BO-DOG ALLEGES CBS EMPLOYEES CHEATED ON SURVIVOR BETTING

VG789 · Jun 15, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by 3rd&long:
This is a highly suspicious story.

First, I have never known BoDog to take that kind of action on their props. Their limit on NBA props is $300, and the limit on the other TV stuff is $50 to $100.

Second, how likely is it that they took a 35k beating on a TV show prop and then put up lines for the next one? A 35k TV prop loss would have been the end of the TV props at BoDog, I believe.

Third, their is no evidence provided to anyone that this happened. BoDog says it happened, and that is that.

It appears that the first part of the story is to justify the second part of the story-- the part where they didn't pay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3rd&long,I couldnt have said it better!
Pat,don't play dirty with Peep

Java · Jun 15, 2003

1) Bodog was STUPID for taking any bets on any event that was already known (to anybody on the planet).

2) If they are going to take bets like this, then I've got a great one for them..

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. If Bodog guesses my number I'll let them know if they win.

dimeplayersonly · Jun 15, 2003

booking sports is tough enough............throw in the occasional boxing match and that should be enough to handle for any book.........IMO

basesAREloaded · Jun 15, 2003

Peep, your right.

Again.

jjgold · Jun 15, 2003

bodog is now a stiff book period.

Peep · Jun 16, 2003

Patrick.

Still awaiting your take on whether Bodog was wrong for cancelling bets they took on an event that already took place (because the event had already taken place LOL).

And a few other things maybe you could "investigate" (your term for what you did with the other stiffing of the player, which you "ruled" in favor of Bodog on).

1. Did they indeed take a dime bet? How did the player make it given the low limits on line and why did they take it (hint: "greed").

2. Did they give up names to CBS? Were people fired?

Inquiring minds want to know....

Peep · Jun 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The alleged employees were spotted by site security because they gambled only on "Survivor," instead of placing numerous wagers on sporting events as do most site clients.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like "site security" is right on top of things LOL. Meanwhile, far as I know, Intertops and WWTS paid all their prop bets on the show.

Why didn't your favorite?

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 16, 2003

This was well before my time, don't forget this was back in April I believe. I have not retroactively gone back and looked into all the issues this site has dealt with before I got here. Hell I can't stay on top of what I am suppossed be doing now. LOL.

BTW you have nothing to be concerned about if you are worried about me replacing you in any way, shape or form. I am no Peep as far as a moderator and most I have heard from have agreed. You have never heard me say I will do better than Joe or Peep, you guys made it look easy. You both did very well here overall in my opinion. So even without you here bumping old threads I am in no danger of making anyone forget you. I'm just doing what I can here, anyway good to see you posting.

Peep · Jun 16, 2003

Patrick.

Now you know the facts.

Far as I can see, this book stiffed players on a pretense.

Do you agree or not? Is this still a "good book" in your opinion.

(It was and is a stiff book in my opinion).

Journeyman · Jun 16, 2003

Peep is it your objective now to call out all questionable advertisers (in your opinion)?

Looks like you came back to just stir things,lol...But I wouldn`t think you`d do that.....

Would you have the same opinion(and say it) if you were still employed for The Rx buddy?

Good Luck

lakerfan · Jun 16, 2003

I guess I am missing something. Doesn't seem there are any facts. Just questions. You will have to do better Peep if you are going to beat on Bodog, et al.

And the way they bet more than 1k is that they used multiple accounts of family members to get around the low limits. I do remember that from a thread either here or somewhere else. Doesn't make Bodog look bad.

Guest · Jun 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"We never expected someone would take advantage of this in this way, he said. It [the "Survivor" betting] was just supposed to be an extra entertainment for our hard-core betters."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then perhaps this prop should have just been offered to "hard-core bettors" with established accounts. That is, if you can find hard-core sports bettors who would even be tempted to place a random wager on an event that had already taken place.

"Look Ralph! Thousand dollar bets on a prop placed by non-hardcore sports gamblers!!" Somehow these CBS employees managed to pick the winners, not only this season, but in 2 previous seasons to beat Bodog for a total of $35k?? It took 3 years to sniff this out???

You can write me off as well as Peep for having *an agenda*, but aren't the questions still valid?

FatFrank · Jun 16, 2003

*IF* the/my BoDog threads werent MIA... Then it would be easy to see & reread that many folks here knew Bodog was a 'shit book'

Bastards lied to me on slow paying then closed my acct because I made it public on TheRx.

btw-- The Mods here did NOT say a single word during my saga w/Bodog.

lakerfan · Jun 16, 2003

Frank-

Not saying Bodog is a good book, just that in this case I don't think this incident is a big issue. Maybe taken into consideration with others it is. Could be a ton of other reasons not to like them. Your's being one of them.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 16, 2003

Minnow - what questions do you want answered? Again I am not sure of all the specifics on this so hate to speak just to be speaking. This happened back in April when I was one of many loud mouthed posters who basically posted sometimes without knowing all the facts. I'm surprised I didn't speak for the players when I heard this quite frankly. I usually did as I hate when legit players have no voice against scamming books who decide to stiff them. Now I try and take my role a little more seriously and hold off from speaking until I know what is going on. Works sometimes, sometimes it doesn't.

To be honest off the top of my head no I don't think this was one of those cases of an evil book taking advantage of those innocent CBS gamblers who happened to have won $35,000 betting on a show they produced. There was a whole lot written on this issue and I didn't even begin to follow it all, I had no reason to back then. If people got fired and/or indicted over this and there was a scam going on then I have to say I wouldn't want any book to pay off in this situation either. You disagree?

Like Laker says if BoDog is so horrible there has to be bigger issues than this one to call them out on. CBS backed BoDog from what I can see and fired these people over this so I have to believe there was some wrong doing involved. If not these employees will have one hell of a case against them. Hard to think CBS would fire these people without any proof. What am I misssing? You think even if this was an inside scam job BoDog should have paid off these people? Not being facetious just curious what your position is.

For me I have looked into one incident with BoDog and it was easy to see they were 100% correct. Had I been here in April I might know more than I know now about this incident and a lot of other incidents involving other books as well. To me when a big stink is made by a handful of people on things like this is makes me wonder if there are any real complaints against this place. Has to be more than this behind all the BoDog hating.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by FatFrank:
*IF* the/my BoDog threads werent MIA... Then it would be easy to see & reread that many folks here knew Bodog was a 'shit book'

Bastards lied to me on slow paying then closed my acct because I made it public on TheRx.

btw-- The Mods here did NOT say a single word during my saga w/Bodog.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frank - how recent was this? Can't blame you for being upset over being slow payed. If I was here I apologize but I honestly don't remember this....

Peep · Jun 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>To be honest off the top of my head no I don't think this was one of those cases of an evil book taking advantage of those innocent CBS gamblers who happened to have won $35,000 betting on a show they produced. There was a whole lot written on this issue and I didn't even begin to follow it all, I had no reason to back then. If people got fired and/or indicted over this and there was a scam going on then I have to say I wouldn't want any book to pay off in this situation either. You disagree?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree.

I think you book a bet (on an event that already happened) you pay a bet (on an event that already happened).

Simple as that for me.

PatrickMcIrish · Jun 16, 2003

In the old days that was pretty much a rule we had, take a bet pay a bet. Nowadays it is more complicated than that IMO. Times have changed unfortunately. With scammers, anonymous internet access, credit card tricks, chargebacks, bonus whores, referral cheaters etc... it is not as simple as take a bet pay a bet any more. Even as a player I can think of reasons why a book wouldn't pay off in every situation. Lots of them. People who play be the rules rarely have any problems but they do happen.

Anyway the site is here to let others speak on their thoughts. We won't all be the same.

RPM · Jun 16, 2003

you book a bet, you pay the bet. i agree with that statement.

but i also know of other situations where other books have declined to pay winning wagers to a player "based on principle" because of unusual circumstances.

while i have almost always disagreed with the books descision to do that, IT DOESNT MAKE THEM A SHIT BOOK.

i must say peep, im a little confused about why you feel so strongly about this OLD bodog situation.

Peep · Jun 16, 2003

I think taking a bet and not paying a bet makes a book a shit book.

Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have paid off bets on this prop.

And if they don't pay on one prop for a bongus reason, and note that they cancelled all bets, not just the "alledged perperators", they will repeat the behavior when the fancy strikes them.

I don't think people should play at a book like this.

Why do I "feel so strongly"? Mostly because Patrick, as a rep of the Rx, gave them a "clean bill of health".

I think they are one sick puppy and I wouldn't bet there with your money.