Shrink --- Interesting Observation

[beentheredonethat]

Dave pays Areef and everyone is happy and he is doing the things necessary to prevent this from happening again. The payment was made simply because of the public relations nightmare and the damage it was and would have done to the book.

Now, the following are three cut and past from Areef and Dave.

Areef: "The match is played and nadal wins.. I had a dime on it... 6050 win right? ... Yup it's graded as a win. Then 2 hours later they deduct all but 1500 and they inform me after my winner won that it was a BAD LINE."


Dave:"Another important thing to mention that both bets made by 'Areef' and his other account were made minutes apart and both were made for $1000."

Dave in announcing the payment: "I decided this afternoon after taking into consideration all viewpoints to pay Areef his full wager of $2000 @ +435. This suggestion was made by a few members of the forum and specifically by Areef during our discussion"


Now, assuming the last statement is true which I think it is, Areef has been paid on bets that clearly were fraudulently made to circumvent the $1000 limit of the book on that bet.

My opinion based on what I know remains that Areef knowingly took a shot and fraudulently circumvented the limits of the book. I give Dave kudos for paying what he paid. I wish there was some way to avoid the rush to judgement and public crucifixtion of a book.

Betcbs is not totally free of wrong --they should have cancelled the bets quickly. But the above quotes would seem to support Areef knowingly took a shot. If this is the case, it speaks volumns about Areef.

 

[EveryGamblersDream]

They never proved it was the same person. CBS is at fault here!

 

[beentheredonethat]

Dave said that he paid Areef on his $2000 wager. I think devoid of a correction or denial from Areef that he acknowledges the fact that both bets were his.

 

[EveryGamblersDream]

He was only one person.

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.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I do not find where Dave ever claimed you were four people. He does claim you were two people. And, it appears from your statement that you were in fact working with someone else and creating an arbitrage position. The matter could have been handled much better by all concerned. BETCBS certainly included.

It is shameful for a grey area coupled with a rule that makes all books god result in calls for staying away or withdrawing all your money from a book.

Hopefully, all books will take notice from this and do what Dave is doing and establish what is and what is not a bad line in their rules.

But, given your level of sophistication, you clearly knew or should have known that you were on thin ice. I would venture to say that you were not completely comfortable until you saw the winnings posted to your account.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Let me get this straight, "you told many people about the line" yet the bet was only made my one person and according to dave was made within one minute of when you made your bet.

The wonders of IM, or yahoo with voice. Yes, we can all sit around looking for weakness in lines (maybe even bad lines) and quickly jump on the book with larger than posted limits because of the mutiple player approach. WoW, now that is a comforting thought. It took you less than one minute to tell several of your friends and one of them acted within that minute.

As it turns out, BetCBS was asleep at the controls and completely blew the issue but the fact seems to remain, you took a shot. And, somehow it has turned around that it was Dave that took the shot.

This exist because it can, but that does not make in right.

 

[VG789]

I dont get why some people trying to make things complicated.If a book accepts a bet,must honour it,especially if match has started.Simple.

 

[Ninja]

Dave DID take a shot. He waited until after the match was played and graded before deciding to cancel the plays.

 

[jjgold]

BETCBS is free and clean, solid out and good rebATE PROGRAM.

 

[HABSMAN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjgold:
MASTERBATE PROGRAM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Halifax]

" "Dave in announcing the payment: "I decided this afternoon after taking into consideration all viewpoints to pay Areef his full wager of $2000 @ +435. This suggestion was made by a few members of the forum and specifically by Areef during our discussion" "
------------------------------

I'm also curious whether the "$2000" is a typo. If not, from the sounds of this, Dave is still of the opinion that both of the $1,000 bets belong to areeff.

 

[Java]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beentheredonethat:
The payment was made simply because of the public relations nightmare and the damage it was and would have done to the book.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. However, the public relations nightmare was REALLY caused by Dave's inconsistent responses to the matter. His letter to Areeff claimed that the limits on Tennis were really $200, which all the posters nailed him on, since the site clearly lists Tennis limits as $1000.
Secondly, in his "official" response, he claimed he knew about the wagers before the match, yet didn't cancel them. This opend him up to the shot-taking charges.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think devoid of a correction or denial from Areef that he acknowledges the fact that both bets were his. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, Beenthere, Areeff posted a denial (which EGD recopied here). Nothing in Areeff statements says that he might not have been on the phone with his friend discussing lines/plays when he noticed the Nadal play. Them wagering at roughly the same time is not inconsistent with any statements I am aware that Areeff has made.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do not find where Dave ever claimed you were four people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On bettorspub, 'Chadman' got early feedback from Casablanca. "The person bringing this charge seems to have had, or still has, four different accounts with CBS, after a little digging was done."
This report was circulated through several forums and Areeff denied the implied accusation immediately. Had Areeff actually had 4 accounts, it would have hurt his case. Casablanca relaying such an early supposition through third parties appears to have been an attempt throw dirt on Areeff and kill the issue.

This is all CLASSIC BetCBS spin doctoring.
1) First they try to discredit the player. (4 accounts? vs 1 acoount)
2) Then they try to say the rules weren't really the rules ($200 limit vs $1000 limit).
3) Then they try something weird (like 'average bet') with them making up the rules of how to compute it. (could have used previous max bet).
4) Then they try to be quiet hoping things go away.
5) Then they try to spin it in the public forum with a completely different set of arguments, to see if anything sticks.
6) They'll selectively poll other sportsbooks looking for lines or arguments that support their case, but if the majority of information is against them, they'll report only the small subset that supports their case (as opposed to a general result of all their searches) even it they have to use obscure books.
7) Finally, when they are forced to do something, they do the minimum they can get away with and spin it like it was a misunderstanding or 'lapse of judgement' (as opposed to a deliberate decision).

Their use of the "$2000" in their response (as opposed to "two $1000") is still an a last gasp spin that even though they paid, they is tryin to link the two accounts as belonging to one person.

Once you know that is how it works, it is not too difficult to see past the smoke and mirrors.