Not that it matters but i'm German/Aryan heritage. i mean that in a scientific manner not a racist. So i will take my camel back to germany
i responded to ttincos on MW as well but i'll paste it here
Let's go over ttinco's post since he obviously has not been following the story since day 1
rule #1....If you want to get paid, never be rude or abusive with the staff.
I was vey polite on the phone but they told me i had no chance of getting paid and would not discuss it. They had told me dave made the decision(they lied) and he would not speak with me about it then they emailed me under daves name and said it would not be looked into.
Rule #2....Inform site mods or owners of your dispute, and let them see what answer they get from the book. Ideally, find a forum where the particular book advertises. Until they get an anwer from the book, keep your mouth shut.
Right, that worked with the Taylor Dent NOT to WIN @ 5dimes. Nothing came of it.
Rule #3....If you take your complaint to the forums, you probably lose 50% of whatever chance you had of getting paid.
I had 0% chance of getting paid before. So 50% of 0 is still 0. Do the math, it was the smart thing to do
Rule #4....If you go to the forums, and you lie about the details. You're done. People WILL find out the truth.
This is true but there have been no details lied about. All the truth has and will be stated. You must be more specific
Rule #5....If you go to the forums and relentless bash the book, you're done.
You're done what?
Did it ever occur to you that you were made an example of due to your conduct in the forums....even after being told that Dave would be back on Tuesday? You undeniably LIED about the other lines available. You ranted on & on before Dave was able to respond. Books will NOT give in to you once you have pulled shit like this
Again this is more ignorance? Why? Let me explain
They may make an example of anyone they like but they had already made an example of me by refusing to pay. They did NOT say dave would be back on tuesday (Is it tueday already? Ha it's sunday) and they originally told me that dave was in and already made his decision. After they said that they had lied and dave did not say the things he said but someone else did using his name i toned things down CONSIDERABLY until dave made a response. Others lit the fire but i just responded to questions posted.
there was no lie about other lines available. It was clearly posted that this price was available at +650. Sure it was a treble parlay but that just shows that the line was available. Noone has a log of betbrains information but this was not the highest line. I have stated that and will continue to state that. My guess was that WH and VC had a higher line because usually they had shit lines. This was merely a guess when asked. But the +650 line is plenty good even if it is a parlay line because if i would've saw that line iw ould've just parlayed Serena and Agassi Moneyline intot hat sucker and got a risky scalp. So with that said +650 is a sweet line. Give me that again and i'll load any book on max bet.
I ranted on and on before dave was able to respond?
this was NOT the case. Dave claimed to respond but then his management came back later saying they responded under dave's name. is it my job to knows that is not really dave?
Please
Your have no argument.
In the end the biggest fact posted was management saw this and did nothing about it. I've had 5dimes cancel a line 5 minutes before a match. No call or email from cbs. they waited till the match was over to see what to do.
i responded to ttincos on MW as well but i'll paste it here
Let's go over ttinco's post since he obviously has not been following the story since day 1
rule #1....If you want to get paid, never be rude or abusive with the staff.
I was vey polite on the phone but they told me i had no chance of getting paid and would not discuss it. They had told me dave made the decision(they lied) and he would not speak with me about it then they emailed me under daves name and said it would not be looked into.
Rule #2....Inform site mods or owners of your dispute, and let them see what answer they get from the book. Ideally, find a forum where the particular book advertises. Until they get an anwer from the book, keep your mouth shut.
Right, that worked with the Taylor Dent NOT to WIN @ 5dimes. Nothing came of it.
Rule #3....If you take your complaint to the forums, you probably lose 50% of whatever chance you had of getting paid.
I had 0% chance of getting paid before. So 50% of 0 is still 0. Do the math, it was the smart thing to do
Rule #4....If you go to the forums, and you lie about the details. You're done. People WILL find out the truth.
This is true but there have been no details lied about. All the truth has and will be stated. You must be more specific
Rule #5....If you go to the forums and relentless bash the book, you're done.
You're done what?
Did it ever occur to you that you were made an example of due to your conduct in the forums....even after being told that Dave would be back on Tuesday? You undeniably LIED about the other lines available. You ranted on & on before Dave was able to respond. Books will NOT give in to you once you have pulled shit like this
Again this is more ignorance? Why? Let me explain
They may make an example of anyone they like but they had already made an example of me by refusing to pay. They did NOT say dave would be back on tuesday (Is it tueday already? Ha it's sunday) and they originally told me that dave was in and already made his decision. After they said that they had lied and dave did not say the things he said but someone else did using his name i toned things down CONSIDERABLY until dave made a response. Others lit the fire but i just responded to questions posted.
there was no lie about other lines available. It was clearly posted that this price was available at +650. Sure it was a treble parlay but that just shows that the line was available. Noone has a log of betbrains information but this was not the highest line. I have stated that and will continue to state that. My guess was that WH and VC had a higher line because usually they had shit lines. This was merely a guess when asked. But the +650 line is plenty good even if it is a parlay line because if i would've saw that line iw ould've just parlayed Serena and Agassi Moneyline intot hat sucker and got a risky scalp. So with that said +650 is a sweet line. Give me that again and i'll load any book on max bet.
I ranted on and on before dave was able to respond?
this was NOT the case. Dave claimed to respond but then his management came back later saying they responded under dave's name. is it my job to knows that is not really dave?
Please
Your have no argument.
In the end the biggest fact posted was management saw this and did nothing about it. I've had 5dimes cancel a line 5 minutes before a match. No call or email from cbs. they waited till the match was over to see what to do.
Dave wrote some very interesting stuff. But it has no relevance to the case at hand. His Place took a bet from a player, and didn't notify him until 8 hours after the event completion that he was voiding or lowering the bets, after they won. Those are the only facts that matter, everything else is camoflogue(sp?).
Did Areef use a spider program, and is he a line shopper who only bets weak lines? Irrelevant!!!
The only way I would side with CBS is if they can prove that Areef and his in state friend are the same person, who made identical bets every time, solely to circuvent bet limits, ala that iwinoridie scammer and SIA. Since that does not seem to be alleged, CBS has no case, and anything other than FULL payment to Areef and the other person, like is being made to the other 7 people, is thievery on the part of Casa Blanca. Dave's explanation reeks of that idiot for Scam Book Black Rhino, who came on here and tried to get sympathy, by alleging that the player was a Shopper!!! Not putting Dave's book in Black Rhino's class, but this act is a Black Rhino like act unless it's made right.
s
Did Areef use a spider program, and is he a line shopper who only bets weak lines? Irrelevant!!!
The only way I would side with CBS is if they can prove that Areef and his in state friend are the same person, who made identical bets every time, solely to circuvent bet limits, ala that iwinoridie scammer and SIA. Since that does not seem to be alleged, CBS has no case, and anything other than FULL payment to Areef and the other person, like is being made to the other 7 people, is thievery on the part of Casa Blanca. Dave's explanation reeks of that idiot for Scam Book Black Rhino, who came on here and tried to get sympathy, by alleging that the player was a Shopper!!! Not putting Dave's book in Black Rhino's class, but this act is a Black Rhino like act unless it's made right.
s
This is from Dave's response:
"We took many bets on the Matchup throughout the evening and right up until it went off the board. The line manager did not realize the mistake until three bets came in minutes apart on Nadal for the maximum limit(total of $3000).
The Matchup was immediately closed and we started to investigate the situation."
I am firmly on neutral ground right now, but I have some questions:
If CBS took "many bets on the matchup", does that mean that they took 2-way action? Or was all the action one-sided? If all of the action was one-sided (on the dog), why didn't the line manager "investigate" before the 3 dime bets came in? If the action was 2-way, wouldn't that indicate that the line was not that "bad" , at least for Casablanca customers?
CBS says they were at +400 prior to intending to change the line to +350. Again, this is a neutral question: For those who are arguing that this was an obvious bad line, what would be the cutoff point that would have made it a good line? In other words, if , for instance, the line was +400, at what point would a "human error" cause the line to be bad? +450? +500? +550? If CBS had 2-way action when the dog was +605, would that negate the "bad line" argument?
"We took many bets on the Matchup throughout the evening and right up until it went off the board. The line manager did not realize the mistake until three bets came in minutes apart on Nadal for the maximum limit(total of $3000).
The Matchup was immediately closed and we started to investigate the situation."
I am firmly on neutral ground right now, but I have some questions:
If CBS took "many bets on the matchup", does that mean that they took 2-way action? Or was all the action one-sided? If all of the action was one-sided (on the dog), why didn't the line manager "investigate" before the 3 dime bets came in? If the action was 2-way, wouldn't that indicate that the line was not that "bad" , at least for Casablanca customers?
CBS says they were at +400 prior to intending to change the line to +350. Again, this is a neutral question: For those who are arguing that this was an obvious bad line, what would be the cutoff point that would have made it a good line? In other words, if , for instance, the line was +400, at what point would a "human error" cause the line to be bad? +450? +500? +550? If CBS had 2-way action when the dog was +605, would that negate the "bad line" argument?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey C:
The guy bet this event at CB because they had a substantially bad line. That's called taking a shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's already been proven that this was far from a "substantially" bad line, and Dave has admitted he had a linesmaker there that could have moved this line at any time.
The only party "taking a shot" was Casablanca. Taking a shot is letting all the plays stand on this line until well after the results are in.
This whole thing smells, and the stink will stay attached to Casablanca for a long, long time.
The guy bet this event at CB because they had a substantially bad line. That's called taking a shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's already been proven that this was far from a "substantially" bad line, and Dave has admitted he had a linesmaker there that could have moved this line at any time.
The only party "taking a shot" was Casablanca. Taking a shot is letting all the plays stand on this line until well after the results are in.
This whole thing smells, and the stink will stay attached to Casablanca for a long, long time.
Areeff-
1) There is no such person as Dave Johnson. This is merely the frequent alias used by the owner. So, theoretically, anyone could answer a phone call or email as Dave Johnson.
2) Do you think that management staff poses as the owner without his knowledge, permission or approval? (He may have been out of the office and relayed instructions by phone, but you can be sure he was in the loop.)
3) Who is going to risk getting fired posing as the boss on a decision this big? Sounds like unplausible deniability.
1) There is no such person as Dave Johnson. This is merely the frequent alias used by the owner. So, theoretically, anyone could answer a phone call or email as Dave Johnson.
2) Do you think that management staff poses as the owner without his knowledge, permission or approval? (He may have been out of the office and relayed instructions by phone, but you can be sure he was in the loop.)
3) Who is going to risk getting fired posing as the boss on a decision this big? Sounds like unplausible deniability.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogball:
TINCO is not right
Although there is acceptable protocol, and it should be respected, why should a player have to conform to any rules when he is in the right?
Who died and made him the new BULLY ??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Muttnuts, how many players have ever had an issue resolved in their favor after throwing a full blown tantrum on the forums?
TINCO is not right
Although there is acceptable protocol, and it should be respected, why should a player have to conform to any rules when he is in the right?
Who died and made him the new BULLY ??
Hey Muttnuts, how many players have ever had an issue resolved in their favor after throwing a full blown tantrum on the forums?
Some very interesting math for y'all:
Break-even required win %age for a +100 dog = 0.5000
Break-even required win %age for a +120 dog = 0.4545
0.5000-0.4545 = 0.0455
Break-even required win %age for a +435 (Pinnacle's line on the match) dog = 0.1869
Break-even required win %age for a +605 (CBS's "bad" line on the match) dog = 0.1418
0.1869-0.1418 = 0.0451
0.0455 > 0.0451
Hence a player finding & playing a dog at +120 when other books are at +100 is actually mathematically betting into a worse "bad line" than a player betting into +605 when other books are at +435.
So now, a VERY dangerous precedent has indeed been set by allowing cancellation of the +605 wagers....because a player is actually picking up a bigger edge for themselves by scoping out a +120 when the market is at +100. Is the next step allowing cancellation of those "bad line" wagers?
I await the arguments against my logic - numbers don't lie.
Break-even required win %age for a +100 dog = 0.5000
Break-even required win %age for a +120 dog = 0.4545
0.5000-0.4545 = 0.0455
Break-even required win %age for a +435 (Pinnacle's line on the match) dog = 0.1869
Break-even required win %age for a +605 (CBS's "bad" line on the match) dog = 0.1418
0.1869-0.1418 = 0.0451
0.0455 > 0.0451
Hence a player finding & playing a dog at +120 when other books are at +100 is actually mathematically betting into a worse "bad line" than a player betting into +605 when other books are at +435.
So now, a VERY dangerous precedent has indeed been set by allowing cancellation of the +605 wagers....because a player is actually picking up a bigger edge for themselves by scoping out a +120 when the market is at +100. Is the next step allowing cancellation of those "bad line" wagers?
I await the arguments against my logic - numbers don't lie.
>>>>Rule #2....Inform site mods or owners of your dispute, and let them see what answer they get from the book. Ideally, find a forum where the particular book advertises. Until they get an anwer from the book, keep your mouth shut.
Right, that worked with the Taylor Dent NOT to WIN @ 5dimes. Nothing came of it.<<<<
Areef - Just curious who worked this for you and where? I am still looking into one of these but it's not you unless you are using an alias? Also he said go to a forum where the book advertises, last I checked 5Dimes does not advertise here. Tin's post was very good in my opinion. Don't let the fact you are getting support on your case muddy the waters on what he said. Two seperate issues.
Some of you guys with these beefs just get carried away. Let the case sit on it's own merit!! No need to come in here and embellish things and make people look like complete idiots until they crumble to your aggressive posting crusade. "I will ruin their name until I get my money and I want it yesterday!!" I remember when a poster here had what I thought was a good beef against Pro 5 but he kept bullshitting about it. "I was out highfiving other guys watching the game I bet on". He pulled off this big I am a square routine when it was obvious he and his 36 outs were anything but. Point was had he just told the truth and let it be he had enough there and would have been easier to support him. Players coming in here like Beaner and spending day after day running books through the grinder won't get any sympathy from me. There's other ways to handle things. In fact I am glad Beaner never got a red cent. With you I will stop short of saying you shouldn't get paid in this case but I hope you handle it more professionally next time if you do. This book has built up a good following and there were better ways to go about this than what you did. At least in my opinion. Even if they tell you it is a final decision why not let someone look into it for you anyway? Instead you started with this big discredit the book routine on the forums which you helped along with some out and out falsehoods if I remember correctly. Who was it that said +550 was out there? I'm not saying they shouldn't make it right but if they pay you I would defintely boot you and your problems to the curb.
I will wait for the answer on who is handling your 5Dimes problem you say nothing happened on. Seems you run into quite a few disputes huh? Bottom line to me is even when in the right it does not mean you can't be a man about something. Up until this BetCBS has enjoyed a good reputation, give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. I'm not defending the book here, their actions don't make sense to me and I wouldn't even begin to defend it. However that doesn't mean you can't be decent about it while people resolve it. Problem with Beaners getting paid by doing stuff like this is they think that's the way to go the next time too.
No offense men just my 02 cents.
Right, that worked with the Taylor Dent NOT to WIN @ 5dimes. Nothing came of it.<<<<
Areef - Just curious who worked this for you and where? I am still looking into one of these but it's not you unless you are using an alias? Also he said go to a forum where the book advertises, last I checked 5Dimes does not advertise here. Tin's post was very good in my opinion. Don't let the fact you are getting support on your case muddy the waters on what he said. Two seperate issues.
Some of you guys with these beefs just get carried away. Let the case sit on it's own merit!! No need to come in here and embellish things and make people look like complete idiots until they crumble to your aggressive posting crusade. "I will ruin their name until I get my money and I want it yesterday!!" I remember when a poster here had what I thought was a good beef against Pro 5 but he kept bullshitting about it. "I was out highfiving other guys watching the game I bet on". He pulled off this big I am a square routine when it was obvious he and his 36 outs were anything but. Point was had he just told the truth and let it be he had enough there and would have been easier to support him. Players coming in here like Beaner and spending day after day running books through the grinder won't get any sympathy from me. There's other ways to handle things. In fact I am glad Beaner never got a red cent. With you I will stop short of saying you shouldn't get paid in this case but I hope you handle it more professionally next time if you do. This book has built up a good following and there were better ways to go about this than what you did. At least in my opinion. Even if they tell you it is a final decision why not let someone look into it for you anyway? Instead you started with this big discredit the book routine on the forums which you helped along with some out and out falsehoods if I remember correctly. Who was it that said +550 was out there? I'm not saying they shouldn't make it right but if they pay you I would defintely boot you and your problems to the curb.
I will wait for the answer on who is handling your 5Dimes problem you say nothing happened on. Seems you run into quite a few disputes huh? Bottom line to me is even when in the right it does not mean you can't be a man about something. Up until this BetCBS has enjoyed a good reputation, give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. I'm not defending the book here, their actions don't make sense to me and I wouldn't even begin to defend it. However that doesn't mean you can't be decent about it while people resolve it. Problem with Beaners getting paid by doing stuff like this is they think that's the way to go the next time too.
No offense men just my 02 cents.
A question here for, let's say Ken, Pat McIrish,
Krackman, Joey C, Judge.
Until circa 1995 (offshore books) did you EVER hear of a wager being cancelled AFTER an event was final because of a "BAD LINE?"
I have heard of (and made) "stupid mistakes," "falling asleep at the wheel," etc.
Every time I have made a stupid mistake I have tried to learn an expensive but valuable lesson.
Dave Johnson, I don't get what kind of bookmaker you think you are. Have you ever taken bets over the phone and settled up on Tuesdays?
Have you EVER met a guy on Tuesday and explained to him that he would not be paid because you or one of your employees made a mistake with the line?
Sorry boys, I just don't understand these "stand up guys" whose word (lines) mean nothing.
In the end, the only product a bookmaker has to sell is his lines on the games that day. If you are not willing to take the effort necessary to insure your lines are correct then you need to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
"Bad Line" = "Amateur Night at the Sportsbook"
VVV
Krackman, Joey C, Judge.
Until circa 1995 (offshore books) did you EVER hear of a wager being cancelled AFTER an event was final because of a "BAD LINE?"
I have heard of (and made) "stupid mistakes," "falling asleep at the wheel," etc.
Every time I have made a stupid mistake I have tried to learn an expensive but valuable lesson.
Dave Johnson, I don't get what kind of bookmaker you think you are. Have you ever taken bets over the phone and settled up on Tuesdays?
Have you EVER met a guy on Tuesday and explained to him that he would not be paid because you or one of your employees made a mistake with the line?
Sorry boys, I just don't understand these "stand up guys" whose word (lines) mean nothing.
In the end, the only product a bookmaker has to sell is his lines on the games that day. If you are not willing to take the effort necessary to insure your lines are correct then you need to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
"Bad Line" = "Amateur Night at the Sportsbook"
VVV
Tinco-
Of course the books, players and forums prefer to have this settled quietly.
Areeff is claiming he got 'final decision' of NO for this, so felt this was his best recourse. He posted Dave Johnson's email with the BS about limits were $200 instead of the posted Tennis limits of $1000 and also claimed account was set incorrectly.
Those arguments were all shot down by posters, and Dave did not bother to bring them up in his 'official' response.
Even after Dave's response, a lot of posters still feel Areeff should get paid, since Dave paid the other players at the same line. Also, they seem to find the claim that he sat on the game and graded a bad line (only to cancel it hours later) at odds with his claim they knew about the bad line the whole time.
In light of Dave's brazen (and yet weak) defense and the general opinion that the bet should be paid, under the circumstances, the forum and a public outcry was probably Areeff's last/best shot.
Of course the books, players and forums prefer to have this settled quietly.
Areeff is claiming he got 'final decision' of NO for this, so felt this was his best recourse. He posted Dave Johnson's email with the BS about limits were $200 instead of the posted Tennis limits of $1000 and also claimed account was set incorrectly.
Those arguments were all shot down by posters, and Dave did not bother to bring them up in his 'official' response.
Even after Dave's response, a lot of posters still feel Areeff should get paid, since Dave paid the other players at the same line. Also, they seem to find the claim that he sat on the game and graded a bad line (only to cancel it hours later) at odds with his claim they knew about the bad line the whole time.
In light of Dave's brazen (and yet weak) defense and the general opinion that the bet should be paid, under the circumstances, the forum and a public outcry was probably Areeff's last/best shot.
Guys, If books pay this type of play, you will find they soon will not have enough money to pay you when you win. But, then of course, with attitudes like you are showing here, it is doubtful that you have the basic skills to be a consistant winner. They moved the line the wrong way by mistake and still paid most of the wagers. Even paid part of the 2 wagers that were tied together and are paying in full the other 2 that were originally not paid in full. JJ, you need to take off your hairpiece and let your brain get a little air, it is starved for oxygen.
