Beantown, I thought you were leaving the RX? I told you not to let the door hit you in the ass. Drama queen. Haven't found the CAPS LOCK KEY yet??
There could not be any doubt in Revere's mind that he was well over the limit. He should have called and asked for a limit bet. Period.
I can understand at 6 am (local wsex time) there would not be anyone on the floor that has access to cancel the bets.
Several things could have been done to save face. Of course hindsight is 20/20. They should have at least posted on a thread on the RX that the bets would not be honored. This is of course after they found out they could not reach the player. At least like that, they would have had the time on the RX servers to back them up.
There could not be any doubt in Revere's mind that he was well over the limit. He should have called and asked for a limit bet. Period.
I can understand at 6 am (local wsex time) there would not be anyone on the floor that has access to cancel the bets.
Several things could have been done to save face. Of course hindsight is 20/20. They should have at least posted on a thread on the RX that the bets would not be honored. This is of course after they found out they could not reach the player. At least like that, they would have had the time on the RX servers to back them up.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Steve has said he left the plays up so they would be there if some sort of agreement could have been made with Revere, when he asked his girls to call him. -Wil <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wil, you are as fair as they come. Tell me, wouldn't the smart thing be to "take the bets down" (instead of leaving the bets up)?
That way if you miss the player for whatever reason you're not on the hook for 40 dimes??
Doesn't that part bother you a little?
Wil, you are as fair as they come. Tell me, wouldn't the smart thing be to "take the bets down" (instead of leaving the bets up)?
That way if you miss the player for whatever reason you're not on the hook for 40 dimes??
Doesn't that part bother you a little?
GRINGO HOW HARD WOULD IT HAVE BEEN FOR STEVE TO E-MAIL THE SHRINK OR THE OSGA AND EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED WHY DID THEY WATCH THE GAME THEN DECIDE TO CALL OFF THE BETS SOMETHING IS VERY FISHY HERE,THEY KEPT IT IN HOUSE SO WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THERE WORD,THEY WOULDNT BE THE FIRST SPORTSBOOK TO LIE TO THERE CUSTOMERS
Beantown, hindsight is 20/20. Think about being waken up at 6:30 am and told you have a guy with $40K of action on a $500 limit game. No one is there that can cancel the bets. You tell them to contact the player. You are on the clock.
Like I already said, they could have done a much better job. They didn't.
Revere had to know he was skirting the system. He didn't call in.
That is why we have 7 pages of opinions here.
Like I already said, they could have done a much better job. They didn't.
Revere had to know he was skirting the system. He didn't call in.
That is why we have 7 pages of opinions here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Steve has said he left the plays up so they would be there if some sort of agreement could have been made with Revere, when he asked his girls to call him. -Wil <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wil, you are as fair as they come. Tell me, wouldn't the smart thing be to "take the bets down" (instead of leaving the bets up)?
That way if you miss the player for whatever reason you're not on the hook for 40 dimes??
Doesn't that part bother you a little?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Buzz, that's EXACTLY my thinking. A manager had actual awareness of the situation 30 minutes prior to the start of the match, but the wagers were not officially cancelled until after the match, some 5 hours later. And what's just as bad, by steve's own admission, it seems he hadn't decided how much of the wagers he would accept. When did that decision in fact happen? AFTER the wager was a winner? It would seem so. This is not right.
Now, does the player have completely clean hands here and should he have known that he was doing something of a questionable nature? Yes. But from all appearances wsex does not have an official maximum for soccer matches. And unless I've missed it, I don't see anything in their rules about placing multiple wagers on the same event. Giving wsex the right to do what the did in the way they did it is patently unfair and a terrible precedent. IMO wsex needs to pay up and then get its act together.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Steve has said he left the plays up so they would be there if some sort of agreement could have been made with Revere, when he asked his girls to call him. -Wil <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wil, you are as fair as they come. Tell me, wouldn't the smart thing be to "take the bets down" (instead of leaving the bets up)?
That way if you miss the player for whatever reason you're not on the hook for 40 dimes??
Doesn't that part bother you a little?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Buzz, that's EXACTLY my thinking. A manager had actual awareness of the situation 30 minutes prior to the start of the match, but the wagers were not officially cancelled until after the match, some 5 hours later. And what's just as bad, by steve's own admission, it seems he hadn't decided how much of the wagers he would accept. When did that decision in fact happen? AFTER the wager was a winner? It would seem so. This is not right.
Now, does the player have completely clean hands here and should he have known that he was doing something of a questionable nature? Yes. But from all appearances wsex does not have an official maximum for soccer matches. And unless I've missed it, I don't see anything in their rules about placing multiple wagers on the same event. Giving wsex the right to do what the did in the way they did it is patently unfair and a terrible precedent. IMO wsex needs to pay up and then get its act together.
I won't deny it, I would have much rather seen all the bets except maybe one for a nickel, cancelled at say 6:30 AM. I have given it a lot of thought and tried to put myself in Steve's place. I definitely would have got those things cancelled ASAP. The only plausable answer is that he was really hoping his staff (the girls) would be able to get hold of Revere and he actually did want to geve him extra, like I said maybe 2 dimes at plus 120. Then offer him more at say plus 115. To do this he may not have wanted to start cancelling bets right away. Still a mistake, no question. He could have always entered new bets after everything was cancelled and his balance restored. In short Steve could have handeled the pre game part of this mess with a lot more smarts. Do I think Revere is pure as the driven snow, absolulely not. He knew WSEX only wanted a nickel at any number, he took advantage of software that has no business being left open overnight without intellignet supervision. IMO.
wil.
wil.
Good morning!! I love working nights and waking up to these sort of things. Probably should wait and read it all but skimming over the thread here are some observations off the top.
- WSEX has got to make more effort when these things come along! I think Steve said "I asked the girls to give him a call". Huh? If the player gave you 40k of one-sided action on a soccer game at the same number (and your software accepted it) you need to make sure you take swift and decisive action before the game. Making sure you keep notes, copies of all correspondences (even if e-mails were kicked back) and anything else you have to show. Someone else mentioned this but if you are having trouble getting hold of the player get hold of a moderator here, we have one here 24 hours a day usually. If not send a time stamped e-mail to the site showing that win or lose this play will not stand and what actions you deem appropriate. Let us know you can't get hold of the player but win or lose he does not have 40k of action on the game. You can not sit back and wait until the end of the game to see what happens before fully committing. Not picking on them but asking one of the clerks to "give this guy a call" then cancelling out the wagers 5 hours after the win is not the way to go.
- For Revere I have two observations, one is very small. In a post in this thread he made reference that he probably shouldn't have posted this here but did not realize it would create such a stir. Did you really believe that? You don't just post about a 40 dime bet that got cancelled involving one of our advertisers and then act surprised people are interested in it. LOL. Not that you did anything wrong necessarily, just thought it odd you thought this reception was surprising. I know some will say we want to read everything that goes on but AGAIN it is usually best to keep these things off the board until we can try and resolve them. You'd be surprised how many dsputes can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction without all this. If you are not happy with what a site can do than you can always come here afterwards as a last resort. I recommend just give the other way a chance first as books appreciate the opportunity to discuss things with you (us) in a civil manner before some of the jackasses chime in to make things worse. Once this gets posted we get the stuff about how "WSEX will be blasted from here to infinity and doomed if they do not pay" along with the other childish stuff. Turns into a platform for internet tough guys to show how mean they are and how big their penises are.
- The last thing I see here is called personal accountability. We are not in a court of law folks, we are dealing with books as partners in our quest to gamble. There is no loophole that can be exploited, or at least there shouldn't be. And if there is let's not try and take advantage of it. "I know I was wrong but it isn't in the rules!!" We get too much of that Beantown type crap. Bet a game 15 minutes late because it looks like a sure OVER only to end up losing the bet. Of course then he wants to use the rules to his favor and ask for his money back. If you know you are circumventing the intention of a rule than don't do it. No amount of pressure from anyone can get you paid if a book decides they will not pay you. Sure you can raise hell and do all sort of things but most of us need to just take care of our business and abide by the rules as we know they are intended. No offense Revere but you knew this place would not accept 40 dimes on a soccer game without moving their lines. Had they took 2 million dollars on this should they pay that too? We all need to be as reasonable as possible before these issues arise. To be fair there is negligence on both sides here IMO. I mentioned some about WSEX above, the software accepted the bets and unless more information is forthcoming I believe a more diligent effort should have been made before the match was played. I loved the thing about speeding. You may not know the speed limit but you know it is not 120MPH. To Revere's credit he did not pretend to not realize what he was doing was not intended by WSEX. To me this falls back a litle on personal accountability for your actions, on both sides. I like Revere and he has made some of my favorite posts on this board so I really hope he wasn't scalping the game and is out a big number here.
The problem here is people usually want it black or white. They read about a story like this and either something similar has happened to them, they have a vested interest, or they just feel strongly, but bottom line is they are either for the player or they are for the book. Unfortunately in reality the solution is probably somewhere in between. Shrink will be back late Sunday or early Monday so if both sides agree the RX will mediate this dispute and see if everyone can hammer out a workable deal. I know the posters aren't happy but that is exacty what I see here, a compromise. Both sides weren't completely clean so there needs to be a little give and take in my view.
- WSEX has got to make more effort when these things come along! I think Steve said "I asked the girls to give him a call". Huh? If the player gave you 40k of one-sided action on a soccer game at the same number (and your software accepted it) you need to make sure you take swift and decisive action before the game. Making sure you keep notes, copies of all correspondences (even if e-mails were kicked back) and anything else you have to show. Someone else mentioned this but if you are having trouble getting hold of the player get hold of a moderator here, we have one here 24 hours a day usually. If not send a time stamped e-mail to the site showing that win or lose this play will not stand and what actions you deem appropriate. Let us know you can't get hold of the player but win or lose he does not have 40k of action on the game. You can not sit back and wait until the end of the game to see what happens before fully committing. Not picking on them but asking one of the clerks to "give this guy a call" then cancelling out the wagers 5 hours after the win is not the way to go.
- For Revere I have two observations, one is very small. In a post in this thread he made reference that he probably shouldn't have posted this here but did not realize it would create such a stir. Did you really believe that? You don't just post about a 40 dime bet that got cancelled involving one of our advertisers and then act surprised people are interested in it. LOL. Not that you did anything wrong necessarily, just thought it odd you thought this reception was surprising. I know some will say we want to read everything that goes on but AGAIN it is usually best to keep these things off the board until we can try and resolve them. You'd be surprised how many dsputes can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction without all this. If you are not happy with what a site can do than you can always come here afterwards as a last resort. I recommend just give the other way a chance first as books appreciate the opportunity to discuss things with you (us) in a civil manner before some of the jackasses chime in to make things worse. Once this gets posted we get the stuff about how "WSEX will be blasted from here to infinity and doomed if they do not pay" along with the other childish stuff. Turns into a platform for internet tough guys to show how mean they are and how big their penises are.
- The last thing I see here is called personal accountability. We are not in a court of law folks, we are dealing with books as partners in our quest to gamble. There is no loophole that can be exploited, or at least there shouldn't be. And if there is let's not try and take advantage of it. "I know I was wrong but it isn't in the rules!!" We get too much of that Beantown type crap. Bet a game 15 minutes late because it looks like a sure OVER only to end up losing the bet. Of course then he wants to use the rules to his favor and ask for his money back. If you know you are circumventing the intention of a rule than don't do it. No amount of pressure from anyone can get you paid if a book decides they will not pay you. Sure you can raise hell and do all sort of things but most of us need to just take care of our business and abide by the rules as we know they are intended. No offense Revere but you knew this place would not accept 40 dimes on a soccer game without moving their lines. Had they took 2 million dollars on this should they pay that too? We all need to be as reasonable as possible before these issues arise. To be fair there is negligence on both sides here IMO. I mentioned some about WSEX above, the software accepted the bets and unless more information is forthcoming I believe a more diligent effort should have been made before the match was played. I loved the thing about speeding. You may not know the speed limit but you know it is not 120MPH. To Revere's credit he did not pretend to not realize what he was doing was not intended by WSEX. To me this falls back a litle on personal accountability for your actions, on both sides. I like Revere and he has made some of my favorite posts on this board so I really hope he wasn't scalping the game and is out a big number here.
The problem here is people usually want it black or white. They read about a story like this and either something similar has happened to them, they have a vested interest, or they just feel strongly, but bottom line is they are either for the player or they are for the book. Unfortunately in reality the solution is probably somewhere in between. Shrink will be back late Sunday or early Monday so if both sides agree the RX will mediate this dispute and see if everyone can hammer out a workable deal. I know the posters aren't happy but that is exacty what I see here, a compromise. Both sides weren't completely clean so there needs to be a little give and take in my view.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you believe that if this wager lost, revere14 would have been refunded?
So far, out of over 200 replies, none of these individuals have addressed this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I remember correctly, WSEX once refunded a number of losing bets on an obvious bad line. It was some total that should have been way higher than it was, and most of their action was on the over. The number amazingly landed on the under, but WSEX refunded the losing bets because the line was bad, a move that cost them money. That said, I would answer I don't know, but it is unfair to automatically assume that they would have kept the bet had it lost since their track record shows that have put principle before their bottomline regarding a bad line.
One of the reasons folks overwhelmingly supported Cascade in their most recent dispute was because they had a track record of honoring all bets regardless of the time the bets were placed. Had the dispute been with another book that had a track record of voiding all past post bets, the aggrieved would have had a stronger case so I think it is only fair in this instance to weigh WSEX's past actions if you are going to speculate as to what they would have done had revere's bets lost. It should also have some bearing on evaluating how WSEX handles this matter.
One thing I find odd is why none of revere's consecutive bet amounts were the same. Why didn't he just input $500 80 times instead of the varying amounts he made? Would consective bets of $500 have triggered the software to do something such as block anymore of his online bet attempts?
C.M.
So far, out of over 200 replies, none of these individuals have addressed this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I remember correctly, WSEX once refunded a number of losing bets on an obvious bad line. It was some total that should have been way higher than it was, and most of their action was on the over. The number amazingly landed on the under, but WSEX refunded the losing bets because the line was bad, a move that cost them money. That said, I would answer I don't know, but it is unfair to automatically assume that they would have kept the bet had it lost since their track record shows that have put principle before their bottomline regarding a bad line.
One of the reasons folks overwhelmingly supported Cascade in their most recent dispute was because they had a track record of honoring all bets regardless of the time the bets were placed. Had the dispute been with another book that had a track record of voiding all past post bets, the aggrieved would have had a stronger case so I think it is only fair in this instance to weigh WSEX's past actions if you are going to speculate as to what they would have done had revere's bets lost. It should also have some bearing on evaluating how WSEX handles this matter.
One thing I find odd is why none of revere's consecutive bet amounts were the same. Why didn't he just input $500 80 times instead of the varying amounts he made? Would consective bets of $500 have triggered the software to do something such as block anymore of his online bet attempts?
C.M.
Good post Patrick. All very true.
I am surprised as big as Revere played that WSEX didn't have him on manual approval of bets.
I will be the first to admit that I bet into WSEX at night in the past and gave them thousands of dollars in action with a $300 per bet limit. The difference is of course that I bet a lot less, and the juice moved each time I bet. So the juice might have moved a whole dollar when I was done betting into a prop. WSEX never indicated this was a problem (I did it many times last year). They did eventually put me on manual approval and at a later date limit the number of bets I made on certain bets (they informed me of this over the phone and I agreed to it).
I think Steve's response to wanting to resolve this current situation in a fair way is a good approach.
I am surprised as big as Revere played that WSEX didn't have him on manual approval of bets.
I will be the first to admit that I bet into WSEX at night in the past and gave them thousands of dollars in action with a $300 per bet limit. The difference is of course that I bet a lot less, and the juice moved each time I bet. So the juice might have moved a whole dollar when I was done betting into a prop. WSEX never indicated this was a problem (I did it many times last year). They did eventually put me on manual approval and at a later date limit the number of bets I made on certain bets (they informed me of this over the phone and I agreed to it).
I think Steve's response to wanting to resolve this current situation in a fair way is a good approach.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One thing I find odd is why none of revere's consecutive bet amounts were the same. Why didn't he just input $500 80 times instead of the varying amounts he made? Would consective bets of $500 have triggered the software to do something such as block anymore of his online bet attempts?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Software on certain props and secondary sports won't let you bet the same bet twice in a row within 5 minutes. I think it is to protect the player from accidentally making the same bet twice.
As for all the different strange amounts bet, I have no idea.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Software on certain props and secondary sports won't let you bet the same bet twice in a row within 5 minutes. I think it is to protect the player from accidentally making the same bet twice.
As for all the different strange amounts bet, I have no idea.
A few things;
1. I find it hard to believe that Steve woke up at 6 am and didn't have some way to cancel the bets from where he is. This is a sportsbook that has been in business since the first few sportsbooks opened. I would wager money that they can monitor or change lines from their mansions in Antigua (ever heard of PC anywhere).
If not, Antigua is a pretty small place, you mean to tell me that given the fact that Steve couldn't cancel the wagers from his place, why wouldn't he call someone who could cancel them in. At the very least Steve could go in himself. I have visited Antigua and its like 45 minutes round trip from one end of the Island to the other (only slight exaageration).
Also I get the impression that WSEX probably didn't like this customer too much and decided to mess with him a bit. I guarantee you that if the game lost there is no way that steve who at this point hadn't cancelled the wagers, and hadn't been able to contact the customer would have refunded the 40K. I can imagine the conversation, hey - we couldn't reach you and you lost the bet and couldn't cancel the wagers before the match started, so we decided to cancel them after the match here is your 40K back.
Give me a break - they need to pay the man his money and update the software.
Side note, the same guy who designed WSEX's software designed Caribs software, the guys from Carib were practically running the site from the US - you mean to tell me that WSEX has no way of monitoring activity on their website unless they are in the office?
Anyone who believes this is way too gullible.
1. I find it hard to believe that Steve woke up at 6 am and didn't have some way to cancel the bets from where he is. This is a sportsbook that has been in business since the first few sportsbooks opened. I would wager money that they can monitor or change lines from their mansions in Antigua (ever heard of PC anywhere).
If not, Antigua is a pretty small place, you mean to tell me that given the fact that Steve couldn't cancel the wagers from his place, why wouldn't he call someone who could cancel them in. At the very least Steve could go in himself. I have visited Antigua and its like 45 minutes round trip from one end of the Island to the other (only slight exaageration).
Also I get the impression that WSEX probably didn't like this customer too much and decided to mess with him a bit. I guarantee you that if the game lost there is no way that steve who at this point hadn't cancelled the wagers, and hadn't been able to contact the customer would have refunded the 40K. I can imagine the conversation, hey - we couldn't reach you and you lost the bet and couldn't cancel the wagers before the match started, so we decided to cancel them after the match here is your 40K back.
Give me a break - they need to pay the man his money and update the software.
Side note, the same guy who designed WSEX's software designed Caribs software, the guys from Carib were practically running the site from the US - you mean to tell me that WSEX has no way of monitoring activity on their website unless they are in the office?
Anyone who believes this is way too gullible.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> wilheim
UB
I agree the software problem is defintely bad business. I would like to see the cancelled or incorrect e-mail attempt. They always leave a trail, Not sent etc. The bad phone number is a little more on the touchy side, as far as posting it here but it could certainly be supplied to the Rx. as evidence. I believe it like 4 in the morning in England so most likely we will hear more tommorow.
wil.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No doubt, there will be more to come i am sure.
Now, i have to decide whether to take a nap, and get up early, or, just wait for the second wave..Hard to tell with these timezone differences..
I am interesting in seeing how this plays out, and, i am sure it can be resolved reasonably....At least, i hope it can.
Steve seems more than willing to come to some compromise with Revere. So, i guess we shall see soon enough.
UB
I agree the software problem is defintely bad business. I would like to see the cancelled or incorrect e-mail attempt. They always leave a trail, Not sent etc. The bad phone number is a little more on the touchy side, as far as posting it here but it could certainly be supplied to the Rx. as evidence. I believe it like 4 in the morning in England so most likely we will hear more tommorow.
wil.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No doubt, there will be more to come i am sure.
Now, i have to decide whether to take a nap, and get up early, or, just wait for the second wave..Hard to tell with these timezone differences..
I am interesting in seeing how this plays out, and, i am sure it can be resolved reasonably....At least, i hope it can.
Steve seems more than willing to come to some compromise with Revere. So, i guess we shall see soon enough.
CM - very good post. I too thought I recalled a time when WSEX did refund some wagers but was not 100% sure on it so didn't mention it. The time I remember was before JC took a vacation, is that the one you are referring to? It was wagers that ended up not being to their advantage to cancel but they cancelled them anyway. I don't know how big a factor they are here but I am positive I could find that whole thing if I had to.
Here's some straight talk:
I do agree that WSEX is probably "in the right here" becuase the player was obviously circumventing limits and taking advantage of software glitches
HOWEVER the bookmakers need to start taking responsibility for the lines they put up and the bets they accept. I've seen this happen way too much lately...the player past-posted, the line was off, the limits were screwed up, etc...
IF YOU TAKE A BET, HONOR IT!!! This could have been cancelled before the game started. Sure, you woulda pissed the player off, but that's all. Now you're looking at a $40,000 liability. He took a shot at you, but you took a shot by not cancelling it before the game started. IF THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF A WAGER, JUST CANCEL IT AND SORT IT OUT LATER!!!
Why do you employ linesmakers and book managers? If you can't trust them to make the right call, then do it yourself. Or better yet, don't put a line up until you are ready to take action on it. If you post a line, be prepared to take action on it and honor all wagers. If your software allows people to keep making wagers, then deal with it or modify your software.
IF A BET IS IN AT GAMETIME, IT SHOULD BE HONORED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. If your staff sucks, then that is your problem. If your software sucks, also your problem. But if you put a line up, expect to take action on it
I do agree that WSEX is probably "in the right here" becuase the player was obviously circumventing limits and taking advantage of software glitches
HOWEVER the bookmakers need to start taking responsibility for the lines they put up and the bets they accept. I've seen this happen way too much lately...the player past-posted, the line was off, the limits were screwed up, etc...
IF YOU TAKE A BET, HONOR IT!!! This could have been cancelled before the game started. Sure, you woulda pissed the player off, but that's all. Now you're looking at a $40,000 liability. He took a shot at you, but you took a shot by not cancelling it before the game started. IF THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF A WAGER, JUST CANCEL IT AND SORT IT OUT LATER!!!
Why do you employ linesmakers and book managers? If you can't trust them to make the right call, then do it yourself. Or better yet, don't put a line up until you are ready to take action on it. If you post a line, be prepared to take action on it and honor all wagers. If your software allows people to keep making wagers, then deal with it or modify your software.
IF A BET IS IN AT GAMETIME, IT SHOULD BE HONORED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. If your staff sucks, then that is your problem. If your software sucks, also your problem. But if you put a line up, expect to take action on it
Patrick McMullet
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The time I remember was before JC took a vacation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Vacation" ?!?!
Holy shit...Whats he gonna do for retirement, if thats what he does for a friggin vacation?!!?
sorry, couldn't resist.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The time I remember was before JC took a vacation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Vacation" ?!?!
Holy shit...Whats he gonna do for retirement, if thats what he does for a friggin vacation?!!?
sorry, couldn't resist.
First of all, it's clear that there isn't honor on either sides of the counter. The word honor is the most overused and misused word on these forums. Hardly anybody has it and I am not specifically referring to either WSEX or Revere. WSEX is blaming this on a software glitch. What's next, cancelling a boxing bet because the judge was biased. Revere obviously circumvented the limits. If he wasn't why would you spend two hours putting in bets at different amounts to get around the limits. If he wasn't a simple phone call would have sufficed. Like Bet2Gamble points out, past track record should also apply in this case. But clearly there are mistakes on both sides here and it might be time to reach a middle ground. Although I have been critical of posters on this site coming forth with stories like these without contact mods, Major, Shrink etc., I can kind of understand due to the dollar amount that this poster feels he has been stiffed for. But do you really think this was the most effective avenue? Having said that, this is quite significant dispute to me as books like Rio, Sportbet, Gamblers Avenue are low class books and it is proven in how they have handled disputes in the past in these forums, but this is the first dispute that I can remember with a real industry leader so I will be watching intently. Clearly, there is blame on both sides in my opinion. I just thought WSEX was better than that. And I have to agree with Rail on this one, books like Pinnacle would never have software glitches. WSEX is a world class book. Spend some money on the software. And if you need people to watch the lines, there are plenty of shills and paid posters and prostitutes on this site that would jump at the opportunity to watch lines overnight for the increase in pay of 50 cents an hour
. To me the only relevant question is would WSEX have kept the money if he lost? To me nothing else matters. Sorry for rambling, but not a good night for me and I guees I am kind of venting.
[This message was edited by altice on August 24, 2003 at 12:38 AM.]
[This message was edited by altice on August 24, 2003 at 12:39 AM.]
[This message was edited by altice on August 24, 2003 at 12:38 AM.]
[This message was edited by altice on August 24, 2003 at 12:39 AM.]
