linesmaker

[LinesMaker]

Let's make a few things clear.


1. We would NEVER void an account for a chargeback that was for over-billing or any other legitimate reason. Charging back is not the right way to deal with it (you should contact customer support) but it is hardly criminal either.

2. When this player later claimed his charge back was for over billing he was asked to fax his credit card statement showing the charge in question as the processor had no indication of this.

3. Whenvever there is a chargeback all accounts associated with that CC are inactivated system wide and email is sent to the player letting him know he cannot play again until it is cleared up. The player got this email and knew going in his business was not welcome until he returned the funds.

4. The player had a pre-existing account that had already been deactivated. In fairness, this account was closed for unrelated reasons but the fact is it was closed. Had he called to reactivate his account the chargeback situation would have been caught then.

5. Had the player not created a new account this situation would never have happened.

6. This policy is not new and it is not a secret. Scammers and fraud accounts are closed and deposits returned.

7. There is no point in keeping funds even players are down as they are likely to charge back anyways. We have closed many accounts under these rules and you will find nobody to contradict this.

8. No sportsbook on the planet will knownly accept credit card post-up business from any customer who has a history of charging back on gambling losses.

9. Most importantly, when this player was unable to produce a credit card statement he emailed me and ADMITTED the over billing story was untrue and that he had made a poor decision in charging back. We chatted, reached an agreement and the matter is RESOLVED.

 

[LinesMaker]

Just another point respecting charge backs. I know most of you do not use credit cards and many less charge back when you lose but most people don't realize what problem this is the industry.

Three or four years ago they used to trickle in but now it's absurd. People who charge back on gambling losses are not a whole lot better than pedophiles in my book. New accounts are screened and our policies are in place for good reason, to protect our business from shot takers and protect the other 99% of players who are legit.

Bottom line, if you like to charge back when you lose, your business will be refused.

 

[marc]

So at the end of the day, the players claims that the chargeback was for overbilling was a complete lie. In that case the player doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Mike,

I'm curious, when he previously played with you and sports.com, did he ever place parlay bets of $900 to win 18k.

 

[Halifax]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LINESMAKER:
Just another point respecting charge backs. I know most of you do not use credit cards and many less charge back when you lose but most people don't realize what problem this is the industry.

Three or four years ago they used to trickle in but now it's absurd. People who charge back on gambling losses are not a whole lot better than pedophiles in my book. New accounts are screened and our policies are in place for good reason, to protect our business from shot takers and protect the other 99% of players who are legit.

Bottom line, if you like to charge back when you lose, your business will be refused. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes sense ... if the guy charged back without just cause, he doesn't deserve to be paid.

Bizarre, though, that he would do a chargeback for only $135, unless he thought it was justified..

 

[BillDozer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 7. There is no point in keeping funds even players are down as they are likely to charge back anyways. We have closed many accounts under these rules and you will find nobody to contradict this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless they win much more than they can chargeback like in this case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 9. Most importantly, when this player was unable to produce a credit card statement he emailed me and ADMITTED the over billing story was untrue and that he had made a poor decision in charging back. We chatted, reached an agreement and the matter is RESOLVED. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bought words.

My email box is too full to be helping serial chargebackers. My previous post explains the problem with this. I won't bother to repeat.

People who use EFS also know they are practically encouraged to chargeback if it means the clerk can put the issue away. Whatever happened at book B is/was a dispute. That is why we call them disputes.

Mike,
You made your decision well before I inquired on the issue. You have the benefit of using claims from a sewer of sportsbooks as if the dispute took place with you.

I'm sure all small players will get paid. The next big winner without a losing history may not.

Players need to be aware of this procedure. My email box is full of slow-pays due to account audits only AFTER payout requests are made. It doesn't stop them from losing for months before the request.

I don't see when this process is acceptable or ethical. This case illustrates the problems with it.

I never said this player was spotless but the facts are displayed and players can decide what this means to them.

 

[marc]

Mike,

There is one thing I've always been curious about. Suppose the player had lost and charged back the $900. Would that $900 come out of your pocket or would EFS's had taken the hit.

 

[BillDozer]

EFS is World Gaming which is SBT. They all get a %.

 

[Halifax]

It's interesting how EFS can say all of their umbrella books operate "as one" when it's in their favour, but can also say that they are "separate and independent entities" when it suits their purpose.

Here is what I mean by this:

1. If one of the customers makes an unjust chargeback on their credit card, that customer is automatically blackballed at all the EFS sites (I don't necessarily have a problem with this).

2. On the other hand, if a customer has accounts at 5 or 6 EFS books, and makes a withdrawal request from one of them, he may get "audited". This audit process entails faxing EFS several documents such as ID / Credit Card Statements / and Bank Statements (I don't necessarily have a problem with this, either).

But if the customer requests a withdrawal from a 2nd EFS book, even if it's only 1 or 2 days after completion of the audit process for the withdrawal from the 1st EFS book, there is a very good chance that EFS will request an audit on the withdrawal from the 2nd book. So even though you just faxed EFS all the documents a few days / weeks ago, they now want you to send these same identical documents all over again.

This I have a big problem with. EFS already have the requested documents on file, yet they make you fax them again, resulting in a lengthy delay in payment, and a lot of pissed off clients.

 

[marc]

Here is the problem I have with the way it was handled.EFs flagged the guys account for two reasons. One he had a preexsisting account, and two because of a previous chargeback. Now if you closed your account, and then later decide to reopen it, as long as you don't take/reuquest any special inital deposit bonuses, than it really shouldn't matter much. If you do request a signup bonus, that would be a much more serious offense. Then theire is the serious offense of the chargeback, and lastly we have a player with18k in winnings. At any decent book, because of the amount involved, the player would speak directly to the GM, and resolve what ever issue they have. Hear EFS tells the player send us the $135, we'll make you a player in good standing again, and then you can have your 18k. So the player sends the $135 and then told that he still can't have his money. $18,000 is a lot of money. IF the decision to pay is up to MIke, than no one from EFS should have spoken to the player without first consulting Mike. So from the outset EFs did not handle this well. Now the other part that doens't make sense to me is that the only reason Mike thinks the guy is a scammer is beccause EFS told him he did a chargeback. But if the player resolves that issue to EFS's satisfaction, why the need then to prove his innocence to Linesmaker. IF after reviewing the situation, if EFS concludes that the player isn't a cheat, and he is/was a good cusotmer, that should be enough. Afterall it was EFS who flagged the customer to begin with. And if EFS did feel he was a scammer, how does returning $135 to collect an 18k payout, suddenly make him a customer in good standing. Unless of course his story is true in which case he should get paid in full.

Regardless of the outcome, it does not feel like this was handled properly. And if this guy is an honest player, I'd imagin there are a lot of books that would love a player who bets $900 on a 20 - 1 parlay

 

[Buzzsaw]

Maybe this was covered earlier but how much was the players deposit for? I mean, did he deposit $900 and bet it all on a 20 - 1 parlay?

The bottomline is these efs books need to re evaluate these lopsided policies and make changes.

Still, if Joe Player deposited $900 w/ CC and bet it all on a 20-1 parlay hmmm...

Books have to do a better job with the rules. this is like the Royal case where they did the exact same thing. Books can't allow a player to make the bet if they have no intentions of paying if the player wins.

 

[marc]

Buzzsaw,

I think the fact that he bet $900 on a 20 - 1 parlay definitely makes you wonder what would have happened had he lost. Thats why I asked earlier, if he had ever made such wagers before. Had it been a 20 - 1 straight bet, I would have just assumed he was a scalper. DOn't usually hear about people betting $900 on a 20 - 1 parlay.

If EFs were smart, they would update thier software to prevent customers whom they've blacklisted from being able to sign up. But it seems like the general attitude among all post up shops is that since they're the ones holding the money, they don't have to be in any rush to check out thier customers.

 

[miked429]

marc im with you who the hell bets a 900.00 parlay at 20-1.also who would make such a wager at a book where he closed his acct personally only to reopen later and make a 900.00 deposit w/o checking to see if could get screwed for already having an acct. at linesmaker.something does add up with the player imo.

 

[marc]

Miked,

If Bill Dozer is correct, than what we have here is a true gambler who just has no idea where to find a reputable so he keeps going back to sportingbet sites because its a publicly traded company.

Soeither he's the worst kind of cusotmer because he's a chargebacker, or he's the best cusotmer because he keeps playing at the same place, and be bets huge on these "suicide" parlays (as dell dude would say)