To 5Dimes:
What is the difference between
a) wagering $2100 in just one hour,
and
b) wagering $70 per day for 30 days?
To the casino, it is the same.
If I am a manager of an land based casino, I would rather have someone of a) type.
At least I can save cleaning expenses or utilities in case a).
What is the difference between
a) wagering $2100 in just one hour,
and
b) wagering $70 per day for 30 days?
To the casino, it is the same.
If I am a manager of an land based casino, I would rather have someone of a) type.
At least I can save cleaning expenses or utilities in case a).
This is more about ethics than it is right and wrong.
But, all this could have been avoided by making a phone call before the withdrawal. It could have went like this:
"""
Hi, I have been around a month and am trying out your sportsbook and casino. I have won a little and would like to confirm your prompt payout service.
I want to follow all the rules and I intend to keep playing but my funds are limited so would it be all right if I withdrew what I have won so far? """
[This message was edited by Bucky on May 20, 2003 at 06:20 PM.]
But, all this could have been avoided by making a phone call before the withdrawal. It could have went like this:
"""
Hi, I have been around a month and am trying out your sportsbook and casino. I have won a little and would like to confirm your prompt payout service.
I want to follow all the rules and I intend to keep playing but my funds are limited so would it be all right if I withdrew what I have won so far? """
[This message was edited by Bucky on May 20, 2003 at 06:20 PM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But, all this could have been avoided by...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...NOT posting up with a Bookmaker, who attempts to hook suckerfish with bonus bait, which is contingent upon the sucker being unscrupulously held in a 30-day unknown “active” net designed in part, and to work in conjunction with, a roll-over requirement which attempts to retrieve the bait as well as the sucker’s post-up.
...NOT posting up with a Bookmaker, who attempts to hook suckerfish with bonus bait, which is contingent upon the sucker being unscrupulously held in a 30-day unknown “active” net designed in part, and to work in conjunction with, a roll-over requirement which attempts to retrieve the bait as well as the sucker’s post-up.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by seawave:
To 5Dimes:
What is the difference between
a) wagering $2100 in just one hour,
and
b) wagering $70 per day for 30 days?
To the casino, it is the same.
If I am a manager of an land based casino, I would rather have someone of a) type.
At least I can save cleaning expenses or utilities in case a).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
5 DIMES wants you to be a compulsive gambler who plays every day or close to it. They don't want to encourage you to win a bonus even though they advertise that their bonus is another "way to win".
Once you win and meet the rollover requirement, 5 DIMES wants to make sure that you play above and beyond that rollover requirement. How much more do they want you to play? They will tell you that later if and when you win. If you lose, then it was only a 5x rollover.
I am against a sportsbook that makes an ambiguous offer that is intended to entice postups and cheat winners. Yes, I consider it cheating when a promotion is offered to encourage a postup, then the promotion is revoked when the sportsbook loses on the postup money.
If you ask this sportsbook what "active" means, if you ask them why they refuse to define "active" on their site, if you ask them any question at all that (if answered) would elucidate their promotion rules-- 5 DIMES will avoid your questions like the plague.
To 5Dimes:
What is the difference between
a) wagering $2100 in just one hour,
and
b) wagering $70 per day for 30 days?
To the casino, it is the same.
If I am a manager of an land based casino, I would rather have someone of a) type.
At least I can save cleaning expenses or utilities in case a).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
5 DIMES wants you to be a compulsive gambler who plays every day or close to it. They don't want to encourage you to win a bonus even though they advertise that their bonus is another "way to win".
Once you win and meet the rollover requirement, 5 DIMES wants to make sure that you play above and beyond that rollover requirement. How much more do they want you to play? They will tell you that later if and when you win. If you lose, then it was only a 5x rollover.
I am against a sportsbook that makes an ambiguous offer that is intended to entice postups and cheat winners. Yes, I consider it cheating when a promotion is offered to encourage a postup, then the promotion is revoked when the sportsbook loses on the postup money.
If you ask this sportsbook what "active" means, if you ask them why they refuse to define "active" on their site, if you ask them any question at all that (if answered) would elucidate their promotion rules-- 5 DIMES will avoid your questions like the plague.
Give them what they want. A shot at the money. Collect more bonuses down the road if you want. This place is a golden goose! Rules are highly overrated - unwritten rules are very prevalent in the offshore sportsbook business. Even in the real world there is always fine print - with most contracts involving money. Why cut off your nose in spite of your face over $190 and following the rules to the letter? Communicate with them - do it their way. Smile all the way to the bank.
[This message was edited by Bucky on May 21, 2003 at 03:17 AM.]
[This message was edited by Bucky on May 21, 2003 at 03:17 AM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hamneggs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EveryGamblersDream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPIVE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Big difference being their rules were stated on their webpage & if this person didn't like it they did NOT have to make a deposit there. They tried to pull a fast one, got busted, & are now crying about it. I feel no pity for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're sadly missing the point...
Rules did NOT CLEARLY state what "active" nor "extended period" meant which would deactivate the account (only a 30 day period, which one could easily be assumed as active by merely leaving the account open for this period) therefore, rules could ONLY be followed to the point of exceeding the roll-over requirement, which was clear stated.
Now regardless of intentionally posting unclear, ambiguous rules which could not be adhered to...because they were unknown to the client. The bonus requirement was rightfully achieved based upon wagers which exceeded the (all important) roll-over requirement...which means, an individual risked an amount of capital for a period long enough for a bookmaker with a mathematical edge to win a portion if not all of what was risked, but didn't...now refusing to pay a token bonus while holding a client's money for 30 days?
This wouldn't be an issue if all the capital risked was lost in 6 hours, now would it?
The Bookmaker is the one pathetically crying here, while paying more in bad PR then what a client's token bonus would cost.
[This message was edited by SPIVE on May 20, 2003 at 04:30 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you are missing the point. Only a BONUS WHORE would play dumb as to what active is. If someone bets a bunch just to meet a rollover requirement & then stops cold turkey is trying to exploit the generosity of a book & deserves not to get it.
Are you a bonus whore by any chance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now the BONUS that is used as a marketing tool to luer gamblers into sending $$$ to an anonymous person in Costa Rica is representative of the "generosity of a book." (laughing)
_So what does "active" mean, EGD?_
Once you start trying to characterize the hypotheticals below as "active" or "not active" I trust that you will acknowledge the ambiguity in the term "active."
Active or not active? You tell me:
1)Suppose that I make one wager every day for $10 and I do this for thirty consecutive days.
3) Suppose that I make one wager a week for $100 and I do this for four consecutive weeks.
4) Suppose that I make $10,000 worth of bets in a single day then don't play for the rest of the month.
5) Suppose that I only gamble on two days in a particular month. On one of those days I play ten different games for a total of $10K. On the second day I also play ten games for a total of $10K. Now I have wagered on 20 games for a total of $20K. Has my account been active?
6) Suppose that I wager $50 on each of 30 consecutive days.
In conjunction, I would also ask you what the underlying PURPOSE of requiring an "active" account is.
_Danny May-_ good posting, IMO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can you say he is a good poster when he wishes for a book to fall & people lose their money? His comment right there shoots down any credibility his other points might have had.
In my opinion BOTH parties are wrong here. 5Dimes is wrong for not clearly marking out definitions to their terms & the player is wrong for trying to pull a fast one as that is obviously was his attention all along.
No one will sit down & play BJ or any casino game for that matter for hours straight then go cold turkey for 29+ days. His intentions were clearly obvious when he barely met the rollover requirement & just stopped.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EveryGamblersDream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPIVE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Big difference being their rules were stated on their webpage & if this person didn't like it they did NOT have to make a deposit there. They tried to pull a fast one, got busted, & are now crying about it. I feel no pity for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're sadly missing the point...
Rules did NOT CLEARLY state what "active" nor "extended period" meant which would deactivate the account (only a 30 day period, which one could easily be assumed as active by merely leaving the account open for this period) therefore, rules could ONLY be followed to the point of exceeding the roll-over requirement, which was clear stated.
Now regardless of intentionally posting unclear, ambiguous rules which could not be adhered to...because they were unknown to the client. The bonus requirement was rightfully achieved based upon wagers which exceeded the (all important) roll-over requirement...which means, an individual risked an amount of capital for a period long enough for a bookmaker with a mathematical edge to win a portion if not all of what was risked, but didn't...now refusing to pay a token bonus while holding a client's money for 30 days?
This wouldn't be an issue if all the capital risked was lost in 6 hours, now would it?
The Bookmaker is the one pathetically crying here, while paying more in bad PR then what a client's token bonus would cost.
[This message was edited by SPIVE on May 20, 2003 at 04:30 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you are missing the point. Only a BONUS WHORE would play dumb as to what active is. If someone bets a bunch just to meet a rollover requirement & then stops cold turkey is trying to exploit the generosity of a book & deserves not to get it.
Are you a bonus whore by any chance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now the BONUS that is used as a marketing tool to luer gamblers into sending $$$ to an anonymous person in Costa Rica is representative of the "generosity of a book." (laughing)
_So what does "active" mean, EGD?_
Once you start trying to characterize the hypotheticals below as "active" or "not active" I trust that you will acknowledge the ambiguity in the term "active."
Active or not active? You tell me:
1)Suppose that I make one wager every day for $10 and I do this for thirty consecutive days.
3) Suppose that I make one wager a week for $100 and I do this for four consecutive weeks.
4) Suppose that I make $10,000 worth of bets in a single day then don't play for the rest of the month.
5) Suppose that I only gamble on two days in a particular month. On one of those days I play ten different games for a total of $10K. On the second day I also play ten games for a total of $10K. Now I have wagered on 20 games for a total of $20K. Has my account been active?
6) Suppose that I wager $50 on each of 30 consecutive days.
In conjunction, I would also ask you what the underlying PURPOSE of requiring an "active" account is.
_Danny May-_ good posting, IMO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can you say he is a good poster when he wishes for a book to fall & people lose their money? His comment right there shoots down any credibility his other points might have had.
In my opinion BOTH parties are wrong here. 5Dimes is wrong for not clearly marking out definitions to their terms & the player is wrong for trying to pull a fast one as that is obviously was his attention all along.
No one will sit down & play BJ or any casino game for that matter for hours straight then go cold turkey for 29+ days. His intentions were clearly obvious when he barely met the rollover requirement & just stopped.
Good to see you back in this thread buddy
Thought we lost u there for a minute
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How can you say he is a good poster when he wishes for a book to fall & people lose their money? His comment right there shoots down any credibility his other points might have had.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I missed that part. I dunno...if Danny was hoping that people lose their money then I would be surprised. Ok, so he is indirectly wishing that because he is wishing that this sportsbook goes down. Setting aside his wish that the book goes down, I think that Danny's criticism is valid and well stated.
I have heard that 5 DIMES is a ROCK SOLID and it is likely unfortunate that they are receiving negative publicity.
Despite the fact that 5 DIMES IS A ROCK SOLID SPORTSBOOK, I disapprove of a promotion policy that is written in ambiguous terms. It would be simple enough to set some parameters for what "active" means. The term "marginal excess" should also be defined or restated in intelligible terms. The fact that 5 DIMES has taken a smug attitude is also noted.
Just my .02 and I have nada more to add
Thought we lost u there for a minute
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How can you say he is a good poster when he wishes for a book to fall & people lose their money? His comment right there shoots down any credibility his other points might have had.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I missed that part. I dunno...if Danny was hoping that people lose their money then I would be surprised. Ok, so he is indirectly wishing that because he is wishing that this sportsbook goes down. Setting aside his wish that the book goes down, I think that Danny's criticism is valid and well stated.
I have heard that 5 DIMES is a ROCK SOLID and it is likely unfortunate that they are receiving negative publicity.
Despite the fact that 5 DIMES IS A ROCK SOLID SPORTSBOOK, I disapprove of a promotion policy that is written in ambiguous terms. It would be simple enough to set some parameters for what "active" means. The term "marginal excess" should also be defined or restated in intelligible terms. The fact that 5 DIMES has taken a smug attitude is also noted.
Just my .02 and I have nada more to add
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> bonuses are a nightmare <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bonuses are perceived welcomes of generosity designed to hook losers.
If you lose, as expected, prior to meeting an excessive rollover requirement and/or time-period, the bonus was successful.
If however, you beat the odds and win while attempting to withdrawal (certainly a justified option), your winnings and earned bonus…your initially perceived generous welcome may turn into a nightmare.
Why?
Because Bookmaker’s do not like winners…let alone paying a bonus for the privilege of losing.
There has been more than one Bookmaker divulging their repeated distaste for winners here, some even admitting they refusal to pay bonuses to winners. These are the same chaps, which routinely limit and/or terminate (boot) a winner’s action as well.
My personal thoughts are that bonuses are a marketing tool, which if correctly and uniformly utilized can broaden a Bookmaker's customer base...being very profitable over time. Bonuses, rewards, etc. are routinely utilized successfully by many other Industries. However, I find bonuses offered in the sport booking Industry to be nothing more than a lineament-test in exposing one’s true integrity and professionalism.
Other indicators:
Bookmakers who slow-pay winners, sport under-financed NETeller accounts, slow grade wagers, limit customer’s action, terminate winning customer’s accounts, possess ambiguous, ever changing and 30-day money holding rules, have system reliability problems, offer cloned gouging proposition prices, etc…are nonprofessionals and certainly do not command my business…whether they offer a bonus or not.
BOTTOM LINE:
Bonuses are offered by those seeking to expand their customer (sucker/loser) base.
Why?
Because those offering such feel the need to, while indirectly indicating their current customer base (volume) is weak and potentially insecure.
Avoiding nightmares is merely a personal choice of playing only with well established, financially strong Bookmakers…and those are the one’s not offering bonuses, just professional service backed by competitive prices.
Simple Game.
Bonuses are perceived welcomes of generosity designed to hook losers.
If you lose, as expected, prior to meeting an excessive rollover requirement and/or time-period, the bonus was successful.
If however, you beat the odds and win while attempting to withdrawal (certainly a justified option), your winnings and earned bonus…your initially perceived generous welcome may turn into a nightmare.
Why?
Because Bookmaker’s do not like winners…let alone paying a bonus for the privilege of losing.
There has been more than one Bookmaker divulging their repeated distaste for winners here, some even admitting they refusal to pay bonuses to winners. These are the same chaps, which routinely limit and/or terminate (boot) a winner’s action as well.
My personal thoughts are that bonuses are a marketing tool, which if correctly and uniformly utilized can broaden a Bookmaker's customer base...being very profitable over time. Bonuses, rewards, etc. are routinely utilized successfully by many other Industries. However, I find bonuses offered in the sport booking Industry to be nothing more than a lineament-test in exposing one’s true integrity and professionalism.
Other indicators:
Bookmakers who slow-pay winners, sport under-financed NETeller accounts, slow grade wagers, limit customer’s action, terminate winning customer’s accounts, possess ambiguous, ever changing and 30-day money holding rules, have system reliability problems, offer cloned gouging proposition prices, etc…are nonprofessionals and certainly do not command my business…whether they offer a bonus or not.
BOTTOM LINE:
Bonuses are offered by those seeking to expand their customer (sucker/loser) base.
Why?
Because those offering such feel the need to, while indirectly indicating their current customer base (volume) is weak and potentially insecure.
Avoiding nightmares is merely a personal choice of playing only with well established, financially strong Bookmakers…and those are the one’s not offering bonuses, just professional service backed by competitive prices.
Simple Game.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So when books like Olympic offer bonuses then they in your own words are not well established, financially strong bookmakers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am amused...Olympic?
Are you referring to the 30-cent price-gouging coin-flip Olympic?
The Olympic that charges $15.00 NETeller withdrawal fees?
Now offering bonuses?
ROTFLMAO
I am amused...Olympic?
Are you referring to the 30-cent price-gouging coin-flip Olympic?
The Olympic that charges $15.00 NETeller withdrawal fees?
Now offering bonuses?
ROTFLMAO
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPIVE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So when books like Olympic offer bonuses then they in your own words are not well established, financially strong bookmakers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am amused...Olympic?
Are you referring to the 30-cent price-gouging coin-flip Olympic?
The Olympic that charges $15.00 NETeller withdrawal fees?
Now offering bonuses?
ROTFLMAO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again you avoid the question. You make a ridiculous statement & you can't back it up when I ask you a simple question.
If you feel books that offer bonuses are a joke then you are saying books with rock solid reputations like Olympic, Pinnacle are jokes as well since they do offer bonuses & perks.
No, one says you have to bet their props. They have them up as well as plenty of other betting options for their consumers to choose from so what is wrong with that? If you don't like it then ignore it. What are your top 3 books?
The statement you made is idiotic & I'm not surprised by your response back at this point.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So when books like Olympic offer bonuses then they in your own words are not well established, financially strong bookmakers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am amused...Olympic?
Are you referring to the 30-cent price-gouging coin-flip Olympic?
The Olympic that charges $15.00 NETeller withdrawal fees?
Now offering bonuses?
ROTFLMAO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again you avoid the question. You make a ridiculous statement & you can't back it up when I ask you a simple question.
If you feel books that offer bonuses are a joke then you are saying books with rock solid reputations like Olympic, Pinnacle are jokes as well since they do offer bonuses & perks.
No, one says you have to bet their props. They have them up as well as plenty of other betting options for their consumers to choose from so what is wrong with that? If you don't like it then ignore it. What are your top 3 books?
The statement you made is idiotic & I'm not surprised by your response back at this point.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Once again you avoid the question. You make a ridiculous statement & you can't back it up when I ask you a simple question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The question asked is ridiculous, as it implies Olympic is offering bonuses...since Olympic has NEVER offered anyone I know ANY BONUS...including YOU...thus, the question is hypothetical and misleading...as many of your other stupid other questions, which do not command answers and are deliberately avoided.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you feel books that offer bonuses are a joke then you are saying books with rock solid reputations like Olympic, Pinnacle are jokes as well since they do offer bonuses & perks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"If" is the operative word here..."if" you interpeted what was stated as books offering bonuses are a joke, then attempt to associate such Books with those who DON'T offer bonuses...YOU ARE THE JOKE.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, one says you have to bet their props. They have them up as well as plenty of other betting options for their consumers to choose from so what is wrong with that? If you don't like it then ignore it. What are your top 3 books?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ignoring YOU is becoming my objective, while your ignorant questions have been previously answered...and won't be repeated just because YOU asked.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The statement you made is idiotic & I'm not surprised by your response back at this point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While this "idiot" see's nothing can be intellectually established with one who proclaims to be a "A Stalker's Delight."
Any future "stalking" will be delibrately ignored.
The question asked is ridiculous, as it implies Olympic is offering bonuses...since Olympic has NEVER offered anyone I know ANY BONUS...including YOU...thus, the question is hypothetical and misleading...as many of your other stupid other questions, which do not command answers and are deliberately avoided.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you feel books that offer bonuses are a joke then you are saying books with rock solid reputations like Olympic, Pinnacle are jokes as well since they do offer bonuses & perks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"If" is the operative word here..."if" you interpeted what was stated as books offering bonuses are a joke, then attempt to associate such Books with those who DON'T offer bonuses...YOU ARE THE JOKE.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, one says you have to bet their props. They have them up as well as plenty of other betting options for their consumers to choose from so what is wrong with that? If you don't like it then ignore it. What are your top 3 books?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ignoring YOU is becoming my objective, while your ignorant questions have been previously answered...and won't be repeated just because YOU asked.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The statement you made is idiotic & I'm not surprised by your response back at this point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While this "idiot" see's nothing can be intellectually established with one who proclaims to be a "A Stalker's Delight."
Any future "stalking" will be delibrately ignored.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPIVE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Once again you avoid the question. You make a ridiculous statement & you can't back it up when I ask you a simple question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The question asked is ridiculous, as it implies Olympic is offering bonuses...since Olympic has NEVER offered anyone I know ANY BONUS...including YOU...thus, the question is hypothetical and misleading...as many of your other stupid other questions, which do not command answers and are deliberately avoided.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you feel books that offer bonuses are a joke then you are saying books with rock solid reputations like Olympic, Pinnacle are jokes as well since they do offer bonuses & perks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"If" is the operative word here..."if" you interpeted what was stated as books offering bonuses are a joke, then attempt to associate such Books with those who DON'T offer bonuses...YOU ARE THE JOKE.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, one says you have to bet their props. They have them up as well as plenty of other betting options for their consumers to choose from so what is wrong with that? If you don't like it then ignore it. What are your top 3 books?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ignoring YOU is becoming my objective, while your ignorant questions have been previously answered...and won't be repeated just because YOU asked.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The statement you made is idiotic & I'm not surprised by your response back at this point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While this "idiot" see's nothing can be intellectually established with one who proclaims to be a "A Stalker's Delight."
Any future "stalking" will be delibrately ignored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for proving my point on how clueless you are at times. Olympic doesn't offer bonuses you say? Hmm last I check on their very own site it clearly states:
1. Internet signups receive 10% Bonus on initial deposits over $500
2. Transaction costs are covered when $300 or more is sent
Last I checked the two points above reflect bonuses or perks.
I & I'm sure as others can clearly see by your posts how you are avoiding legitimate questions raised from your own comments. In your own words you made a statement that can only be taking one way & when you are proven to be a fool with the comment you now try to back off of it via your typical word games.
The word games you attempt to play are obvious when you feel the need to bring a tagline into a debate in which it serves no purpose other then to avoid the topic at hand which you like to do when you are lost for legitimate words to reply back.
Sorry your game doesn't work on me, try again.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Once again you avoid the question. You make a ridiculous statement & you can't back it up when I ask you a simple question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The question asked is ridiculous, as it implies Olympic is offering bonuses...since Olympic has NEVER offered anyone I know ANY BONUS...including YOU...thus, the question is hypothetical and misleading...as many of your other stupid other questions, which do not command answers and are deliberately avoided.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you feel books that offer bonuses are a joke then you are saying books with rock solid reputations like Olympic, Pinnacle are jokes as well since they do offer bonuses & perks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"If" is the operative word here..."if" you interpeted what was stated as books offering bonuses are a joke, then attempt to associate such Books with those who DON'T offer bonuses...YOU ARE THE JOKE.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, one says you have to bet their props. They have them up as well as plenty of other betting options for their consumers to choose from so what is wrong with that? If you don't like it then ignore it. What are your top 3 books?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ignoring YOU is becoming my objective, while your ignorant questions have been previously answered...and won't be repeated just because YOU asked.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The statement you made is idiotic & I'm not surprised by your response back at this point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While this "idiot" see's nothing can be intellectually established with one who proclaims to be a "A Stalker's Delight."
Any future "stalking" will be delibrately ignored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for proving my point on how clueless you are at times. Olympic doesn't offer bonuses you say? Hmm last I check on their very own site it clearly states:
1. Internet signups receive 10% Bonus on initial deposits over $500
2. Transaction costs are covered when $300 or more is sent
Last I checked the two points above reflect bonuses or perks.
I & I'm sure as others can clearly see by your posts how you are avoiding legitimate questions raised from your own comments. In your own words you made a statement that can only be taking one way & when you are proven to be a fool with the comment you now try to back off of it via your typical word games.
The word games you attempt to play are obvious when you feel the need to bring a tagline into a debate in which it serves no purpose other then to avoid the topic at hand which you like to do when you are lost for legitimate words to reply back.
Sorry your game doesn't work on me, try again.
I'm not going to read this whole thread but this is another bad choice by a book. As players you have got to realize each time we "okay" another right to be taken away we are the worse for it. As it is we are dealing with a book in a 3rd world country that plays judge, jury and executioner. It hurts all of us when we say, "well yeah the player did everything right but I can see why the book wants to change the rules now". Let them change the rules BEFORE they quit paying players what they agreed to pay. An active account to me is a funded account, plain and simple. I am an active player at Pinnacle and other books because I am funded there, I may go 1 month without making a bet at a book where I can't get the best number but I am still an active account by most standards that I know of.
I'm not defending bonus whores but I am defending a players right to abide by the rules and then get paid. I have never seen a guideline for how much action must be taken and how frequently. What is silly to me is the player met every rule that was specified and since he won is now being denied a bonus. From what I can see 5Dimes is not upset that the money was indeed rolled over 5 times, just mad he did it all in one day? What difference does it make if he did it all one day or $84 a day? The rollover AND the time requirements were met, end of story. PAY THIS MAN and then go back and add future stipulations if paying out $190 is killing you.
I know you are open to make money but once in a while someone has to win. This man was funded and remained funded in an active account for 30 days and met all rollover requirements. This is an easy one. 5Dimes doesn't pay they are a stiff joint from here on out in my view.
I'm not defending bonus whores but I am defending a players right to abide by the rules and then get paid. I have never seen a guideline for how much action must be taken and how frequently. What is silly to me is the player met every rule that was specified and since he won is now being denied a bonus. From what I can see 5Dimes is not upset that the money was indeed rolled over 5 times, just mad he did it all in one day? What difference does it make if he did it all one day or $84 a day? The rollover AND the time requirements were met, end of story. PAY THIS MAN and then go back and add future stipulations if paying out $190 is killing you.
I know you are open to make money but once in a while someone has to win. This man was funded and remained funded in an active account for 30 days and met all rollover requirements. This is an easy one. 5Dimes doesn't pay they are a stiff joint from here on out in my view.
Welcome to the thread Pat. Atleast I know with you here, there will be a non childish like debate.
I can understand where you are coming from as far as the player is concerned but shouldn't the business protect itself as well?
The point you bring up about not betting at a book for awhile because of the lack of a better # is a good one but in this case the player only played blackjack I believe & you can't possibly get a better # on that so his intentions were dubious from the get go.
I guess the fairest thing would be to pay the man his chump change & then kick him out of the book & report him to other books as a bonus whore whos intentions are clearly visible.
I can understand where you are coming from as far as the player is concerned but shouldn't the business protect itself as well?
The point you bring up about not betting at a book for awhile because of the lack of a better # is a good one but in this case the player only played blackjack I believe & you can't possibly get a better # on that so his intentions were dubious from the get go.
I guess the fairest thing would be to pay the man his chump change & then kick him out of the book & report him to other books as a bonus whore whos intentions are clearly visible.
