With proper due respect this is a very hard story to follow. The Shrink said he knew of problems on Friday yet did not remove eWinner until Saturday after studbolt made his complaint known on the board that day. There are too many inconsistencies or holes in this story for a third party to know where the truth lies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
EWINNER Reply to Recent Incident
- Thread starter ewinner.com
- Start date
It's not a hard story at all. The RX was told by someone very close to the situation that EWinner was broke. It was said they had no way to pay out players if they did not get a cash infusion from one of the owners or somewhere else. It was also said you would probably see the book stall for time in this player dispute in hopes of getting some money. To top it off Shrink has asked repeatedly EWinner to give him a call, trying to find out the truth. He never called. I would guess it became obvious to Shrink someone was well aware of what is going on here and it has the potential to not be a good situation. He pulled them down and here we are with the book versus the players dispute.
I know there are always a lot of conspiracy stories out there but the book was pulled down over concerns for the players, that's all. Just like 911, Royal and others. Tough business, you try and look out for the players and there is deep suspicion. You sit back and act like you don't see anything then you are "holding on for every last quarter of advertising money". LOL. EWinner still had another month to go at the time Ken pulled them down, both parties have admitted that. The good news is it has been started through the generosity of others no one will lose any money regardless of what happens to EWinner. That's the best news of all.
I know there are always a lot of conspiracy stories out there but the book was pulled down over concerns for the players, that's all. Just like 911, Royal and others. Tough business, you try and look out for the players and there is deep suspicion. You sit back and act like you don't see anything then you are "holding on for every last quarter of advertising money". LOL. EWinner still had another month to go at the time Ken pulled them down, both parties have admitted that. The good news is it has been started through the generosity of others no one will lose any money regardless of what happens to EWinner. That's the best news of all.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cowboy Bill:
Patrick,
You say The RX was told by someone very close to the situation that EWinner was broke. On which day was the RX told? The speculation is a beard or money mover was caught by eWinner, is it possible the beard is the one who told the RX?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it was not a player at all. Players who get the boot start crap all the time, that would have been ignored or at least given less weight. All I can say is it is someone close to the situation. The info they provided was right on the money.
I don't know the exact timeline but would venture to say nothing was done immediately until some of the story from the source checked out. When it was and it became obvious there could be a problem for the players they were yanked. Especially since the book would not even pick up the phone. That's never a good sign. I'm still holding out for a happy ending here but the RX acted responsibly in the matter no matter how it comes out.
Patrick,
You say The RX was told by someone very close to the situation that EWinner was broke. On which day was the RX told? The speculation is a beard or money mover was caught by eWinner, is it possible the beard is the one who told the RX?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it was not a player at all. Players who get the boot start crap all the time, that would have been ignored or at least given less weight. All I can say is it is someone close to the situation. The info they provided was right on the money.
I don't know the exact timeline but would venture to say nothing was done immediately until some of the story from the source checked out. When it was and it became obvious there could be a problem for the players they were yanked. Especially since the book would not even pick up the phone. That's never a good sign. I'm still holding out for a happy ending here but the RX acted responsibly in the matter no matter how it comes out.
The argument that the book should pay because if the bettors had lost no money would be refunded doesn't fly with me. If you are taking a cheap shot and trying to scam me, you think when you are caught I should refund your winnings; NO WAY!
After the scammer was caught, you think he would refund the book his winnings?
Also, if refunding his winnings is the solution, then the industry his saying scam all you want, there wouldn't be any recourse after you are caught.
E-winner, to be sure it's the same person, you can check not only IP addresses but also operating system and type of browser. Did you do that?
After the scammer was caught, you think he would refund the book his winnings?
Also, if refunding his winnings is the solution, then the industry his saying scam all you want, there wouldn't be any recourse after you are caught.
E-winner, to be sure it's the same person, you can check not only IP addresses but also operating system and type of browser. Did you do that?
Truth - the internet is for opinions, we'll just disagree on this one. To me to take back bets this guy won is just too severe, it takes away any incentive for a book to ever police their business until someone wins. Let's face it when you are open to the public people will look to beat you, legally and illegally. It's not right but it's part of the game. What you are saying is anytime a books sees this their best bet is to sit back and wait. If the players lose then they say nothing. If they lost 5X's in a row, still quiet. Finally if they beat you they then suddenly use this as a reason to confiscate all money. It's not right. I mean if someone was hacking him or something extreme I could see it, but books are open to take bets! Hell these bets could have lost just as well as won. If you get beat as a book and see some funny stuff pay and show them the door. This will happen, we can't say keep all the winnings since you didn't catch it in tme. Hell they will never "catch" anything until a player wins if we say this.
I am reluctant to ever go along with this as it just invites books to take advantage. Why would a casino ever card anyone again? If underaged people come in just look the other way, more profitable that way. If they lose keep the money, if they ever win then ID him and tell him he is underage. Once we "okay" this then we have set a new precedent for books to "not look real hard" until someone wins. Where does it end? I am seeing 3 or 4 readers this week down here in Tampa. What if a couple asked to make bets on my computer while they are here? Six months down the road I can't get paid as my IP # came up on different accounts?
It's usually bad when you take away motivation for a book to look for fraud. Or if they find it to hold on and not do anything until it suits them. Talk about a free roll. On the outside our instinct is to throw stones at anyone immediately and call for the harshest of penalty but this is too extreme. To say he bets limits higher than the book wanted can not be a free pass to steal all the money down the road. Back out the bonuses, make him pay the fees and boot him. That's plenty. To okay welching on bets that rightfully won is going too far. His alleged "cheating" had nothing to do with him winning these bets. Honorable books take bets and they pay when you win. Just my 02 cents.
Make that 30 cents.
I am reluctant to ever go along with this as it just invites books to take advantage. Why would a casino ever card anyone again? If underaged people come in just look the other way, more profitable that way. If they lose keep the money, if they ever win then ID him and tell him he is underage. Once we "okay" this then we have set a new precedent for books to "not look real hard" until someone wins. Where does it end? I am seeing 3 or 4 readers this week down here in Tampa. What if a couple asked to make bets on my computer while they are here? Six months down the road I can't get paid as my IP # came up on different accounts?
It's usually bad when you take away motivation for a book to look for fraud. Or if they find it to hold on and not do anything until it suits them. Talk about a free roll. On the outside our instinct is to throw stones at anyone immediately and call for the harshest of penalty but this is too extreme. To say he bets limits higher than the book wanted can not be a free pass to steal all the money down the road. Back out the bonuses, make him pay the fees and boot him. That's plenty. To okay welching on bets that rightfully won is going too far. His alleged "cheating" had nothing to do with him winning these bets. Honorable books take bets and they pay when you win. Just my 02 cents.
Make that 30 cents.
my question is.. did this guy who came to the forum actually circumvent the limits and bet on the same games for the max on both accounts?
If they just both followed normal betting patterns then there is absolutely no case to no give them their money. If I remember right didn't he even say they explained the situation and got permission from ewinner to both be playing off the same computer?
If they just both followed normal betting patterns then there is absolutely no case to no give them their money. If I remember right didn't he even say they explained the situation and got permission from ewinner to both be playing off the same computer?
Truth so what you are saying is if a friend and I have an account at the same book and he wants $500 on the same game I do I can't bet it from our dorm room? Now we all know that part of the story is bullshit and this/these guys are more sophisticated then that. That is an old excuse these types use.
The reason I ask is I have a friend that does not have a computer. He has an account at Rio and 2 other places and I place a $100-$200 bet on all my cfb,wnba,and arena games for him on my computer. Granted my bets are called in most of the times because the net max is to low but there are times when I bet both on my computer. He also has a net account at pinnacle which I play for him. I don't feel I am doing anything wrong. Granted Dave at Rio and Henry at Pin both know him.
The reason I ask is I have a friend that does not have a computer. He has an account at Rio and 2 other places and I place a $100-$200 bet on all my cfb,wnba,and arena games for him on my computer. Granted my bets are called in most of the times because the net max is to low but there are times when I bet both on my computer. He also has a net account at pinnacle which I play for him. I don't feel I am doing anything wrong. Granted Dave at Rio and Henry at Pin both know him.
Offshore bookmaking is shady. When I read stories like this I often wonder why I even have accounts with places other than the biggest of all shops.
In this situation, even if the players took a shot, the book took the plays and the players should be paid...PERIOD. What you don't see in Ewinner's post are the plays that the player lost. The books take shots as well, when the players lose they keep the $$ and when they win they claim that they were scammed. Who says that they did not know all along that the limits were being exceeded and was just hoping/waiting until the player(s) lost. I do not know the situation here but Ewinner should, at a minimum, have some sort of method of verifying that all its accounts come from different IPs and in the cases where the IPs are the same they know EXACTLY why.
Ewinner, you are paying for your lesson in how it is possible for a player to exceed your limits.
If the accounts are from the same player then deduct all bonuses and fees from his balance, pay the rest and boot his ass. Then help out your fellow bookmakers by providing his name and IPs to them to ensure that they do not get scammed as well. If the business wasn't filled with so many scumbags and criminals it could operate like a well oiled machine.
In this situation, even if the players took a shot, the book took the plays and the players should be paid...PERIOD. What you don't see in Ewinner's post are the plays that the player lost. The books take shots as well, when the players lose they keep the $$ and when they win they claim that they were scammed. Who says that they did not know all along that the limits were being exceeded and was just hoping/waiting until the player(s) lost. I do not know the situation here but Ewinner should, at a minimum, have some sort of method of verifying that all its accounts come from different IPs and in the cases where the IPs are the same they know EXACTLY why.
Ewinner, you are paying for your lesson in how it is possible for a player to exceed your limits.
If the accounts are from the same player then deduct all bonuses and fees from his balance, pay the rest and boot his ass. Then help out your fellow bookmakers by providing his name and IPs to them to ensure that they do not get scammed as well. If the business wasn't filled with so many scumbags and criminals it could operate like a well oiled machine.
Couple of facts being overlooked in my and my friends case.
I spoke to Corby and was told very specifically that he welcomed my action. i specifically asked him about like wagers being placed and he said it was ok. He said it was ok for my brother, who also has an account ther, and me to place like wagers. Because it was also specifically authorized for my friend to use my computer, to open the account, I inferred it was ok for my friend to use my computer to places wagers as well. We may have and problably did make light mention of it when we received permission to open the account, though I can't swear to it.
Point being I assumed it was perfectly ok to place wagers for both accounts through the same computer.
Point 2: A simple - Hello, warning - don't allow your friend to place wagers from your computer would have ended the problem.
Instead I received - Hello - your account has been closed and wagers delted. Tough sh*t.
I spoke to Corby and was told very specifically that he welcomed my action. i specifically asked him about like wagers being placed and he said it was ok. He said it was ok for my brother, who also has an account ther, and me to place like wagers. Because it was also specifically authorized for my friend to use my computer, to open the account, I inferred it was ok for my friend to use my computer to places wagers as well. We may have and problably did make light mention of it when we received permission to open the account, though I can't swear to it.
Point being I assumed it was perfectly ok to place wagers for both accounts through the same computer.
Point 2: A simple - Hello, warning - don't allow your friend to place wagers from your computer would have ended the problem.
Instead I received - Hello - your account has been closed and wagers delted. Tough sh*t.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scoob:
I was paid by ewinner today via neteller with no delay. Seems to me that legitimate gamblers aren't having any problem getting paid there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ditto...
They put the money in my NETeller acct early this morning. I just haven't seen any sign of slow pay by them yet.. Maybe Ewinner's only issue here is really those boys who had fake accts to circumvent limits.
I was paid by ewinner today via neteller with no delay. Seems to me that legitimate gamblers aren't having any problem getting paid there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ditto...
They put the money in my NETeller acct early this morning. I just haven't seen any sign of slow pay by them yet.. Maybe Ewinner's only issue here is really those boys who had fake accts to circumvent limits.
sounds like another book doing anything in their power to stiff winners. if he would have lost the money he deposited ewinner sure as heck would not have sent his money back, of course they wait and he wins and now it is a problem. if u r suspicious of people betting from the same ip address then suspend peoples account who do this right away and ask them for clarification. when u wait till they win and then u say it is a problem u r taking a free shot at the player. not that i would put any money in a shit book like this anyway but i have a lot of friends who gamble on line, and i will make sure ewinner don't get their buisiness either, it is the only way to get rid of bs books like this.
"sounds like another book doing anything in their power to stiff winners"
Sorry but that is total bs. I have done nothing but win since I have played at ewinner and have never had a problem getting paid. Ive been playing there for almost 2 months and have made several sizeable withdrawls.
Sorry but that is total bs. I have done nothing but win since I have played at ewinner and have never had a problem getting paid. Ive been playing there for almost 2 months and have made several sizeable withdrawls.
Spoke to Corby again today. I presented several alternatives to closing my and my friends account. I presented every reasonable resolution that I could thinnk of, including mediation. All I get in response is that Corby insists that he understands my frustration and empathizes with me, but the decison is out of his hands, and the owners have decided. Meanwhile I don't know who the owners are or how to contact them or him or her or it. Corby says they maintain annonimity, and he won't disclose their identity.
They want us to trust them with our money and at times require our identification, but when it comes to trying to resolve this, I can't even make my case.
For all I know, though I think it unlikely, it was Corby who stole my money and the owners don't even know about. How about let's play "Good cop, Bad cop" Corby's obviously the good cop, the owners the bad guys.
They want us to trust them with our money and at times require our identification, but when it comes to trying to resolve this, I can't even make my case.
For all I know, though I think it unlikely, it was Corby who stole my money and the owners don't even know about. How about let's play "Good cop, Bad cop" Corby's obviously the good cop, the owners the bad guys.
EWinner's IP argument is reasonably strong. The IP addresses in the three groups correspond to Oklahoma, Texas and Canada. Within each group, there is reason to suspect duplication, HOWEVER, Ewinner has NOT made the case that the three groups of accounts have anything to do with each other.
Now, Ewinner mentioned something about NYC and RhodeIsland. Clearly, none of these accounts are from those locations.
A reasonable conclusion is that there are 3 different pairs of people exceeding wager limits.
Now, since EWinner would have kept any losses, they should pay any winnings. As for bonuses, each pair of duplicate accounts should be considered as one account for bonus purposes.
The players can be kicked out or have their limits reduced to something very low.
Now, as strong as the IP address argument is, they do really need more details like login times, etc. When I consulted for Casablanca, we frequently used IP addresses, login times, wagers, amounts, false addresses, and even browser information to make these types of determinations. I think in one case, phone records from the 800 number were examined against call times.
The point is, there are ways for EWinner to identify the players in cahoots (though not all that detail has been presented here). Also, there should be some standard remedy: loss of bonuses and future wagering privileges.
Confiscation of winning is not really proper. There is no way to know if EWinner was already aware of the duplication but hoped the players would hit a losing streak (or if the players had just recently come out of a losing streak).
EWinner needs to be more careful about players with high limits and checking betting patterns BEFORE it becomes an issue.
Now, Ewinner mentioned something about NYC and RhodeIsland. Clearly, none of these accounts are from those locations.
A reasonable conclusion is that there are 3 different pairs of people exceeding wager limits.
Now, since EWinner would have kept any losses, they should pay any winnings. As for bonuses, each pair of duplicate accounts should be considered as one account for bonus purposes.
The players can be kicked out or have their limits reduced to something very low.
Now, as strong as the IP address argument is, they do really need more details like login times, etc. When I consulted for Casablanca, we frequently used IP addresses, login times, wagers, amounts, false addresses, and even browser information to make these types of determinations. I think in one case, phone records from the 800 number were examined against call times.
The point is, there are ways for EWinner to identify the players in cahoots (though not all that detail has been presented here). Also, there should be some standard remedy: loss of bonuses and future wagering privileges.
Confiscation of winning is not really proper. There is no way to know if EWinner was already aware of the duplication but hoped the players would hit a losing streak (or if the players had just recently come out of a losing streak).
EWinner needs to be more careful about players with high limits and checking betting patterns BEFORE it becomes an issue.
