<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RPM:
buzzsaw,
i give you my word, untill today i didnt even know about this thread.
nobody has said a word to me about it.
by the way, i dont think they even advertise here. is there a reason we would be asked not to comment on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So this thread was started the day before yesterday, has 120 posts and 2700 views, and your contention is that you didn't even know about this thread until today ??
buzzsaw,
i give you my word, untill today i didnt even know about this thread.
nobody has said a word to me about it.
by the way, i dont think they even advertise here. is there a reason we would be asked not to comment on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So this thread was started the day before yesterday, has 120 posts and 2700 views, and your contention is that you didn't even know about this thread until today ??
Gosh I hate to be an ass but Pat out of those threads recently started by individuals who had problems with BetTropics, BML or BetFlamingo, did they come to you first before posting or as I recall did they post then mods got on the case unless that was all for show and you guys were already working on it before they posted? However it does seem when areff posted this he was venting rightfully so and didn't directly ask for help, I agree with you on that accord Pat.
Go2guy - you aren't being an ass at all. Hell I have been here a month so I can certainly use some pointers. What you see here on the forums is maybe 5% of what is going on. Right now I have 17 issues I am working on with books. Yes they usually either write me or Shrink before they make the forums, if he has time he works them if not he sends them to me. Also guys like General and the others will often pipe in with "we'd like to help you if you need a hand" whenever they can. Surely those cases like this one exist but that is not where most our work comes from. Most know the best way is to let us work on things before they hit the forums. Books get pissed when players post one side of the story and they get piled on before they even know about it. Often it is things they feel they can resolve if given a chance. Not making an editorial comment here but it's true it is much easier to work things out with both parties if we can gather facts before the bashing begins. Veteran posters let us do our thing first before they come here and post because they know they always hold the option of doing that later if things are not resolved to their satisfaction. That's why I recommend they let us know off the forums first if it is something they want a solutiuon to and not just wanting to vent about what they percieve is a bad book. In reality when I read back through this thread I can see where maybe what I said led Areef to believe I was acting on his behalf. If so that is easy to fix and I will call Dave on his behalf once he okays it. That is probably why General and the others had the idea I was working this. Still all in all this thing is from Monday night and it is not an old issue by any stretch. Being in the middle I have noticed players want their answer yesterday and books want to answer tomorrow. Just the way it is, LOL. We will see what we can do to help this man....
BTW before I worked here I never realized the time and money Ken spends helping players resolve issues. Sounds like sucking up but it's true. Nothing at all to really gain by it as most the time these things don't hit the forums. If you post a nice e-mail you get then it makes you look foolish, like you are looking for compliments. LOL. We handle stuff with books that don't advertise here as well as advertisers all the time. Many times there is a logical explanation for it and was just a miscommunication. All we need is for you to ask us for help. Often it's a specific request of a book the player wants us to mediate on, not always a slow pay or no pay incident. At TOP we would have 1 or 2 a week at most. Here we work them and move on before the next one's hit. I think we have over 12000 registered users so there are lots of problems to be solved 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Thanks for the feedback.
[This message was edited by Patrick McIrish on June 25, 2003 at 12:41 PM.]
BTW before I worked here I never realized the time and money Ken spends helping players resolve issues. Sounds like sucking up but it's true. Nothing at all to really gain by it as most the time these things don't hit the forums. If you post a nice e-mail you get then it makes you look foolish, like you are looking for compliments. LOL. We handle stuff with books that don't advertise here as well as advertisers all the time. Many times there is a logical explanation for it and was just a miscommunication. All we need is for you to ask us for help. Often it's a specific request of a book the player wants us to mediate on, not always a slow pay or no pay incident. At TOP we would have 1 or 2 a week at most. Here we work them and move on before the next one's hit. I think we have over 12000 registered users so there are lots of problems to be solved 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Thanks for the feedback.
[This message was edited by Patrick McIrish on June 25, 2003 at 12:41 PM.]
What worries me is that a book could gamble and take a shot on the scalpers if they were desperate.
They could put out a big dog that can be scalped knowing they will get action.
If by some crazy turn of events the big dog wins they can cry foul after the event.
Its a win/win situation for a scamming book.
If I make a mistake in business I expect to pay a price for my mistake.
If a book is good at what they do they won`t make many mistakes.
When they do they should have measures in place to reduce their risk.
They could put out a big dog that can be scalped knowing they will get action.
If by some crazy turn of events the big dog wins they can cry foul after the event.
Its a win/win situation for a scamming book.
If I make a mistake in business I expect to pay a price for my mistake.
If a book is good at what they do they won`t make many mistakes.
When they do they should have measures in place to reduce their risk.
Have a message in with Dave at BetCBS and will see what they have to say. Will post to it as soon as I can.
Kwalder - point taken but for the most part the posters are the one's who call books for what they are. At least for what they would "identify" the book to be. Sounds like a cliche but who better to speak on the books than the actual players who bet there? I personally haven't played there so had no general comment on the book, may have one on this situation as soon as I hear more about it though. Generally speaking the players who play there know far more so we allow them pretty much an open forum to say what it is on their mind.
Anyone reading the 43,482 posts from Beantown on Cascade will attest to that.
Kwalder - point taken but for the most part the posters are the one's who call books for what they are. At least for what they would "identify" the book to be. Sounds like a cliche but who better to speak on the books than the actual players who bet there? I personally haven't played there so had no general comment on the book, may have one on this situation as soon as I hear more about it though. Generally speaking the players who play there know far more so we allow them pretty much an open forum to say what it is on their mind.
Anyone reading the 43,482 posts from Beantown on Cascade will attest to that.
I'm fairly new to this forum but I do have an interest and opinion in this for personal reasons. I'm a current customer of Casablancas and I'm sure there are many others who are currently with them who are in the same position that I am going to describe. I've played there regularly for almost 3 years and have never had any problems. I've been paid promptly and always had good customer service. To me they've been an very good book, and aside from some recent computer downtime (now corrected) I've never had any complaints. I'm not canonizing them for the previous facts as those things should be expected from any good sportsbook. Unlike a previous poster who's talked with Dave Johnson because of difficulties, I never have, because I've never had any reason to. My experience has been good and I guess people will be found on both sides of the aisle.
Here's my dillema. Do I pull my money out of Casablanca because of this situation , or do I continue along with them based on the excellent personal experience I've had with them for a long time? Some things are very perplexing with this situation, and on the surface it doesn't make sense as a smart business decision on their part. I've read over the years (online) that Dave Johnson can be both a "great guy" and a "hot head" and I'm just wondering what he's thinking about in this situation??? If this is a "personal vendetta" because he views Mr. Arreff is a guy who waits in the weeds looking to bet into "bad lines", forget about it Dave, regardless, give the man his money and move on. There is no way that this is worth the bad publicity you're getting. I'm also wondering why no other people are coming forward with the same complaint with all the scalpers, shrewd gamblers and line shoppers belonging to all these forums? Has Casablanca paid the losses to others and just calling Mr.Arreff out for his betting pattern?? Seems very isolated to me with no other direct posts by anyone else being denied payment or complaining? The poster himself asked others to join him in posting if they had "trouble" and no one else has posted that they've been refused payment in this situation?? Something is strange here.
Casablanca's been a well regarded book for too long to allow this situation to compromise their reputation, and I hope this specific incidence will have a reasonable ending and be resolved. Personally, I'm not sure what I will do until I see more of what develops, but I am very concerned about this .
Here's my dillema. Do I pull my money out of Casablanca because of this situation , or do I continue along with them based on the excellent personal experience I've had with them for a long time? Some things are very perplexing with this situation, and on the surface it doesn't make sense as a smart business decision on their part. I've read over the years (online) that Dave Johnson can be both a "great guy" and a "hot head" and I'm just wondering what he's thinking about in this situation??? If this is a "personal vendetta" because he views Mr. Arreff is a guy who waits in the weeds looking to bet into "bad lines", forget about it Dave, regardless, give the man his money and move on. There is no way that this is worth the bad publicity you're getting. I'm also wondering why no other people are coming forward with the same complaint with all the scalpers, shrewd gamblers and line shoppers belonging to all these forums? Has Casablanca paid the losses to others and just calling Mr.Arreff out for his betting pattern?? Seems very isolated to me with no other direct posts by anyone else being denied payment or complaining? The poster himself asked others to join him in posting if they had "trouble" and no one else has posted that they've been refused payment in this situation?? Something is strange here.
Casablanca's been a well regarded book for too long to allow this situation to compromise their reputation, and I hope this specific incidence will have a reasonable ending and be resolved. Personally, I'm not sure what I will do until I see more of what develops, but I am very concerned about this .
Betcbs:
You booked the bet you should have to pay PERIOD .
You took the bet and LOST now pay the guy his money.
This Bad Line crap will not cut it anymore , if the player had lost you would have kept his funds right or wrong ? .
Bad Line my ass you know you either shaded the fav or your linesman sucks .
Do yourselves and the industry a favor and PAY what you owe and dont STIFF players .
My 2cents .
You booked the bet you should have to pay PERIOD .
You took the bet and LOST now pay the guy his money.
This Bad Line crap will not cut it anymore , if the player had lost you would have kept his funds right or wrong ? .
Bad Line my ass you know you either shaded the fav or your linesman sucks .
Do yourselves and the industry a favor and PAY what you owe and dont STIFF players .
My 2cents .
Areeff,
As McIrish pointed out, now that you've come to the forums, it may be harder to work out a deal with Casablanca. But just remember you have one last ace up your sleave. A number of us have the email addresses for betcbs's entire customer list. So if Dave isn't willing to talk to you, you might kindly remind him that while he may not care about the handful of customers who read the rx, if he doesn't deal fairly with you, it would be rather easy to email all his customers and tell them what happened.
Jim Ross,
I think you have ot ask yourself, whether 1) you want to leave in solidarity with Areeff, and 2) are you at all concerned that something like this could happen to you. Speaking only for myself, i've had very few problems with the books I've played at, And I've played at a lot including betcbs. And in general when i've seen complaints about books I liked, I would tend to side with a GM that I knew to be reasonable over a player I didn't know. In this case I don't Dave at all, though i had a good experience with his book. And i certainly don't know arreef. What i do know is that i am a line shopper, and because betcbs has that 5% rebate bonus, a scalp on a +600 line would have been too tempting to pass up. And I could just as easily been in Areeff's shoes. So knowing that, I would never feel comfortable playing there again.
As McIrish pointed out, now that you've come to the forums, it may be harder to work out a deal with Casablanca. But just remember you have one last ace up your sleave. A number of us have the email addresses for betcbs's entire customer list. So if Dave isn't willing to talk to you, you might kindly remind him that while he may not care about the handful of customers who read the rx, if he doesn't deal fairly with you, it would be rather easy to email all his customers and tell them what happened.
Jim Ross,
I think you have ot ask yourself, whether 1) you want to leave in solidarity with Areeff, and 2) are you at all concerned that something like this could happen to you. Speaking only for myself, i've had very few problems with the books I've played at, And I've played at a lot including betcbs. And in general when i've seen complaints about books I liked, I would tend to side with a GM that I knew to be reasonable over a player I didn't know. In this case I don't Dave at all, though i had a good experience with his book. And i certainly don't know arreef. What i do know is that i am a line shopper, and because betcbs has that 5% rebate bonus, a scalp on a +600 line would have been too tempting to pass up. And I could just as easily been in Areeff's shoes. So knowing that, I would never feel comfortable playing there again.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by areeff:
Halifax: Crap i dunno man i was looking at 100 matches that night. I do know that the 3 books i named (Victor chandler, william hill, etc) had better odds but they are non USA books.
Does betbrain have a log history? i was looking at that mostly
"Pinnacle had +435 and another place at +650 and williamhill/victor chandler/expekt were in the 500's range so you can't really say a bad line."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
areeff:
I generally am on your side, but don't weaken your position with half-truths and false statements:
1. As mentioned, the +650 at Eurobet.com was for Trebles Minimum. It is not valid for comparison purposes, since you would not have been able to place a Singles bet at that price.
2. Some closing prices: William Hill -450 / +300
Victor Chandler -400 / +250
Ladbrokes -600 / +350
I repeat ... PINNACLE'S +435 WAS THE BEST AVAILABLE.
Halifax: Crap i dunno man i was looking at 100 matches that night. I do know that the 3 books i named (Victor chandler, william hill, etc) had better odds but they are non USA books.
Does betbrain have a log history? i was looking at that mostly
"Pinnacle had +435 and another place at +650 and williamhill/victor chandler/expekt were in the 500's range so you can't really say a bad line."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
areeff:
I generally am on your side, but don't weaken your position with half-truths and false statements:
1. As mentioned, the +650 at Eurobet.com was for Trebles Minimum. It is not valid for comparison purposes, since you would not have been able to place a Singles bet at that price.
2. Some closing prices: William Hill -450 / +300
Victor Chandler -400 / +250
Ladbrokes -600 / +350
I repeat ... PINNACLE'S +435 WAS THE BEST AVAILABLE.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by areeff:
Halifax: Crap i dunno man i was looking at 100 matches that night. I do know that the 3 books i named (Victor chandler, william hill, etc) had better odds but they are non USA books.
Does betbrain have a log history? i was looking at that mostly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Pinnacle had +435 and another place at +650 and williamhill/victor chandler/expekt were in the 500's range so you can't really say a bad line."
------------------------------------------------------------
areeff:
I generally am on your side, but don't weaken your position with half-truths and false statements:
1. As mentioned, the +650 at Eurobet.com was for Trebles Minimum. It is not valid for comparison purposes, since you would not have been able to place a Singles bet at that price.
2. Some closing prices: William Hill -450 / +300
Victor Chandler -400 / +250
Ladbrokes -600 / +350
I repeat ... PINNACLE'S +435 WAS THE BEST AVAILABLE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You said some closing prices which means no one can really say for a 100% accuracy what was the best price since no one has the closing prices of every single book.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by areeff:
Halifax: Crap i dunno man i was looking at 100 matches that night. I do know that the 3 books i named (Victor chandler, william hill, etc) had better odds but they are non USA books.
Does betbrain have a log history? i was looking at that mostly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Pinnacle had +435 and another place at +650 and williamhill/victor chandler/expekt were in the 500's range so you can't really say a bad line."
------------------------------------------------------------
areeff:
I generally am on your side, but don't weaken your position with half-truths and false statements:
1. As mentioned, the +650 at Eurobet.com was for Trebles Minimum. It is not valid for comparison purposes, since you would not have been able to place a Singles bet at that price.
2. Some closing prices: William Hill -450 / +300
Victor Chandler -400 / +250
Ladbrokes -600 / +350
I repeat ... PINNACLE'S +435 WAS THE BEST AVAILABLE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You said some closing prices which means no one can really say for a 100% accuracy what was the best price since no one has the closing prices of every single book.
Hali & Others ,
What the line was else where has nothing to do with this issue .
If Betcbs shade the Fav and give out a bigger + number that is their choice just cause they lose does not mean that they can later claim a " Bad Line" especially after the game is over .
You know that is not right , the line Betcbs had up is what this guy bet and what he should be paid against Period .
What the line was else where has nothing to do with this issue .
If Betcbs shade the Fav and give out a bigger + number that is their choice just cause they lose does not mean that they can later claim a " Bad Line" especially after the game is over .
You know that is not right , the line Betcbs had up is what this guy bet and what he should be paid against Period .
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
EGD:
Did you see better - didn't think so. Better yet, give me the name of a book that you'd like me to check. If they had anything +500 or better, I'll buy you a Kit Kat bar.
Pinnacle's was the best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't bet the match but I'm making a point. You are swearing by the fact Pinnacle had the best line eventhough you can't say that with 100% accuracy in my opinion. It is your burden to prove they had the best line & not with a few examples of what others had closing lines at.
Next....
EGD:
Did you see better - didn't think so. Better yet, give me the name of a book that you'd like me to check. If they had anything +500 or better, I'll buy you a Kit Kat bar.
Pinnacle's was the best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't bet the match but I'm making a point. You are swearing by the fact Pinnacle had the best line eventhough you can't say that with 100% accuracy in my opinion. It is your burden to prove they had the best line & not with a few examples of what others had closing lines at.
Next....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by skirmish:
Hali & Others ,
What the line was else where has nothing to do with this issue .
If Betcbs shade the Fav and give out a bigger + number that is their choice just cause they lose does not mean that they can later claim a " Bad Line" especially after the game is over .
You know that is not right , the line Betcbs had up is what this guy bet and what he should be paid against Period .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
skirmish:
No time to speak much on the issue ... buy you're wrong.
Ask anyone that has placed a few bets with BetCBS, they're not in the business of hanging scalpable numbers.
They did NOT purposely put up that line. End of story.
Hali & Others ,
What the line was else where has nothing to do with this issue .
If Betcbs shade the Fav and give out a bigger + number that is their choice just cause they lose does not mean that they can later claim a " Bad Line" especially after the game is over .
You know that is not right , the line Betcbs had up is what this guy bet and what he should be paid against Period .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
skirmish:
No time to speak much on the issue ... buy you're wrong.
Ask anyone that has placed a few bets with BetCBS, they're not in the business of hanging scalpable numbers.
They did NOT purposely put up that line. End of story.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by skirmish:
Hali & Others ,
What the line was else where has nothing to do with this issue .
If Betcbs shade the Fav and give out a bigger + number that is their choice just cause they lose does not mean that they can later claim a " Bad Line" especially after the game is over .
You know that is not right , the line Betcbs had up is what this guy bet and what he should be paid against Period .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
skirmish:
No time to speak much on the issue ... buy you're wrong.
Ask anyone that has placed a few bets with BetCBS, they're not in the business of hanging scalpable numbers.
They did NOT purposely put up that line. End of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whether they purposely put it up or not isn't the point. They book a bet & should pay each person what they won. It isn't the customers fault the # was put there & they didn't put a gun to the heads of CBS to accept the wagers.
Pay everyone at the price they got on the bet & move on. End of story.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by skirmish:
Hali & Others ,
What the line was else where has nothing to do with this issue .
If Betcbs shade the Fav and give out a bigger + number that is their choice just cause they lose does not mean that they can later claim a " Bad Line" especially after the game is over .
You know that is not right , the line Betcbs had up is what this guy bet and what he should be paid against Period .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
skirmish:
No time to speak much on the issue ... buy you're wrong.
Ask anyone that has placed a few bets with BetCBS, they're not in the business of hanging scalpable numbers.
They did NOT purposely put up that line. End of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whether they purposely put it up or not isn't the point. They book a bet & should pay each person what they won. It isn't the customers fault the # was put there & they didn't put a gun to the heads of CBS to accept the wagers.
Pay everyone at the price they got on the bet & move on. End of story.
