If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scoob:
SNIP......Pat - You didnt answer my question. Forget about the book for a minute. Why dont these scammers have to bear any responsibility here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the players showed you real IDs for all the accounts would that be OK with you?
These guys probably exceeded the limits using multiple accounts but how do you prove it? Deduct the fees and bonuses, pay them and boot them.
There is not real way to ensure that the players bear responsibility UNLESS you can PROVE that they clearly violated rules. Ewinner can't do this and they booked the plays (probably took a shot as well).
SNIP......Pat - You didnt answer my question. Forget about the book for a minute. Why dont these scammers have to bear any responsibility here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the players showed you real IDs for all the accounts would that be OK with you?
These guys probably exceeded the limits using multiple accounts but how do you prove it? Deduct the fees and bonuses, pay them and boot them.
There is not real way to ensure that the players bear responsibility UNLESS you can PROVE that they clearly violated rules. Ewinner can't do this and they booked the plays (probably took a shot as well).
Having said the above......100% in agreement with McIrish.
YEAH, YEAH I KNOW, OF COURSE I DO, HE WORKS WITH ME IS WHAT YOUR GOING TO COME BACK WITH NOW. As stated above, all I can do is wish you good luck then. What we say or suggest to certain posters will always be wrong in their minds. Which is fine. I just hope a majority of posters have an OPEN mind and can digest things for themselves.
YEAH, YEAH I KNOW, OF COURSE I DO, HE WORKS WITH ME IS WHAT YOUR GOING TO COME BACK WITH NOW. As stated above, all I can do is wish you good luck then. What we say or suggest to certain posters will always be wrong in their minds. Which is fine. I just hope a majority of posters have an OPEN mind and can digest things for themselves.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally someone making sense. We all know that the scumbags exist and I'm willing to bet MANY frequent this forum but if I ran a book that chit would be run tighter than the virgin mary on prom night.
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally someone making sense. We all know that the scumbags exist and I'm willing to bet MANY frequent this forum but if I ran a book that chit would be run tighter than the virgin mary on prom night.
<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 truthteller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, combined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Halifax, I nominate this for the post of the month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You nominate your own post as post of the month? LOL.
Scoob - yes there is responsibility. If I get caught jaywalking they can write me a ticket if they want, should they turn me upside down and steal every cent I have though? Maybe living with a book so many years has me thinking differently but you don't go back and mess with wagers that were made and won. That's their own situation, no matter what else they do they won those wagers fair and square. We never said, you know he did something else to us so lets not pay him what he beat us out of.
If you notice when a guy stiffs you he always "justifies" it. I had your money Irish but you told someone I owed you so now I won't pay you. Panther even used the I heard I wouldn't get paid so I ain't paying now excuse. Stiffs always have a reason not to pay. To me this book is "justifying" not payng a player that beat them. "He made bets that won and we owe, BUT they broke some rules on the bonus so thats our reason not to pay". I'm not going for it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by truthteller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, combined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Halifax, I nominate this for the post of the month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You nominate your own post as post of the month? LOL.
Scoob - yes there is responsibility. If I get caught jaywalking they can write me a ticket if they want, should they turn me upside down and steal every cent I have though? Maybe living with a book so many years has me thinking differently but you don't go back and mess with wagers that were made and won. That's their own situation, no matter what else they do they won those wagers fair and square. We never said, you know he did something else to us so lets not pay him what he beat us out of.
If you notice when a guy stiffs you he always "justifies" it. I had your money Irish but you told someone I owed you so now I won't pay you. Panther even used the I heard I wouldn't get paid so I ain't paying now excuse. Stiffs always have a reason not to pay. To me this book is "justifying" not payng a player that beat them. "He made bets that won and we owe, BUT they broke some rules on the bonus so thats our reason not to pay". I'm not going for it.
Pat, what kind of analogy is that witht he jay walking. Common I thought you had better sense than that. If you Jay walked, you get a ticket and move on.
You trying to steal from society, you get the stolen property taken back from you and you pay a fine or end up in jail. That's the more appropriate analogy in this case.
You trying to steal from society, you get the stolen property taken back from you and you pay a fine or end up in jail. That's the more appropriate analogy in this case.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patrick McIrish:
<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 truthteller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, combined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Halifax, I nominate this for the post of the month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You nominate your own post as post of the month? LOL.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just noticed that, and edited it.
Honestly, I have no idea how I posted that. Even I'm not cheesy enough to nominate myself.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by truthteller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, combined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Halifax, I nominate this for the post of the month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You nominate your own post as post of the month? LOL.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just noticed that, and edited it.
Honestly, I have no idea how I posted that. Even I'm not cheesy enough to nominate myself.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scoob:
Swami - I think they do have a rule of one account per IP. That is what they are basing their decision to not pay them on. They have clearly violated that rule.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never read that and but I think the player said that the book knew that there would be more than one person betting from that PC.
any thoughts on these:
If the players showed you real IDs for all the accounts would that be OK with you?
These guys probably exceeded the limits using multiple accounts but how do you prove it?
My only point is that CERTAIN players treat these books like the IRS (and everything else in their lives)...IF THERE IS NO STATED RULE AGAINST MY BEHAVIOR THEN IT MUST BE OK. The books must know this and have to guard against it.
At this point EWinner is at the point where it must make a BUSINESS DECISION, pay these guys or stiff and face the consequences (loss of reputation, loss of new business, account exodus, etc.). In some cases it may be worth it to stiff (not honorable but worth it financially). Of course, this assumes that everything is good on the other parts of their bsuiness.
Swami - I think they do have a rule of one account per IP. That is what they are basing their decision to not pay them on. They have clearly violated that rule.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never read that and but I think the player said that the book knew that there would be more than one person betting from that PC.
any thoughts on these:
If the players showed you real IDs for all the accounts would that be OK with you?
These guys probably exceeded the limits using multiple accounts but how do you prove it?
My only point is that CERTAIN players treat these books like the IRS (and everything else in their lives)...IF THERE IS NO STATED RULE AGAINST MY BEHAVIOR THEN IT MUST BE OK. The books must know this and have to guard against it.
At this point EWinner is at the point where it must make a BUSINESS DECISION, pay these guys or stiff and face the consequences (loss of reputation, loss of new business, account exodus, etc.). In some cases it may be worth it to stiff (not honorable but worth it financially). Of course, this assumes that everything is good on the other parts of their bsuiness.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by theswami:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, conmbined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I posted this in another thread...
Halifax-
If you don't use some level of OBJECTIVE measure to decide these issues then how do you protect the buddies who are roomates at State U. and bet similar games from the same PC?
[Edit] What if Ewinner noticed 2 months ago that the bets from mulitple accounts came from the same IP and was taking a shot at the player (waiting for them to lose)?
The proscammers are disgusting but the BOOKS MUST INSTITUTE RULES that protect their businesses from scumbags. The protections should include clear rules that can be reviewed by 3rd parties when problems arise. The problem here is that you have unscrupulous books AND players so they each try to fvck each other. The only way to decide things fairly is to use written rules and actual evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
swami:
I think I replied to this in another thread. Too many related threads, the old head's starting to spin.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, conmbined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I posted this in another thread...
Halifax-
If you don't use some level of OBJECTIVE measure to decide these issues then how do you protect the buddies who are roomates at State U. and bet similar games from the same PC?
[Edit] What if Ewinner noticed 2 months ago that the bets from mulitple accounts came from the same IP and was taking a shot at the player (waiting for them to lose)?
The proscammers are disgusting but the BOOKS MUST INSTITUTE RULES that protect their businesses from scumbags. The protections should include clear rules that can be reviewed by 3rd parties when problems arise. The problem here is that you have unscrupulous books AND players so they each try to fvck each other. The only way to decide things fairly is to use written rules and actual evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
swami:
I think I replied to this in another thread. Too many related threads, the old head's starting to spin.
Truth - it's a perfect analogy to me. They are both overreactions in my point of view. In the books case it is much more profitable for them to have this "rule" in place.
Bottom line is I do feel strongly on it and it's apparent others do as well. I will move on. I was a player first and will be a player last though. It sounds good if its not you but we are already at the mercy of these guys. The "take everything even old winning wagers" if I break a rule clause is one I will fight till the end.
Bottom line is I do feel strongly on it and it's apparent others do as well. I will move on. I was a player first and will be a player last though. It sounds good if its not you but we are already at the mercy of these guys. The "take everything even old winning wagers" if I break a rule clause is one I will fight till the end.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Halifax:
swami:
I think I replied to this in another thread. Too many related threads, the old head's starting to spin.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i saw it. nice job. ewinner probably got fvcked but they do not have the rules in place that can prevent it nor can they prove it. pay these people and move on.
i would never play at a place like ewinner. the books that pull this crap should think twice. i know of at least a half dozen squares who i led to the rx and they never play at books where there has even been a hint of a dispute.
swami:
I think I replied to this in another thread. Too many related threads, the old head's starting to spin.
i saw it. nice job. ewinner probably got fvcked but they do not have the rules in place that can prevent it nor can they prove it. pay these people and move on.
i would never play at a place like ewinner. the books that pull this crap should think twice. i know of at least a half dozen squares who i led to the rx and they never play at books where there has even been a hint of a dispute.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post! Oh, I that was me.
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post! Oh, I that was me.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post! Oh, I that was me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I nominate this for post of the month.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post! Oh, I that was me.
I nominate this for post of the month.
Patrick, does anyone have all the details of exactly what happened with this group of players and their accounts?
Is there any legitimacy to the original claim that this book is "$20K in the hole" and unable to meet current expenses? Just because the owner chose not to pay this this "group" DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean that they couldn't pay it if there were not other issues involved.
Is there any legitimacy to the original claim that this book is "$20K in the hole" and unable to meet current expenses? Just because the owner chose not to pay this this "group" DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean that they couldn't pay it if there were not other issues involved.
If the players showed you real IDs for all the accounts, the players did not break the rules.
When my brother was in UK, his room mates also use the same computer to place bets. Although they do have computer in school, but they can't use it to place bet. Do you want to take the risk if someone found out you are using the school computer to place bet??? Just like when you are using your wrok place computer to place bet, you are taking the risk to get fired, if your boss know about this. the price is the high.
When my brother was in UK, his room mates also use the same computer to place bets. Although they do have computer in school, but they can't use it to place bet. Do you want to take the risk if someone found out you are using the school computer to place bet??? Just like when you are using your wrok place computer to place bet, you are taking the risk to get fired, if your boss know about this. the price is the high.
So, after reviewing, they found the players(presuming there are different players), in violation of their IP rule.
Had all the bets placed in violation of the IP rule lost, would they have made them no plays, since they were illegal bets?
This is a free shot by E-Winner, and anyone posting up with them is putting their money at risk to people with no scruples about taking a free shot, regardless of all the other issues involved.
Had all the bets placed in violation of the IP rule lost, would they have made them no plays, since they were illegal bets?
This is a free shot by E-Winner, and anyone posting up with them is putting their money at risk to people with no scruples about taking a free shot, regardless of all the other issues involved.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Fishead, tommorrow I can have 12 accounts from different states going at Rio and Betpanama and they wont even realize it. So with your reasoning they should pack up and close up tommorrow. Correct?
If a book does not realize they are getting double-popped on a game they have no business bookmaking. THIS IS WHY BOOKIES HAVE LIMITS!! Sure it is going to happen by chance once in awhile, and you may let it slide as a bookie. But seeing it ONCE should indicate a red flag. WHY DO HONORABLE BOOKS NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!! HUH? HUH? HUH? If you cant answer this question correctly, I wish you well and the best of luck with your money offshore......YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Fishead, tommorrow I can have 12 accounts from different states going at Rio and Betpanama and they wont even realize it. So with your reasoning they should pack up and close up tommorrow. Correct?
Circumvent the betting limit and pick up extra bonuses. If I get caught, I will come here and post cause I know all you mods will back me up. You guys will say Rio and Betpanama take away his bonuses(fine by me) and charge him the fees for the money transfers(again fine by me). In the end I get down much more then I ever could at these books, and will be paid.
Actually I should add Gameday to the rotation also now. They love to cut my limits to nothing, might as well get a few quick pops in there also.
Actually I should add Gameday to the rotation also now. They love to cut my limits to nothing, might as well get a few quick pops in there also.
