Royal not paying my 28k

bucsfan67 · Feb 22, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cecil:
Bucs, and then they let him keep playing?

Get off the company line man...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasnt a company line "man"....

I gave what i thought might be the answer to a question...Sorry i dont have your vast knoweledge "man"......

As to why he should still be allowed to bet, i agree, that doesnt make sense, his account should be locked while an investigation goes on.....but then again, i dont know as much as "cecil"....

TTinCO · Feb 22, 2004

"5 Accounts were opened just before the Superbowl and opened in succession and each referred the other."

"Velton emailed his payout request from an email account belonging to one of the other 4 accounts."

"Upon further investigation the phone numbers of some of the accounts were similar and some not even valid."

Ummmm.....I can't IMAGINE why Royal might suspect that something fishy might be going on.

bucsfan67 · Feb 22, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TTinCO:
"5 Accounts were opened just before the Superbowl and opened in succession and each referred the other."

"Velton emailed his payout request from an email account belonging to one of the other 4 accounts."

"Upon further investigation the phone numbers of some of the accounts were similar and some not even valid."

Ummmm.....I can't IMAGINE why Royal might suspect that something fishy might be going on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just waiting to hear one of them is named BSKILLER OR UK2000....

HacheMan · Feb 22, 2004

We still don't know the complete story here of course, but if it turns out that his money was being withheld for no apparent reason, it will just baffle me as to why Royal would do this, obviously hurtting their business and jeapordizing their opportunity for new customers.....

sportsmonitor · Feb 22, 2004

Hypothetically speaking...
Why would it matter if a person opened up 5 different accounts? If somebody took advantage of all the bonuses, then why couldn't the book just pay him the money he earned minus all the bonus money originally received?

NickyDeuces · Feb 22, 2004

If a Book TAKES your money, and then BOOKS your bet, they should pay. Period. The Books have every edge they can get as it is. If they need to investigate, then do it beforehand not waiting to see if player wins or loses. Just the way I see it.

cecil+ · Feb 22, 2004

Wil, I agree with you there. I have no idea why the player keeps betting either...

tgoodm1 · Feb 22, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cecil:
Wil, I agree with you there. I have no idea why the player keeps betting either...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He seems to be a compulsive gambler.

go2guy · Feb 22, 2004

Aren't there others awaiting payouts from Royal being given the runaround as well?

NickyDeuces · Feb 22, 2004

If I call this book, telling them I have five roommates who want to deposit $5K each today, would they take it? Something tells me they would.

TheGeneral+ · Feb 22, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by go2guy:
Aren't there others awaiting payouts from Royal being given the runaround as well?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Earl and Surfboard (a friend) had issues, but we have yet to see a message with an account number.

I offer my email.

Generalpete@hotmail.com

go2guy · Feb 22, 2004

So General all the slowpay accusations floating around on the net the past week are from these 3 players/posters? Hope that these are just isolated incidents.

theswami · Feb 22, 2004

Assume that this guy is guilty of opening many accounts...it is just ABSURD that they continue to accept his bets while the accounts are being investigated.

Bottom line, MANY bookmakers are not honest folks and they take shots just like the players. They do whatever they can get away with. The amount I've learned about this site and the offshore wagering business in the last six months through the FIRST Royal SLOW PAY, GA debacle, BHB website and subsequent sale/business relationship is amazing.

THANKS TO ALL. I'm a much more knowledgable offshore wagerer because of threads like this.

go2guy · Feb 22, 2004

I agree swami, good point in your post

drunkguy · Feb 22, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by theswami:
Assume that this guy is guilty of opening many accounts...it is just ABSURD that they continue to accept his bets while the accounts are being investigated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

swami, can't say I agree. There are two possiblities. In both cases it is probably better to let the player keep playing.

1. There are multiple accounts traced to one person who is attempting to defraud the book. The player tried to take a shot at the book, so why shouldn't the book be allowed to take a shot at the player and hope he busts out, or at the very least generate some more action for the book?

2. The player is legit and has done nothing wrong. In this case, the book HAS to allow the player to bet, because it is rightfully the player's money and they should have the option of wagering it. A reasonable person will understand the reason for the audit and will come through OK, even if it is a major inconvenience. If the guy is a pro or semi-pro, having his bank inaccessible and unable to make wagers could potentially add more problems for him.

I think wilheim said it right earlier...the book is probably trying to give the player the benefit of the doubt, and while they will not make the large payout until they know what has been going on, they also do not want to suspend the account in error.

In either case, no one is FORCING the player to risk his funds...

...and at the very least, no one should have money offshore if it is absolutely essential to have access to that money immediately. It has only been 3 days since the RX mods were notified of this, with 2 of those days being the weekend.

Jazz · Feb 22, 2004

Drunkguy: one of the very, VERY few times I have EVER disagreed with what I consider to be your non-drunk and very sage comments:

"The player tried to take a shot at the book, so why shouldn't the book be allowed to take a shot at the player and hope he busts out, or at the very least generate some more action for the book?"

I disagree. If Royal genuinely suspects foul play, it is incumbent upon them to freeze the account completely. Regardless of Royal's decision, we simply cannot know the actual facts surrounding the case, and if Royal decides not to pay off in a very public case after they've continued to accept wagers, that will be very damning for them, as they will be undeniably seen as taking a 'shot' at the player - note that Royal is not undergoing any legal scrutiny of the player, simply an internal investigation with or without NT. And you KNOW I don't like scammers. Point here is that they are far better off simply refusing to allow him additional bets until this is resolved, because if they decide not to pay, then it cannot be positive for them that they allowed him to continue to play.

I don't know this guy's story - how could I? But if they're still allowing him to bet, and bet big, and they don't pay him after this, then their actions would bespeak themselves of wanton irresponsible action as far as I'm concerned. At the VERY LEAST, even if they decide something funny was going on with the initial accounts, they HAVE GOT TO PAY HIM WHAT HE WON AFTER they began the investigation, since they accepted the damn action.

sportsmonitor · Feb 22, 2004

Velton-
Ever thought of selling your picks? I for one wouldn't mind purchasing your selections even if it only meant making 20 G's instead of 40. Can't wait to see what the outcome is tomorrow or Tuesday. Good Luck.

drunkguy · Feb 23, 2004

Jazz-

usually we are on the same page

I guess my confusion would come from this...what are the possible results from this investigation?

a. Royal pays in full
b. ?????

What else can legitimately happen if he is seen to be a scammer? Can Royal not pay anything? (unlikely, but not totally ridiculous) Would they refund just the initial post-up funds minus bonus and winnings? Would they reach a seperate figure based on mediation? Is there any "penalty" for trying to set up seperate accounts to deter people from doing this in the future?

The reason for my comments above is that the added bets would likely have no effect on the outcome...Royal either pays in full (legit accounts) or they don't (multiple fraudulent accounts)...perhaps I'm missing a scenario here. In that case, I would advocate allowing the player to keep playing if it is not really going to affect the outcome. If the player is legit, of course you accept the action. If the player is in violation of the rules and you are going to seize the account, the added bets don't mean a damn thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The Royal Sports Group reserves the right to refuse service to any client that has been detected to participate in collusion, submit false information, transact with multiple accounts, attempt or complete fraudulent transactions, or participate in any way contrary to the spirit of, implied, and stated rules herein. Any player or groups of players found to be in breach of these rules are subject to immediate account suspension, closure and seizure of funds at the sole discretion of corporate management. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

theswami · Feb 23, 2004

Drunkguy-

I hear your point but if playing with multiple/connected accounts is such an appalling activity, then why expose your business to the risk of allowing this player to accumulate more funds using an artificially inflated balance. If Royal is using the presumption of innocence that's great in principle but why does it take so long to review the account activity?

Personally, I think freezing the account is the most defensible action in cases like this. With that said, the stance they have taken is no lose.

1) The player bets, win or lose: action for the book.

2) The players busts.

3) The player wins and is found guilty of impropriety: they will reduce his balance by some amount and have some flexibility to determine this amount in the public's (and thier own) view since the player is guilty.

4) The player wins and is innocent: the book gets

for allowing him to bet while investigating.

I add 1-4 and it seems like a shot to me and IMHO books should behave better than shot-taking players.

As a non-professional I've learned through the Rx to only play at shops where I philosophically agree with their business model/operation. There are good shops that a) would have frozen the account if they thought something was wrong and b) taken action by now one way or the other.

Bottom line,

1) Why is there ONLY a problem when someone wants to get paid? (because either they don't care until then or they do not monitor the accounts while the wagering is taking place)

2) I do not always agree with Bill Dozer but this quote I think sort of nails it "No one is really sure if Royal is just careless, broke, or doesn't care about ethical perception.
None of these are pluses." I think even those affiliated with this site are perplexed by Royal's behavior.