Gentlemen I need your opinion in this matter regarding betbg

[PatrickMcIrish]

I'm currently in Costa Rica and visited bluegrass premises earlier today. What I find rather surprising is that the player failed to report that he had circumvented the limits on another bet. Even though the bet was graded as loss Bluegrass deleted it, saving the player approximately 4 dimes.

Now that would surely change things. So on another bet this player went over the maximums allowed, then after the game was over BG graded it a loss yet still returned all his money saying he bet too much? If so then I can see a case made for not paying this wager either even if he won, as General says they have set a precedent. As long as they have acted consistantly then I can't see how MB can complain. The way this thread read was he had actually went over the limits in the past and the action was always accepted, when he lost his bets were accepted without getting his money back. If he had actually done this before and had his money returned after the wagers were graded then that's a whole new ballgame.

I wonder why BG didn't mention this when they posted to it? First thing out of my mouth would have been we've returned his money in the past when he exceeded the maximums, even after the games was graded and we found he had a bet a loser we sent him back 4 dimes, no way are we paying winning bets either. That would have sealed the deal in my opinion for BlueGrass. Sorry MB but if they have refunded your money after games were graded losers why should they recognize your over the limit action when it wins? As Krack says both players and books make it tough on everyone when they operate outside the spirit of the rules. If you know you aren't suppossed to bet 10k on a game don't do it, all your doing is setting yourself up for something like this. I'm sure TOW will post proof of this if he says he has it.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

The only thing I can think of as voided bets (except the winning wagers we are discussing) are the bets that they say were placed after the beginning of the game.
If they mean these bets thats a totally different story as they were immediately cancelled long before the match ended (and on a sidenote: when they still looked like winners).
They were not cancelled because the were multiple but because the game had started.
The book had every right to do that, but claiming to be the good guys because of this is nonsense.
Also: these bets were placed after the bets in discussion so its not like a cancelation first and then me circumventing the limits again after.

Yeah, canceling past post wagers of yours before the game was even completed would have no bearing on this. I'm sure Roberto wasn't referring to that. Do you recall getting credited back some money after a game was graded a loss because you bet over the limit? I'm just curious now why that wasn't brought up before now. If they have done this in the past you don't have a leg to stand on IMO.

 

[majbrit]

I wonder why BG didn't mention this when they posted to it? First thing out of my mouth would have been we've returned his money in the past when he exceeded the maximums, even after the games was graded and we found he had a bet a loser we sent him back 4 dimes, no way are we paying winning bets either. That would have sealed the deal in my opinion for BlueGrass.

Of course they would have said that.
There never were any voided losing bets after the game was graded.

 

[majbrit]

Do you recall getting credited back some money after a game was graded a loss because you bet over the limit?

No! And neither did I ever receive any mail stating so.

 

[acw]

I can only say one thing: If their software allows one to bet over the limit, then the book is anyhow in the wrong!

 

[TOW]

McIrish - I have already sent BG an email to provide digital support to be posted.

ACW - NO Sir, the software doesn't allow it. A bug did. Meaning that you cannot place multiple bets unless you use a workaround . Let me give you an example :

Suppose you go to an ATM and withdraw money up to your daily limit. While doing your operation you find out that by punching in a sequence of number the ATM does NOT register your transaction and allows you to withdraw again and again and again and again....so, instead of reporting your findings to the Bank, with which you've had a normal and more than satisfactory relationship for some time, you start withdrawing money exploiting the bug you've found.

There is something called bona fide. I see little if none in this case.

 

[majbrit]

McIrish - I have already sent BG an email to provide digital support to be posted.

ACW - NO Sir, the software doesn't allow it. A bug did. Meaning that you cannot place multiple bets unless you use a workaround . Let me give you an example :

Suppose you go to an ATM and withdraw money up to your daily limit. While doing your operation you find out that by punching in a sequence of number the ATM does NOT register your transaction and allows you to withdraw again and again and again and again....so, instead of reporting your findings to the Bank, with which you've had a normal and more than satisfactory relationship for some time, you start withdrawing money exploiting the bug you've found.

There is something called bona fide. I see little if none in this case.

Oh boy oh boy.
I really thought better of you than this.
In your example there is no risk involved on the side of the player. In the real case there was no risk involved on the side of the bookie.
To pause at your example for a moment a better comparison would be that the bank deducted the withdrawn money from the account without accepting to send them to you.
Man: And I thought highly of you up till now.

 

[JudgeWapner]

MB,I hate to say it,but this is a good example why some books won't take action from your part of the globe. Anyway I do hope it works out to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[majbrit]

Tow: I feel real awkvard about having to discuss this with you.

While I try to negotiate in a friendly manner with the book you mess things up with your stupid posts.

Also: While I personally happily invite the book to post confirmation that they did in fact cancel losing wagers I dont see how YOU can do this.

What right have YOU to post my data?
What right have YOU to look into my account.
What right have you to spread lies about me?

 

[majbrit]

McIrish - I have already sent BG an email to provide digital support to be posted.

ACW - NO Sir, the software doesn't allow it. A bug did. Meaning that you cannot place multiple bets unless you use a workaround . Let me give you an example :

Suppose you go to an ATM and withdraw money up to your daily limit. While doing your operation you find out that by punching in a sequence of number the ATM does NOT register your transaction and allows you to withdraw again and again and again and again....so, instead of reporting your findings to the Bank, with which you've had a normal and more than satisfactory relationship for some time, you start withdrawing money exploiting the bug you've found.

There is something called bona fide. I see little if none in this case.

Suddenly I am beginning to get an idea what you might be aiming at: Some of the bets may have been placed below each other to be confirmed in one process. You think this is the workaround?
Think again.
As posted and confirmed above the software allowed multiple bets this way and one by one. Didnt make any difference.
Other than that it doesnt change a thing in the basics of the case:
I came back hours later to bet again only to find the system still accepting the bets already put in as well as new ones.
If you are right in anything it is that the bookie was in their right to cancel the bets before the game.
Of course they were not in their right to await the result taking no risk.

 

[IDENTITY]

why is bet bg showing this guy's PERSONAL, CONFIDENTIAL information to third parties like TOW? bad, bad move.

 

[TheGeneral+]

majbrit, for Bluegrass to give your info to a 3rd party without your consent is wrong. They should pay your bets for that mistake alone. In a regulated industry, a lawyer would be interested in this.

The fact remains it is poppycock for anyone to try and tell us that a person at Bluegrass was not aware of the amount of wager in question before the end of the match. The bet was allowed to stand throughout the duration of the event and only then the decision was made not to honor the wagers. Post all the tickets in history of man, but there was someone in that office who knew what was riding and made a decision to not cancel until the match was over, nor notify you of a cancellation. The bet was accepted, reviewed, likely examined during game, and then cancelled after the event was over and the player had 9.5k in winnings.

Has bluegrass even mentioned a compromise or admitted any wrongdoing in this matter?

 

[IDENTITY]

general - you are 100% correct. betbg better pay this one...there should be NO compromise. it is majbrit's money. why should he give any up?

 

[lander]

Let me get this straight -- brit circumvents the rules and invites BG to post his history of plays, in the meanwhile instead of posting them to the entire world TOW is independently verifying the plays and you guys go all girly now?

Brit said the plays could be posted.
This means the entire world could have seen them.
Instead, one person saw them and confirmed them.
Now everyone is crying "invasion of privacy"

I was not a math major, but I'm pretty sure that 1 person is less than the 1,000s that visit this site.

If anything TOWs efforts put and end the "little victim" tale, while simultaneously protecting brit's privacy thousands of times over.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[krackman]

Nothing personal

If the books pay you guys more power to you.

You guys know what you did and I just wouldn't come crying here if I was caught with my hand was stuck in the cookie jar.

 

[lakerfan]

MB,I hate to say it,but this is a good example why some books won't take action from your part of the globe. Anyway I do hope it works out to everyone's satisfaction.

Agree, based on what BG is claiming now, I am surprised they didnt' toss him before this. Since they didn't this becomes more questionable. I would certainly would toss him now.

 

[majbrit]

Havent heard back from them.

And on a sidenote: Havent seen them post the losing bets they claimed to have cancelled and that never existed.

 

[majbrit]

Open offer for Bluegrass

As I see it this is a case with only losers up to now.
At the same time we are in a peculiar situation with the bet not winning (you say) because it was over the limit. And the bet winning (I say) because you actually accepted it and waited till the game was played.
I admit to have been a bit stupid by wagering this much but I certainly also see large errors made by you.
This is my suggestion for a settlement fair to both parties:
You give me the 9,5K$ as a Bonus Play.
This kind of allows us to make the bets (other bets of course) all over again in a way acceptable to both of us.
What do you think?

 

[majbrit]

Betbg:
Will you accept a 9,5K Bonus Play as a deal thats fair to both parties in this absurd and sad situation?

 

[lander]

I think you should accept 0K -- that's what scammers deserve.