportingbet site. And most site owners have a very hands off approach. SO linesmaker knows if they don't keep a watchful eye, they are going to be swamped by people taking adavantage of them. At the same time though, Mike is probbaly the most accessible site owner there is.
I know for myself, the only reason I play at any sportingbet site is becasue I can use my cc. Certainly in the case of sportingbet, I think if they got rid of the CC deposits, they would lose a lot of customers.
What is suprising about sportingbet/efs is that even when I tried threatining them that i would do a chargeback, if they wouldn't let me speak to anyone in a posiiton of authority, the response I got was go right ahead. The clerks simply didn't care. SO I even called thheir credit card proccessor to tell them I was having a dispute with efs and may be forced to do a chargeback, and they also didn't care.
So i can definitely see how someone could get so frustrated dealing with EFS, that simplest thing do might seem like a chargeback. And i defintely give this guy credit that he only charged back the amount that he was owed.
I'm sure at the end of the day, the issue will get resolved fairly. Linesmaker knows they offer the best promos out of any sportingbet site. And most site owners have a very hands off approach. SO linesmaker knows if they don't keep a watchful eye, they are going to be swamped by people taking adavantage of them. At the same time though, Mike is probbaly the most accessible site owner there is.
I wanted to clarify this issue. What SBR has said is about 95% accurate.
In a nutshell this is what happened, despite having a pre-existing account with us the player created a new account and posted up by cc. As part of the standard review of new CC accounts it was found that the player had a previous charge back and his account was inactivated.
As per our policy, when I was informed of the charge back I emailed the player telling him his account was inactivated and his deposit would be credited back.
In most cases the player is down but in this case, during the day his account was opened and when it was inactivated he did place a significant bet that hit.
Like our bonus policy, it's zero tolerance, if a customer has charge backs on gambling losses we refuse the business and credit back the deposit regardless of whether he is up or down. To us it's a capital offense with no upside, the player collects if he wins but is a chargeback if he loses.
I communicated twice with the player and he never mentioned anything about the chargeback being for an over-billing issue. However, he has told SBR that the chargeback was because he was over-billed. He also forgot to mention to SBR about his other existing account (that was already tagged). Fortunately, BD was able to stumble across my email address under "Contacts" on the main Customer Support page. We have had the chance to chat and clarify things.
Although I skeptical this is the case here, I do agree that a charge back purely related to an over-billing is NOT grounds to nullify his account.
So here is how it stands, I have asked the player to fax me his credit card statement showing the over-billing that matches up with his chargeback. Once it checks out, we will pay him promptly. The player has agreed to this.
I believe this is fair and I hope you all agree.
--Mike@LM
In a nutshell this is what happened, despite having a pre-existing account with us the player created a new account and posted up by cc. As part of the standard review of new CC accounts it was found that the player had a previous charge back and his account was inactivated.
As per our policy, when I was informed of the charge back I emailed the player telling him his account was inactivated and his deposit would be credited back.
In most cases the player is down but in this case, during the day his account was opened and when it was inactivated he did place a significant bet that hit.
Like our bonus policy, it's zero tolerance, if a customer has charge backs on gambling losses we refuse the business and credit back the deposit regardless of whether he is up or down. To us it's a capital offense with no upside, the player collects if he wins but is a chargeback if he loses.
I communicated twice with the player and he never mentioned anything about the chargeback being for an over-billing issue. However, he has told SBR that the chargeback was because he was over-billed. He also forgot to mention to SBR about his other existing account (that was already tagged). Fortunately, BD was able to stumble across my email address under "Contacts" on the main Customer Support page. We have had the chance to chat and clarify things.
Although I skeptical this is the case here, I do agree that a charge back purely related to an over-billing is NOT grounds to nullify his account.
So here is how it stands, I have asked the player to fax me his credit card statement showing the over-billing that matches up with his chargeback. Once it checks out, we will pay him promptly. The player has agreed to this.
I believe this is fair and I hope you all agree.
--Mike@LM
While I applaud Mike for addressing these issues, I believe he is working with an extremely flawed system.
As I previously stated, SBT customer service was doing nothing more than passing on a decision to the player. They spoke for Linesmaker, citing a chargeback as the reason for not honoring the wager.
Using the limited information passed along to him by the financial processor, EFS, Mike concluded that this was a fraudulent player.
When a player decides to withdraw his funds, EFS will do an account audit. The player was allowed to wager. He won an $18,000 parlay and then it was taken away.
Concluding that this person was a scammer based on one action with a seperate sportsbook is not appropriate. One charge back does not always make a scammer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like our bonus policy, it's zero tolerance, if a customer has charge backs on gambling losses we refuse the business and credit back the deposit regardless of whether he is up or down. To us it's a capital offense with no upside, the player collects if he wins but is a chargeback if he loses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
#1 This blanket statement does not apply to this issue. You took it upon yourself to conclude that he was charging back a loss, even though you admit no detailed information was provided by EFS . They only alerted you that there was indeed a chargeback in his history and not for how much.
#2 It wasn’t your book where the chargeback took place. We all know EFS services many substandard operations. I’m sure many chargebacks actually have merit. I also know that EFS commonly over charges. A dispute over small amounts or a single charge is common.
#3 The amount was $135. The player could have retrieved thousands if he wanted to be a “scammer”. It is possible that he wanted to move on and not deal with the bad CS he was getting. The amount of the chargeback was not made known to you when you made this decision. I do not know how a decision of this magnitude can be made without knowing these details. A $25 chargeback by someone who lost $10,000 can not be viewed the same as a $10,000 take back.
This is why I believe SBT offered his winnings if he paid back the chargeback via WU. This offer was not honored. It has been agreed that SBT’s CS and Mike were not working on this hand in hand.
Today the definitive facts were presented. Mike showed the rule that was broken, which the player could not dispute. The player previously closed his account via livechat and then later opened a new one vs reactivating the old one. The player now had 2 accounts. They were not active simultaneously, but the rules state only one account to a name. So there was the $18,000 trump card.
Even if this player was on the wrong side of the sports.com $135 dispute, is it right for you to do an audit after a pending wager has been created? If he was not allowed to place that wager at Linesmaker from the start he may have placed it through a non EFS book and have that $18,000. Maybe he would have used a differen payment method?
There is as much wrong with the procedure as there is with this mess itself. Both sides could have handled this better.
Recently there was a player who had his casino winnings confiscated because he charged back a book that closed shop four years ago. Is it smart to be depositing with his credit card? No. Should he go anywhere near a similar site? No. But making dumb moves doesn’t mean we can jump to conclusions.
There were rules broken here; but if the goal was to take a shot he did a terrible job. A sudden $18k surge in the balance is terrible timing to be enforcing them.
I do think Mike sees these flaws and will give the player something.
As I previously stated, SBT customer service was doing nothing more than passing on a decision to the player. They spoke for Linesmaker, citing a chargeback as the reason for not honoring the wager.
Using the limited information passed along to him by the financial processor, EFS, Mike concluded that this was a fraudulent player.
When a player decides to withdraw his funds, EFS will do an account audit. The player was allowed to wager. He won an $18,000 parlay and then it was taken away.
Concluding that this person was a scammer based on one action with a seperate sportsbook is not appropriate. One charge back does not always make a scammer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like our bonus policy, it's zero tolerance, if a customer has charge backs on gambling losses we refuse the business and credit back the deposit regardless of whether he is up or down. To us it's a capital offense with no upside, the player collects if he wins but is a chargeback if he loses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
#1 This blanket statement does not apply to this issue. You took it upon yourself to conclude that he was charging back a loss, even though you admit no detailed information was provided by EFS . They only alerted you that there was indeed a chargeback in his history and not for how much.
#2 It wasn’t your book where the chargeback took place. We all know EFS services many substandard operations. I’m sure many chargebacks actually have merit. I also know that EFS commonly over charges. A dispute over small amounts or a single charge is common.
#3 The amount was $135. The player could have retrieved thousands if he wanted to be a “scammer”. It is possible that he wanted to move on and not deal with the bad CS he was getting. The amount of the chargeback was not made known to you when you made this decision. I do not know how a decision of this magnitude can be made without knowing these details. A $25 chargeback by someone who lost $10,000 can not be viewed the same as a $10,000 take back.
This is why I believe SBT offered his winnings if he paid back the chargeback via WU. This offer was not honored. It has been agreed that SBT’s CS and Mike were not working on this hand in hand.
Today the definitive facts were presented. Mike showed the rule that was broken, which the player could not dispute. The player previously closed his account via livechat and then later opened a new one vs reactivating the old one. The player now had 2 accounts. They were not active simultaneously, but the rules state only one account to a name. So there was the $18,000 trump card.
Even if this player was on the wrong side of the sports.com $135 dispute, is it right for you to do an audit after a pending wager has been created? If he was not allowed to place that wager at Linesmaker from the start he may have placed it through a non EFS book and have that $18,000. Maybe he would have used a differen payment method?
There is as much wrong with the procedure as there is with this mess itself. Both sides could have handled this better.
Recently there was a player who had his casino winnings confiscated because he charged back a book that closed shop four years ago. Is it smart to be depositing with his credit card? No. Should he go anywhere near a similar site? No. But making dumb moves doesn’t mean we can jump to conclusions.
There were rules broken here; but if the goal was to take a shot he did a terrible job. A sudden $18k surge in the balance is terrible timing to be enforcing them.
I do think Mike sees these flaws and will give the player something.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LINESMAKER:
I wanted to clarify this issue. What SBR has said is about 95% accurate.
Although I skeptical this is the case here, I do agree that a charge back purely related to an over-billing is NOT grounds to nullify his account.
So here is how it stands, I have asked the player to fax me his credit card statement showing the over-billing that matches up with his chargeback. Once it checks out, we will pay him promptly. The player has agreed to this.
I believe this is fair and I hope you all agree.
--Mike@LM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
7.27.2004 (3:19 PM CST)
SBR Bill Dozer reports: Linesmaker upholds decision to confiscate $18000 parlay win. The book claims the confiscation is justified due to a previous charge back of $135 at a different sportsbook. The player states the $135 was over charged to his credit card by EFS processing; which had previously accepted thousands of dollars in his deposits. EFS also does financial transactions for Linesmaker. Linesmaker’s client service center offered to pay the winnings to the player if he would send the $135 via Western Union, which he did. This offer was voided when Linesmaker ownership cited a previously used dormant account as an additional rule violation. The client closed this old account via Livechat before later played with this new account. SBR warns players of the audit process. EFS auditing many accounts upon payout request.
Mike:
Given this statement on SBR today, does this mean that the player never faxed you his credit card statement showing he was overcharged, or does it mean that you changed your mind about paying him ?
I wanted to clarify this issue. What SBR has said is about 95% accurate.
Although I skeptical this is the case here, I do agree that a charge back purely related to an over-billing is NOT grounds to nullify his account.
So here is how it stands, I have asked the player to fax me his credit card statement showing the over-billing that matches up with his chargeback. Once it checks out, we will pay him promptly. The player has agreed to this.
I believe this is fair and I hope you all agree.
--Mike@LM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
7.27.2004 (3:19 PM CST)
SBR Bill Dozer reports: Linesmaker upholds decision to confiscate $18000 parlay win. The book claims the confiscation is justified due to a previous charge back of $135 at a different sportsbook. The player states the $135 was over charged to his credit card by EFS processing; which had previously accepted thousands of dollars in his deposits. EFS also does financial transactions for Linesmaker. Linesmaker’s client service center offered to pay the winnings to the player if he would send the $135 via Western Union, which he did. This offer was voided when Linesmaker ownership cited a previously used dormant account as an additional rule violation. The client closed this old account via Livechat before later played with this new account. SBR warns players of the audit process. EFS auditing many accounts upon payout request.
Mike:
Given this statement on SBR today, does this mean that the player never faxed you his credit card statement showing he was overcharged, or does it mean that you changed your mind about paying him ?
Are you kidding me..A 135 chargeback and the guy is a scammer...Linesmaker is the "scam" here. Thats's why when asked about what books to play at.linemaker would never come out of my mouth....Mike you are wrong..and to say if the guy lost you would of refunded his deposit is a crock of shit...why don't you present facts that you have ever refunded a guy's deposit because of this...PAY THE GUY HIS 18k and stop crying cause the guy beat you..
