SIRBET -- very SERIOUS question for you about your INTEGRITY and not returning phone calls concerning PAYOUT requests

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by max1234:
I've seen some weird thread before but this one might make my top 10. From reading all of it one would assume there's a problem with settling an account properly. Ken and Dogball are talking now and hopefully this is getting straightened out. I think Hammy's gone a little overboard on keeping this issue alive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

max, what is so weird? A sportsbook taking shots at a gambler..never seen that before?

TheGeneral+ · May 23, 2003

First BHB, now Sirbet.

Who's next this month Ham? How about WWTS? I heard they graded a horse wager wrong this year.

You are way out of line here Hammy. And your character has to be questioned. You call it being tougher than others. Most of us call it something other than that.

dogball · May 23, 2003

Skiller-

"
1) How much $$$ dogball was up on them??
2) Is Sirbet still ignore the payout request??
If yes, What is the amount??

Hamneggs and dogball,

Don't get me wrong, i just want to know more info on this issue. I appreciate if you can answer my two questions."

________________________________________________
ALl reasonable questions, I appreciate you wanting to fact find and know you have a fondness for sirbet. Thanks for being objective. Thats all for now, see my comments above

good luck

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by THE SHRINK:
hamneggs,

Once again, you are trying to divert everyone's attention from the REAL issue, which I made very clear in my prior post...

Regarding the agent (since you brought it up), he has been severely reprimanded by SIRBET for posting on this thread.

I don't have any proof that threats were made to Dogball, but if YOU do, then please share the tape with me, and I suspect that SIRBET would fire this guy...

THE SHRINK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ken, what is the "real" issue in your opinion?

Is it the "threatening internet conversations" that hamneggs had with Sirbet? Or is it the fact that Sirbet toyed with dogball's account and refused to return his phone calls for five days while he was trying to get a payout? Which is it? thanks

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The General:
First BHB, now Sirbet.

Who's next this month Ham? How about WWTS? I heard they graded a horse wager wrong this year.

You are way out of line here Hammy. And your character has to be questioned. You call it being tougher than others. Most of us call it something other than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

General, your character is in question right here. What evidence do you have that Joey C is "all about the money" and why did you run him off this site? Why have you not apologized?

The General Running Joey C off The RX

All the best, ham

max1234 · May 23, 2003

If he was dealing with an agent, and that appears to be the case from what I've read, then maybe the problem lies with the agent. I would hazard a guess that agents take vacation from time to time. Maybe they get ill on occassion. I don't know for sure, I've never dealt with one. But from what you just posted above it seems that Dogball owes them money. At least you stated " there is no reason to pay this sportsbook one penny". I guess you could call me old school, but if I owe money I pay it. Period. Looking for reasons not to pay is BS. From what I've read all of the problems Dog had were straightened out. So if he owes them money he's supposed to pay. Doing anything less is being a stiff. And the only thing worse than being a stiff is being a snitch when it comes to gambling, IMO. I guess I was just raised differently. If I lose I pay. End of story.

bartybet · May 23, 2003

hammy do you have an account there?

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The General:
First BHB, now Sirbet.

Who's next this month Ham? How about WWTS? I heard they graded a horse wager wrong this year.

You are way out of line here Hammy. And your character has to be questioned. You call it being tougher than others. Most of us call it something other than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does my character have to be questioned The General?

I provided a sound reason for questioning your character, the fact that you ran Joey C off this site and took shots at him. If you had apologized as he had asked, you would have earned some respect. Instead, you ignored Joey C and didn't even edit it. Can you back up your statement? You know the one that I am talking about or do you need the link? thanks

dogball · May 23, 2003

Max-
You are partially correct about the agents involvement, but the agent is definetly the reason this blew out of proportion.
No one is getting stiffed, I spoke at length with pat irish and ken tonight and they can attest to that.
Thanks

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by max1234:
If he was dealing with an agent, and that appears to be the case from what I've read, then maybe the problem lies with the agent. I would hazard a guess that agents take vacation from time to time. Maybe they get ill on occassion. I don't know for sure, I've never dealt with one. But from what you just posted above it seems that Dogball owes them money. At least you stated " there is no reason to pay this sportsbook one penny". I guess you could call me old school, but if I owe money I pay it. Period. Looking for reasons not to pay is BS. From what I've read all of the problems Dog had were straightened out. So if he owes them money he's supposed to pay. Doing anything less is being a stiff. And the only thing worse than being a stiff is being a snitch when it comes to gambling, IMO. I guess I was just raised differently. If I lose I pay. End of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max, perhaps you should ask Corby if he is old school and why he did not call dogball back for 5 days until his account hit a neg balance?

I don't know old school from new school, but as far as I am concerned a credit arrangement is an agreeement. If player wins, then bookie pays. If player loses, then player pays. It is a contract.

In this instance, player won and bookie refursed to pay. Contract has been breached and player no longer has obligation to pay bookie. That is logical and that is how it would cut in a court of law.

max1234 · May 23, 2003

Dogball,

Anytime there's a third party involved there can be problems, as we all know. I'm glad things are getting straightened out. I wasn't questioning your integrity on this issue, just responding to a post. I've always enjoyed reading what you have to write and your picks on various games. I'm glad to hear things are going to be worked out and like I said, I wasn't guestioning your integrity. GL on your games tommorrow!

RPM · May 23, 2003

originally posted by hamneggs "You are calling this a "good book"? Why are they a "good book" in light of their failure to honor a payout request? Is that our new standard for a "good book"? Come on, guys, i wanna hear you back this shop.."

They are a good shop because this is the FIRST time we have heard anything negative about them, and so far there are no facts to back your accusations.

The very person that is ACTUALLY INVOLVED isnt in here spouting this crap, you are. and in the mind of most, that takes away a LOT of credibility from your posts.

DOGBALL HAD ENOUGH CLASS TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION PROPERLY. I DONT THINK IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR YOU TO FOLLOW HIS LEAD. especially since its his business that is being discussed here, and im sure he has enough class to not want his business all over the forums.

dogball · May 23, 2003

Thanks for the clarification Max, appreciated.
GLTU

max1234 · May 23, 2003

Hammy,

First of all, the book didn't refuse to pay from what I've read. Did they say "F*ck you Dogball, we're stiffing you"? If not, then they weren't refusing to pay. As Dog stated, there was confusion regarding an agent. And you're not old school, from what I've read. If you lose you pay. If you have to borrow to do it, so be it. Credit play is a gentlemen's agreement, not a contract. But it's a mute point. Dogball is taking care of it and that's the end of it. If you want to keep beating a dead horse, have at it but this issue is over.

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

RPM, just tell me which part is not true. thanks

If dogball wants me to shut up, then he will tell me to in no uncertain terms.

So which facts are you contesting RPM? Are you suggesting that dogball's side of the story is false? What are you saying?

max1234 · May 23, 2003

Dog,

No problem. Your opinions on games are highly respected by me and others and the fact that you're handling this matter the right way just enhances that respect. Gl!

hamneggs · May 23, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by max1234:
Hammy,

First of all, the book didn't refuse to pay from what I've read. Did they say "F*ck you Dogball, we're stiffing you"? If not, then they weren't refusing to pay. As Dog stated, there was confusion regarding an agent. And you're not old school, from what I've read. If you lose you pay. If you have to borrow to do it, so be it. Credit play is a gentlemen's agreement, not a contract. But it's a mute point. Dogball is taking care of it and that's the end of it. If you want to keep beating a dead horse, have at it but this issue is over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max, I have to say that back in the day when I used a local, I would be pretty damn concerned if he didn't return my call for five days. I would have NO reason to believe that he intended to pay me.

How about a bookie who only collects money and never pays out? How do you like that idea? Damn, it makes no difference that the bookie NEVER pays anyone, but heck if you lose then of course you should pay him. Why? Because that is OLD SCHOOL.

Can you explain the difference between a gentlemen's agreement and a contract? What is a gentlemen's agreement? It sounds like a contract to me, and it is NOT a moot point at all. The obligation to pay the bookie if u lose arises SOLELY because of that agreement (contract). Once the bookie refuses to pay you, then there is NO MORE gentlement's agreement...that's it, it is OVER.

I do not believe that it is wrong to stiff someone who intended to stiff me. Call me new school or whatever, but I will treat someone the way that they treat me. thanks

max1234 · May 23, 2003

Hammy,

It's over. Like I said, whenever there's a third party involved things happen. But the bottom line is, if you'll bother reading his posts, Dogball is taking care of this issue. So why are you still trying to argue? Your whole assumption was that Dogball wasn't going to get paid. But that's just an assumption on YOUR part. Have there been any other problems with this book not paying? Have you played with this book and not gotten paid? Unless you can answer yes to either question then you're just assuming he wasn't going to get paid. But the bottom line is Dogball is taking care of this and you just hate losing an arguement. I'm sorry but in this case you may not lose it but you can't win it either. It's a dead issue at this point. And I'm going to bed. GL!

Halifax · May 23, 2003

hamneggs:

You should have taken the post of Patrick McIrish to heart. Patrick has a way with words and is able to deliver a subtle message without offending.

I on the other hand, will be a bit more blunt: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I thought your little hissyfit with BHB was bad enough, but this one takes the cake. You have made yourself look like a complete xxxxxx. If you could only see how stupid you look.

Not one poster has added so much as a word in support of you in this thread - not one word, and this is the 4th page of the thread.

Oh that's right though - I guess we're all Sirbet shills: me, BSKiller, McIrish, General, truthteller, Ken, max, and the umpteen others who have recently formed the opinion that you're more or less an xxxxx. Yep - we're all shills.

------------------------------------

halifax, please refrain from name calling.

thanks.

[This message was edited by RPM on May 24, 2003 at 03:25 AM.]

Halifax · May 23, 2003

"hamneggs

Voted America's Sharpest Player 1983-1992
posted May 24, 2003 01:10 AM

Ken, what is the "real" issue in your opinion?

Is it the "threatening internet conversations" that hamneggs had with Sirbet? Or is it the fact that Sirbet toyed with dogball's account and refused to return his phone calls for five days while he was trying to get a payout? Which is it? thanks
Posts: 5135 | From: Coolest State in USA | Registered: September 04, 2002"
---------------------------------------

" Is it the "threatening internet conversations" that hamneggs had with Sirbet?"

hamneggs:

This is an excerpt from your 1:10 AM post. WHOEVER ELSE you have POSTING UNDER YOUR NAME screwed up here, by refering to you in the third person.

Instead of saying "the threatening internet conversations that I had", they posted "the threatening internet conversations that hamneggs had".

You are officially busted.