Gentlemen I need your opinion in this matter regarding betbg

[wantitall4moi]

I know this is old news, and the facts are definately debateable as to what really happened here.


But I think this is a very valid question, and one thathas yet ot be answered..

If this player had a history (according to Bluegrass) of taking shots, and they had already caught him once past posting, and who knows how many time 'circumventing' their software with some CIA type code breaking. The WHY didn't they kick him out long ago?

I mean comeone. How manytimes do you have to catch someone to figure it out?
That makes me tend to believe the poster here. I know if most books caught a guy oce he would get a warning as an honest mistake. But to cite incident after incident? I don't buy it.

If they did allow him to bet after the fact, it their own fault. That makes it painfully obvious to me that they would let him take shots until he won.

Since the "evidence" here is less than steller, and a he said she said type of deal. That question I raise maes the logical conclusion for me.

Was the poster wrong. Of course, no one is denying that. I doubt even he would. Was the book wrong? Maybe maybe not depending on the facts.While there are no verifiable facts then you have to rely on reason and logic.

Logic dictates that a guy habitually trying to "cheat" them would be asked to leave long before this happened. Since he wasn't there are really only two logical solutions. Either he DID NOT cheat as accused. Or Blue Grass was willing to take his action with the intent of doing just what they did here. Cancel any winning wagers he made, while more than likely allowing any losing tickets the player had, and keeping his losses.

Obviously this is old news, and I doubt anything has happened in it. But two wrongs do not make a right, and that is assuming he did have a legitimate history of doing this. That to me has nt been proven one way or the other.

It just shows how shabbly run a lot of these places can be. it isn't a real business for most of them. It is a quick buck, and they rely on people losing to make their money. Not by practicing an actual business model. And any professeional business would not leave themselves open for this type of thing in the first place, especially one that is based on a set parameter of results for success.

 

[lander]

Want,
In other words, you fully support books getting scammed, paying out to scammers and then magically manifesting money that was all paid to scammers to pay legitimate players?

Be that as it may, I will always take comfort in knowing that a book is a no-nonsense properly run business.

 

[wantitall4moi]

I am not going to get into this argument


There are scammers out there. Books have 50 rules just to keep bonus whores from raping them. But this one cannot fix a software glitch that they claim has been used over and over again, by this player no less? Doesn't add up to me. Even if it did who would want to play at such a high risk place?

That is like depositing money in a bank with a GLASS vault. It is only a matter of time before someone robs them.

Either they could not afford to fix their software, which is not comforting. or they allowed it and knew what they would do when this problem arose, which isn't comforting.

I don't play there, and I probably never would, even before hearing all this. Maybe its the name. Bluegrass has a Deliverance sort of sound to it. And this whole episode actually give credence to that. Seems like the place is run by some inbred hill billies that aren't too bright, or just do not care.

This question might also be asked...Is the software fixed yet? If not then it is pretty apparent to me what type of wieght they put into the "safety and integrity" of the book.

 

[lander]

Want,
I think we're getting somewhere -- you really don't know much about the situtation. BG doesn't develop it's own software, so you should realize that bug fixes on code you don't write/own is not a simple process. If that's the basis for your stance, it's misinformed.

 

[wantitall4moi]

Maybe, But I remember when they first got the thumbs up a couple years ago, then within months there was a huge stink. Then some other complaints.

Then they came here and said they got beat up by some sharp guys or something. Can''t remember if that was software or just because they wereletting people bet anything they wanted.

Then Shrink and Major had their little tet a tet about advertising and then it was someone was owed something like 40K and it was a frigging circus.

So they have had more than their share of controversey.

But they have usually always paid from what I remember. But with all the stuff that has gone on, and all the history, sometimes things just catch up with you.

Just because they have always scraped in the past by desn't mean anything today. Canbet used to be a top notch book, but they suck now. Things change. Circumstances happen that cannot be helped.

There were multiple solutions to this whole thing. This seemed to be the worst.

No matter wo is at fault, a business has to be rn like a business.

If they got personal and put the screw you to the guy because he pissed them off , then it stops being business.

There are many problems with this incident, and each one magnifies the other. So in the end it just looks like a big cluster fu ck from all sides.

 

[TheGeneral+]

If they got personal and put the screw you to the guy because he pissed them off , then it stops being business.

Amen. Have seen this over and over. Bookies and players have a disagreement and then it gets personal like 2 little girls. Then they both try and play hardball and dirty. It is a very bad reflection moreso on the business than the player. One thing that MANY book reps could use help with.