<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jake:
Buzzsaw,
Maybe you mis-understood....I SAVED THE CLIENT $250 BY TELLING HIM TO ONLY TAKE OUT $1300, and it was sent BEFORE YOU POSTED ON YOUR SITE. In fact, I called him as soon as I saw your post, and he already had his control # and was on his way to WU. Had I processed his request, as he requested it, he would have been penalized the bonus and the winnings.
"A player asks for his money, give him his frigging money, not a song & dance.. end of story." So, in your point of view, I should have immediately sent the money to the client and penalize him his $250 and his winnings from that bonus?
Buzz, I honestly hate this. I really do. It brings me no pleasure fighting with you constantly. It does create more hits on the Rx, I guess....and your site, too. Maybe that is the reason you are so stubborn and obstinant in your opinions. Or maybe you are getting paid on the side...who knows. I refuse to do so, so that is the end of that, I guess.
The client says you were wrong and that you misrepresnted him....does that count for anything? Whatever your reasons, Buzz...however many times you think you were right in the past...this time, this time you are dead wrong...and it shows.
Jake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A more puzzling question is ... Why would the customer even bother forwarding the E-Mail to SBR, at that juncture in the "dispute" ?
Looks to me like the customer thought that SportBet didn't want to pay him. But even if that was the case, it still strikes me as odd that the guy decided to get SBR involved before trying to work it out with SportBet.
Buzzsaw,
Maybe you mis-understood....I SAVED THE CLIENT $250 BY TELLING HIM TO ONLY TAKE OUT $1300, and it was sent BEFORE YOU POSTED ON YOUR SITE. In fact, I called him as soon as I saw your post, and he already had his control # and was on his way to WU. Had I processed his request, as he requested it, he would have been penalized the bonus and the winnings.
"A player asks for his money, give him his frigging money, not a song & dance.. end of story." So, in your point of view, I should have immediately sent the money to the client and penalize him his $250 and his winnings from that bonus?
Buzz, I honestly hate this. I really do. It brings me no pleasure fighting with you constantly. It does create more hits on the Rx, I guess....and your site, too. Maybe that is the reason you are so stubborn and obstinant in your opinions. Or maybe you are getting paid on the side...who knows. I refuse to do so, so that is the end of that, I guess.
The client says you were wrong and that you misrepresnted him....does that count for anything? Whatever your reasons, Buzz...however many times you think you were right in the past...this time, this time you are dead wrong...and it shows.
Jake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A more puzzling question is ... Why would the customer even bother forwarding the E-Mail to SBR, at that juncture in the "dispute" ?
Looks to me like the customer thought that SportBet didn't want to pay him. But even if that was the case, it still strikes me as odd that the guy decided to get SBR involved before trying to work it out with SportBet.
Oh...I thought the whole email should be posted:
"Thank you for contacting us in regards to this situation. Upon looking into your situation I see that you will be requesting the full amount of winnings in your account. I also see that you have in fact meet all rollover requirements that we ask for when playing with our bonus. Yet what I have also noted is that your request will be leaving the bare minimum balance that you can in your account to meet the policies that we have put down. As you stated that you have read posts about our stipulations on the bonuses, I am sure that you have also noticed our feelings on situations such as this.
Please give me a call at our customer service department and I am sure we will be able to an agreement on your payout. As you are entitled to this amount of money that you are asking for, I would hate to see you get off on the wrong foot in regards to our generous bonus offers for the upcoming season. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your call.
Best Regards
Tommy
Customer Service"
HTRC, I am glad that you agree.
Drunkguy, I like the way you think. I was actually working on some Panam bailouts today. If you have anybody you know who might be interested, please have them contact The General.
Thanks for your time.
Jake
"Thank you for contacting us in regards to this situation. Upon looking into your situation I see that you will be requesting the full amount of winnings in your account. I also see that you have in fact meet all rollover requirements that we ask for when playing with our bonus. Yet what I have also noted is that your request will be leaving the bare minimum balance that you can in your account to meet the policies that we have put down. As you stated that you have read posts about our stipulations on the bonuses, I am sure that you have also noticed our feelings on situations such as this.
Please give me a call at our customer service department and I am sure we will be able to an agreement on your payout. As you are entitled to this amount of money that you are asking for, I would hate to see you get off on the wrong foot in regards to our generous bonus offers for the upcoming season. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your call.
Best Regards
Tommy
Customer Service"
HTRC, I am glad that you agree.
Drunkguy, I like the way you think. I was actually working on some Panam bailouts today. If you have anybody you know who might be interested, please have them contact The General.
Thanks for your time.
Jake
Jake;
I'm on my way out as I have some personal situations to take care of.
Bill Dozer is working on a detailed explanation on the facts behind this wire.
I just wanted to stop by and address these statements of yours:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I thought that when somebody I knew got in their office, some things would change....maybe they will but I guess it takes time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We're currently working on an elaborated Rating Criteria. The fact that we are acquaintances will not grant any positive or negative effect on the conclussions we draw when disecting Sportbet's business model.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Or maybe you are getting paid on the side... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This statement would suggest:
1. That somebody is actually investing money on tarnishing your reputation
2. That we are to be bought.
In both cases you're dead wrong. If you think our team or myself would give up our work ethics for a couple of bucks, that just goes on to show you don't know me, neither the people I work with.
To my fellow posters:
SBR's wires are solely SBR's opinion. Opinions based on research and players' feedback.
In this thread, other players have had good things to say about Sportbet. A player should read all of this and form an educated opinion. That's the bottom line.
I could go on and on about what we think it really happened in this situation, but chances are the thread gets deleted eventually. Some of my previous posts on Sportbet have been deleted, in all fairness it seems like the majority of my posts for the last 4 months were deleted with the software change. In the end, I am convinced that forum threads like this one are pointless
I will go on the record saying that I believe the customer got up-sold on the spot when he tried to withdraw his funds and that the players' funds should be readily available to them when requested. That's SOLELY my opinion too.
Out I go. Bill Dozer will further elaborate on SBR's take
I'm on my way out as I have some personal situations to take care of.
Bill Dozer is working on a detailed explanation on the facts behind this wire.
I just wanted to stop by and address these statements of yours:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I thought that when somebody I knew got in their office, some things would change....maybe they will but I guess it takes time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We're currently working on an elaborated Rating Criteria. The fact that we are acquaintances will not grant any positive or negative effect on the conclussions we draw when disecting Sportbet's business model.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Or maybe you are getting paid on the side... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This statement would suggest:
1. That somebody is actually investing money on tarnishing your reputation
2. That we are to be bought.
In both cases you're dead wrong. If you think our team or myself would give up our work ethics for a couple of bucks, that just goes on to show you don't know me, neither the people I work with.
To my fellow posters:
SBR's wires are solely SBR's opinion. Opinions based on research and players' feedback.
In this thread, other players have had good things to say about Sportbet. A player should read all of this and form an educated opinion. That's the bottom line.
I could go on and on about what we think it really happened in this situation, but chances are the thread gets deleted eventually. Some of my previous posts on Sportbet have been deleted, in all fairness it seems like the majority of my posts for the last 4 months were deleted with the software change. In the end, I am convinced that forum threads like this one are pointless
I will go on the record saying that I believe the customer got up-sold on the spot when he tried to withdraw his funds and that the players' funds should be readily available to them when requested. That's SOLELY my opinion too.
Out I go. Bill Dozer will further elaborate on SBR's take
Will,
I sent you an email last night...you posted rather than email me back.
The fact that we are now "acquaintances" should grant me a phone call before posting an "unbiased" opinion.
Hey Will, reality check...SBR IS A SITE THAT ACCEPTS PAYMENT FROM BOOKS. THE MAIN BOOKS THERE PAY YOU A % OF THE LOSSES FROM THE CLIENTS THAT YOU SEND TO THEM!!! Thus, buying favorable ratings.
The fact that you have no idea about the situation, yet choose to NOT believe me, makes me almost laugh. You are a changed man, sir. Have a good one.
Jake
I sent you an email last night...you posted rather than email me back.
The fact that we are now "acquaintances" should grant me a phone call before posting an "unbiased" opinion.
Hey Will, reality check...SBR IS A SITE THAT ACCEPTS PAYMENT FROM BOOKS. THE MAIN BOOKS THERE PAY YOU A % OF THE LOSSES FROM THE CLIENTS THAT YOU SEND TO THEM!!! Thus, buying favorable ratings.
The fact that you have no idea about the situation, yet choose to NOT believe me, makes me almost laugh. You are a changed man, sir. Have a good one.
Jake
Sportbet has very vague rules, and the rules they do have are not proper guidelines for what Sportbet wants and allows players to do.
Jake has a vague rule that he likes because it allows him to give players he doesn’t want a hard time. This rule states that they will not tolerate bonus abusers. In the two noted cases below, bonus abuse does not have anything to do with scalping or multiple accounts. Bonus abuse apparently means taking a payout when the opportunity arises.
A couple of weeks ago Jake was calling another player asking him not to withdraw all of his winnings. The player agreed to take less of the initial request and leave the rest with Jake. The player had every right to request his winnings, but Jake said this is not how he operates and that he does not want that kind of player. Jake cited that he was only 35 dollars above his minimum requirement which was not a good gesture after such a generous bonus. The player is confused, but agrees to take a smaller payout. The next week he wins another large sum, and again he takes a payout.
Jake calls him again, telling the player that if he is going to play that way he will take his bonus, and the money he won with it, back. Jake says he can either send $1000 back to the book or forfeit part of his current balance (bonus and winnings). At this point, the player is counting this bonus as his real money and does not want to lose it. He feels that he is operating within the requirements.
This player was not opposed to staying with Sportbet over a long period, but wanted to test them out, and did so within the rules. After another call to the the bettor Jake agrees to let him play through his normal requirements.
This current player is not happy with Sportbet either. The player put in a NFL teaser, and it was canceled after it was a partial winner. Sportbet decided that they were not taking Pre-season NFL teasers even though the clerks said that they were. The teaser would disappear and reappear in the pending wagers but the player was told it was an IT issue. The player felt a straight answer was not given as to whether or not the wager was live. The player was given a $50 bonus for the trouble. Since the player received a bad impression, he asked for a payout.
The player called CS and verified the amount available for withdrawal. This call should have been recorded along with the ones saying the teaser was live.
It turns out that Sportbet applied a 30 day hold to the $50 token of appreciation which means this payout needed to be adjusted.
Sportbet gives its players an undeserved hard time. It may not be considered a slow-pay but is unprofessional, to say the very least. If they want more than a 5x roll-over and more than the 30 day hold then adjust the printed rules. If you do not want players to withdraw winnings within the 30 days, do not offer it.
It is unacceptable to call players regarding their accounts in order to give your personal opinion of their allowed actions. Sportbet wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Jake has a vague rule that he likes because it allows him to give players he doesn’t want a hard time. This rule states that they will not tolerate bonus abusers. In the two noted cases below, bonus abuse does not have anything to do with scalping or multiple accounts. Bonus abuse apparently means taking a payout when the opportunity arises.
A couple of weeks ago Jake was calling another player asking him not to withdraw all of his winnings. The player agreed to take less of the initial request and leave the rest with Jake. The player had every right to request his winnings, but Jake said this is not how he operates and that he does not want that kind of player. Jake cited that he was only 35 dollars above his minimum requirement which was not a good gesture after such a generous bonus. The player is confused, but agrees to take a smaller payout. The next week he wins another large sum, and again he takes a payout.
Jake calls him again, telling the player that if he is going to play that way he will take his bonus, and the money he won with it, back. Jake says he can either send $1000 back to the book or forfeit part of his current balance (bonus and winnings). At this point, the player is counting this bonus as his real money and does not want to lose it. He feels that he is operating within the requirements.
This player was not opposed to staying with Sportbet over a long period, but wanted to test them out, and did so within the rules. After another call to the the bettor Jake agrees to let him play through his normal requirements.
This current player is not happy with Sportbet either. The player put in a NFL teaser, and it was canceled after it was a partial winner. Sportbet decided that they were not taking Pre-season NFL teasers even though the clerks said that they were. The teaser would disappear and reappear in the pending wagers but the player was told it was an IT issue. The player felt a straight answer was not given as to whether or not the wager was live. The player was given a $50 bonus for the trouble. Since the player received a bad impression, he asked for a payout.
The player called CS and verified the amount available for withdrawal. This call should have been recorded along with the ones saying the teaser was live.
It turns out that Sportbet applied a 30 day hold to the $50 token of appreciation which means this payout needed to be adjusted.
Sportbet gives its players an undeserved hard time. It may not be considered a slow-pay but is unprofessional, to say the very least. If they want more than a 5x roll-over and more than the 30 day hold then adjust the printed rules. If you do not want players to withdraw winnings within the 30 days, do not offer it.
It is unacceptable to call players regarding their accounts in order to give your personal opinion of their allowed actions. Sportbet wants to have its cake and eat it too.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jake:
Oh...I thought the whole email should be posted:
"Thank you for contacting us in regards to this situation. Upon looking into your situation I see that you will be requesting the full amount of winnings in your account. I also see that you have in fact meet all rollover requirements that we ask for when playing with our bonus. Yet what I have also noted is that your request will be leaving the bare minimum balance that you can in your account to meet the policies that we have put down. As you stated that you have read posts about our stipulations on the bonuses, I am sure that you have also noticed our feelings on situations such as this.
Please give me a call at our customer service department and I am sure we will be able to an agreement on your payout. As you are entitled to this amount of money that you are asking for, I would hate to see you get off on the wrong foot in regards to our generous bonus offers for the upcoming season. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your call.
Best Regards
Tommy
Customer Service"
HTRC, I am glad that you agree.
Drunkguy, I like the way you think. I was actually working on some Panam bailouts today. If you have anybody you know who might be interested, please have them contact The General.
Thanks for your time.
Jake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I'm blind, but I certainly can't see anything in this E-Mail that would give me the impression that, out of the goodness of your heart, you're trying to save the guy money by telling him not to withdraw quite as much so that his bonus doesn't get confiscated.
To me, it looks like you're telling him that you're not happy that he's only leaving the bare minimum in the account.
Oh...I thought the whole email should be posted:
"Thank you for contacting us in regards to this situation. Upon looking into your situation I see that you will be requesting the full amount of winnings in your account. I also see that you have in fact meet all rollover requirements that we ask for when playing with our bonus. Yet what I have also noted is that your request will be leaving the bare minimum balance that you can in your account to meet the policies that we have put down. As you stated that you have read posts about our stipulations on the bonuses, I am sure that you have also noticed our feelings on situations such as this.
Please give me a call at our customer service department and I am sure we will be able to an agreement on your payout. As you are entitled to this amount of money that you are asking for, I would hate to see you get off on the wrong foot in regards to our generous bonus offers for the upcoming season. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your call.
Best Regards
Tommy
Customer Service"
HTRC, I am glad that you agree.
Drunkguy, I like the way you think. I was actually working on some Panam bailouts today. If you have anybody you know who might be interested, please have them contact The General.
Thanks for your time.
Jake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I'm blind, but I certainly can't see anything in this E-Mail that would give me the impression that, out of the goodness of your heart, you're trying to save the guy money by telling him not to withdraw quite as much so that his bonus doesn't get confiscated.
To me, it looks like you're telling him that you're not happy that he's only leaving the bare minimum in the account.
I believe there's a huge misunderstanding under this "non issue". The incident, as reported by all sides involved, is a non incident. It may not even be classified as a "slow pay" in accordance to the rules set within the Watchdog Alliance.
SBR has always been hard on Sportbet. Bottom line the player has been paid the same day he has requested his payout and Sportbet has duly informed the player on how to act in accordance to the book's rules, hence saving the player $ 250.00 .
How about moving on ? Really wish all offshore problems were like this one....
SBR has always been hard on Sportbet. Bottom line the player has been paid the same day he has requested his payout and Sportbet has duly informed the player on how to act in accordance to the book's rules, hence saving the player $ 250.00 .
How about moving on ? Really wish all offshore problems were like this one....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How about moving on ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When a book wont pay SBR to give them a good rating they will do everything in there power to discredit said book, glad to see Jake and Sportbet not cave to there extortion tactics
Jake has helped me a few times to get payouts from another book that slow pays,but where he has some influence.
I no longer will play at that book ( not sportbet) because of the difficulty in getting paid but I have nothing but good things to say about Jake.
I recently sent some money to sportbet for the first time. If you don't scam them, they are a good place to play
I no longer will play at that book ( not sportbet) because of the difficulty in getting paid but I have nothing but good things to say about Jake.
I recently sent some money to sportbet for the first time. If you don't scam them, they are a good place to play
From my experiences, the problem is:
1. Jake thinks everyone is "abusing" him so he treats them all like cheaters.
2. No regular gamblers want the hassle so they go elsewhere
3. Jake must offer big bonuses to get newbies to bite since regulars stay away.
4. Only bonus hunters come for his bonuses.
5 Go to (1).
The "30-days of "active" play" is the rule that makes sure everyone can be in violation of his rules.
Beyond my personal experiences I've heard numerous stories from others and this board is littered with complaints. No other (open) book gets so many complaints.
I agree that you will usually get paid if you complain on a board. You will get hammered by one of Jake's aliases, but you will eventually get paid after Jake graciously pays what he owes. But it's not worth the hassle - unless of course you're a bonus hunter.
1. Jake thinks everyone is "abusing" him so he treats them all like cheaters.
2. No regular gamblers want the hassle so they go elsewhere
3. Jake must offer big bonuses to get newbies to bite since regulars stay away.
4. Only bonus hunters come for his bonuses.
5 Go to (1).
The "30-days of "active" play" is the rule that makes sure everyone can be in violation of his rules.
Beyond my personal experiences I've heard numerous stories from others and this board is littered with complaints. No other (open) book gets so many complaints.
I agree that you will usually get paid if you complain on a board. You will get hammered by one of Jake's aliases, but you will eventually get paid after Jake graciously pays what he owes. But it's not worth the hassle - unless of course you're a bonus hunter.
Guys these charges against Jake are bullcrap. I mean he savesthe player $250and he gets shit???
WTF is that?
Whats really going on here is Jake won't be blackmailed into signing on with SBR scam so Buzz sends in his sockpuppets to bash Jake as usual.
Only problem is no is falling for your trick this time SBR.
Keep up the good work Jake buddy and don't let this clown get to you.
WTF is that?
Whats really going on here is Jake won't be blackmailed into signing on with SBR scam so Buzz sends in his sockpuppets to bash Jake as usual.
Only problem is no is falling for your trick this time SBR.
Keep up the good work Jake buddy and don't let this clown get to you.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thebigsnake:
Guys these charges against Jake are bullcrap. I mean he _saves_the player _$250_and he gets shit???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If that was indeed Jake's original intent, why didn't he just come out and say so in the E-Mail ?
Reading the E-Mail, you would never think the intent was to save the guy money. To me, it looks more like the "$250 savings" was a "fall back" story, created after this complaint went public in order to try to save face.
Whatever the case, I still can't figure out why the client complained to SBR so early on in the process.
Guys these charges against Jake are bullcrap. I mean he _saves_the player _$250_and he gets shit???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If that was indeed Jake's original intent, why didn't he just come out and say so in the E-Mail ?
Reading the E-Mail, you would never think the intent was to save the guy money. To me, it looks more like the "$250 savings" was a "fall back" story, created after this complaint went public in order to try to save face.
Whatever the case, I still can't figure out why the client complained to SBR so early on in the process.
Hal,
The client complained to SBR because he was worried. Like I mentioned and you noted, there was no offer until this thread popped up.
Jake can blame SBR all he wants along with his 10-post poster ghosts. But bottomline is when a player asks for a payout he gets nervous when a bookmaker tells him maybe he should cancel that requests and then negotiate a bonus. Write it in the rules and follow the rules. That's not asking too much.
The client complained to SBR because he was worried. Like I mentioned and you noted, there was no offer until this thread popped up.
Jake can blame SBR all he wants along with his 10-post poster ghosts. But bottomline is when a player asks for a payout he gets nervous when a bookmaker tells him maybe he should cancel that requests and then negotiate a bonus. Write it in the rules and follow the rules. That's not asking too much.
