yea thats true darryl. but I also think the conclusion of what happens with the 40k makes it kinda dramitical also. you're either rooting for revere or the book. and you're allowed to interject and voice your opinion. kind of like 'american idol' or 'survivor' except way more interactive, invloving a hobby / proffesion you are fond of.
This might not be important to some but it is to me. WSEX is what we would consider a book that caters to the major N. American sports which soccer is not one of as far as betting goes. If their posted limit is $20,000 on a football game, how the hell do you expect to get almost $40,000 down on a soccer game?
Its ridiculous how so many people side with the book no matter how wrong it is. First Steve sayd " The bets were cancelled before the match", then he says " the bets werent officially cancelled until after the match". Steve has also not showed this alleged e-mail.
It becomes very clear that it is sportsbooks like this who pay for this site, therefore certain mods are always going to stand behind the book.
Why should Revere expect the line to change between each play ? In reality if the line was +120 he should get +120 on all his plays. This rountine books pull letting players bet as much as they want but only $500 at a time is total BS. Why should the book be able to know what side you want and then change the price. This is total BS.
Bottom line is that if that play had lost all the plays would have been graded as losses.
It becomes very clear that it is sportsbooks like this who pay for this site, therefore certain mods are always going to stand behind the book.
Why should Revere expect the line to change between each play ? In reality if the line was +120 he should get +120 on all his plays. This rountine books pull letting players bet as much as they want but only $500 at a time is total BS. Why should the book be able to know what side you want and then change the price. This is total BS.
Bottom line is that if that play had lost all the plays would have been graded as losses.
DickyW-
Okay, try this on for size:
You are playing slot or poker machine at a Vegas casino. You believe that you have noticed a pattern to the results. Even if there is a flaw in the randomness of the software, you STILL GET PAID. They may take the machine out of service, or ban you from the casino, but AFTER they pay you.
Okay, try this on for size:
You are playing slot or poker machine at a Vegas casino. You believe that you have noticed a pattern to the results. Even if there is a flaw in the randomness of the software, you STILL GET PAID. They may take the machine out of service, or ban you from the casino, but AFTER they pay you.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DannyMay:
Why should Revere expect the line to change between each play ? In reality if the line was +120 he should get +120 on all his plays.
Bottom line is that if that play had lost all the plays would have been graded as losses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jesus are you always this clueless? Hello, name one gambler who would honestly admit they can get down 5 figures on a game & the price never move. The answer is no one.
People like you always want to say a book would steal if the game had been a loser but there are some honest people in the industry as not everyone can be a con like some posters are.
Why should Revere expect the line to change between each play ? In reality if the line was +120 he should get +120 on all his plays.
Bottom line is that if that play had lost all the plays would have been graded as losses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jesus are you always this clueless? Hello, name one gambler who would honestly admit they can get down 5 figures on a game & the price never move. The answer is no one.
People like you always want to say a book would steal if the game had been a loser but there are some honest people in the industry as not everyone can be a con like some posters are.
Java
pretty bad one I liked the other one better.
Your comparing Revere situation to the fault of the equipment ONLY. The truth is:
1)Revere knew what the limits were and cheated to get more.
2)Revere provided false imfo making it impossible to be contacted
I had a couple examples I was going to give but I think God Of Thunder gave a perfect one
pretty bad one I liked the other one better.
Your comparing Revere situation to the fault of the equipment ONLY. The truth is:
1)Revere knew what the limits were and cheated to get more.
2)Revere provided false imfo making it impossible to be contacted
I had a couple examples I was going to give but I think God Of Thunder gave a perfect one
God of thunder-
If the player bet $20 by putting in a $20 bill or by putting in 80 quarters, the bet is still good.
My point is that Revere may have been considered a "Whale" and HIS limit was whatever was in his account. Somebooks set limits for big players (that they believe to be suckers) for amounts far in excess of what they advertise to the players. Some players are so big, that a book could consider them a whole separate sheet and not worry about them in their charting because they "always lose in the long run".
From the information presented so far, there is NO indication that Revere's limit wasn't his balance. Also, Revere claims to have broken up his large bets in the past during non-office hours.
The point is: Revere decided to get as much action as he could on Manchester. This was not during phone hours so he wagered in the ONLY manner WSEX allowed. (He claims to have bet in this pattern in the past, and the bets were honored.) WSEX did not cancel ANY of the bets until AFTER the game was over.
If the player bet $20 by putting in a $20 bill or by putting in 80 quarters, the bet is still good.
My point is that Revere may have been considered a "Whale" and HIS limit was whatever was in his account. Somebooks set limits for big players (that they believe to be suckers) for amounts far in excess of what they advertise to the players. Some players are so big, that a book could consider them a whole separate sheet and not worry about them in their charting because they "always lose in the long run".
From the information presented so far, there is NO indication that Revere's limit wasn't his balance. Also, Revere claims to have broken up his large bets in the past during non-office hours.
The point is: Revere decided to get as much action as he could on Manchester. This was not during phone hours so he wagered in the ONLY manner WSEX allowed. (He claims to have bet in this pattern in the past, and the bets were honored.) WSEX did not cancel ANY of the bets until AFTER the game was over.
first question for the entire forum.
if this guy had lost and wsex had taken all the 40 dimes, and then the guy came in here, and said basically what wsex is saying now, that the juice never changed, i went over their limits i should be refund.
i bet that not one of you would agree with him, and would call him all sorts of names.
so why would the player have no case in a reverse situation? but in this situation the book does?
and second, i use to play at wsex, and would make multiple bets on the same side, not close to 40k, but for a few thousand, and the line never changed on me, and i never even thought i was dueing something wrong. and all the bets i won were paid to me.
just as the player would have no case in a reversed situation, and would deserve ridicule, for posting that he wanted his money back for the reasons mentioned above. wsex deserves the same treatment for posting and trying to defend this.
if this guy had lost and wsex had taken all the 40 dimes, and then the guy came in here, and said basically what wsex is saying now, that the juice never changed, i went over their limits i should be refund.
i bet that not one of you would agree with him, and would call him all sorts of names.
so why would the player have no case in a reverse situation? but in this situation the book does?
and second, i use to play at wsex, and would make multiple bets on the same side, not close to 40k, but for a few thousand, and the line never changed on me, and i never even thought i was dueing something wrong. and all the bets i won were paid to me.
just as the player would have no case in a reversed situation, and would deserve ridicule, for posting that he wanted his money back for the reasons mentioned above. wsex deserves the same treatment for posting and trying to defend this.
DickyW-
1) It is possible that Revere's limits were his balance.
2) I have never seen the following rule posted:
"If we are unable to contact you, we can cancel any of your winning bets after the game."
What if Revere's information was up-to-date, but they were still unable to reach him? Does that give them the right to cancel the wagers? Whatever rule you apply has to work for that case as well. The only rule that applies is that a book can't cancel a bet after the game is played!
As for my latest Vegas analogy, I was NOT referring to a mechanical failure, but a software weakness. The software may still payout 95%, but if a player notices a pattern like "every 113th hand happens to be a 3-of-kind" and bets bigger that hand, the player is still entitled to get paid.
1) It is possible that Revere's limits were his balance.
2) I have never seen the following rule posted:
"If we are unable to contact you, we can cancel any of your winning bets after the game."
What if Revere's information was up-to-date, but they were still unable to reach him? Does that give them the right to cancel the wagers? Whatever rule you apply has to work for that case as well. The only rule that applies is that a book can't cancel a bet after the game is played!
As for my latest Vegas analogy, I was NOT referring to a mechanical failure, but a software weakness. The software may still payout 95%, but if a player notices a pattern like "every 113th hand happens to be a 3-of-kind" and bets bigger that hand, the player is still entitled to get paid.
"Revere has been with us since December. He has only made 3 soccer bets with us. In March he bet 500 to win 2500 and then the line moved and he bet 500 to win 2250 On another occasion in March he bet 500 to win 1650 the line moved then he bet 500 to win 1500 Our soccer limits have always been 500 He knows we would not take $40,000 on one game never movithe number"
Doesn't this tell you something?
Doesn't this tell you something?
He may have been considered a whale but I doubt it. Over 200k wagered and he's ahead. Sounds more like somebody with limits on his account to me and by his pointing out the $500 per game rule posted on wsex for other sports but not on soccer indicates to me that his limits were not any different than what was posted on the site for the other "normal" accounts.
A good case could be made that Revere saw an opening and took a shot. The way he went about making the wager is a bit fishy to me.
This all could be exactly how its being laid out by both parties. I hope they can find an agreeable end for both.
But if I had any question at all about limits, opening times, unposted soccer limits, the phone number on my account or anything else that could screw with me getting paid 40K, I would have checked things out first.
"Parasite baaaby...love me tonight"
A good case could be made that Revere saw an opening and took a shot. The way he went about making the wager is a bit fishy to me.
This all could be exactly how its being laid out by both parties. I hope they can find an agreeable end for both.
But if I had any question at all about limits, opening times, unposted soccer limits, the phone number on my account or anything else that could screw with me getting paid 40K, I would have checked things out first.
"Parasite baaaby...love me tonight"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TTinCO:
"Revere has been with us since December. He has only made 3 soccer bets with us. In March he bet 500 to win 2500 and then the line moved and he bet 500 to win 2250 On another occasion in March he bet 500 to win 1650 the line moved then he bet 500 to win 1500 Our soccer limits have always been 500 He knows we would not take $40,000 on one game never movithe number"
Doesn't this tell you something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It tells me everything I need to know.
"Revere has been with us since December. He has only made 3 soccer bets with us. In March he bet 500 to win 2500 and then the line moved and he bet 500 to win 2250 On another occasion in March he bet 500 to win 1650 the line moved then he bet 500 to win 1500 Our soccer limits have always been 500 He knows we would not take $40,000 on one game never movithe number"
Doesn't this tell you something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It tells me everything I need to know.
Gringo-
My point in +120 vs +60 was that the player should not be paid half. He bet at +120 and should be paid at +120. Being paid any less is like he bet for worse odds. I was trying to be sarcastic. (I guess +60 would be equivalent to -166, which is a far cry from the +120 the player signed on for.)
My point in +120 vs +60 was that the player should not be paid half. He bet at +120 and should be paid at +120. Being paid any less is like he bet for worse odds. I was trying to be sarcastic. (I guess +60 would be equivalent to -166, which is a far cry from the +120 the player signed on for.)
Java
Cmon buddy common sense here.
1)Revere played twice before betting a dime a game, a nickle at one price another nickle at an ajusted price
2)Revere made 80+ plays at various ammounts and knew all the time he was GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING.
Other then the software problem PLEASE tell me how you can defend the player here? The false info is just another issue thats all but certainly not the sole reason for not paying him.
And I ask you a simple question
WHEN DOES IT BECOME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLAYER TO BE HONEST AND DO THE RIGHT THING?
Example:
Like calling in a 40k bet if thats what he wants. Asking the book if they can up his limits. Providing accurate personal imformation.
Cmon buddy common sense here.
1)Revere played twice before betting a dime a game, a nickle at one price another nickle at an ajusted price
2)Revere made 80+ plays at various ammounts and knew all the time he was GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING.
Other then the software problem PLEASE tell me how you can defend the player here? The false info is just another issue thats all but certainly not the sole reason for not paying him.
And I ask you a simple question
WHEN DOES IT BECOME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLAYER TO BE HONEST AND DO THE RIGHT THING?
Example:
Like calling in a 40k bet if thats what he wants. Asking the book if they can up his limits. Providing accurate personal imformation.
DickyW-
Of course the player took a shot. But he EARNED that shot by risking $40,000. WSEX cancelled the bet after the game was over. If the bet had lost, would ANYBODY here take the player's side?
If WSEX insists on taking action and refuses to put up a linesman, then they MUST take responsibility for any bets on their system (on a good line) and not cancelled before the start of the game. (Don't forget, Steve lied and said he cancelled before then game and then had to take it back when Revere showed the real cancellation times.)
My philosophy is that there is no such thing as taking a shot if the player is not violating any posted rule or hacking the system. He risked REAL money and had action. No book has the right to cancel a play AFTER the result is known, when the player made the bet without knowing the result.
A software glitch allowing the player to past-post would not be considered a legitimate 'shot' that a book should honor. Past-posting by the book is not something that the players should honor. WSEX past-posted. That past-posting should not be honored and players winning bets should be restored.
Of course the player took a shot. But he EARNED that shot by risking $40,000. WSEX cancelled the bet after the game was over. If the bet had lost, would ANYBODY here take the player's side?
If WSEX insists on taking action and refuses to put up a linesman, then they MUST take responsibility for any bets on their system (on a good line) and not cancelled before the start of the game. (Don't forget, Steve lied and said he cancelled before then game and then had to take it back when Revere showed the real cancellation times.)
My philosophy is that there is no such thing as taking a shot if the player is not violating any posted rule or hacking the system. He risked REAL money and had action. No book has the right to cancel a play AFTER the result is known, when the player made the bet without knowing the result.
A software glitch allowing the player to past-post would not be considered a legitimate 'shot' that a book should honor. Past-posting by the book is not something that the players should honor. WSEX past-posted. That past-posting should not be honored and players winning bets should be restored.
