Sportbet renegs on deal

trytrytry · Nov 20, 2004

Shrink <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

It will not work for me.

<o

></o

>

I strongly endorse Sportbet and Jake and I know exactly what he is talking about on his deal with this poster.<o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

Why? Because I have had the same set of initial discussions with Jake regarding a bailout. I was screwed by EWINNER (a former banner here, endorsed by this place). <o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

Only difference with Jake and myself is that a forum moderator initially helped set up the discussion and find this bail out offer for me, the moderator did a little backgroud check on me at the old shops and gave that info to Jake, so there is a small difference as Jake knows Im not a pro from Pinny. Im a normal guy trytrytrying hard from Minnesota. <o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

anyway, Jake was clear in these discussions. these are not discussions that are hard to interrupt!<o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

I can wager on anything I want to but he stated was (and many times) he does not only want a spot play on a weak prop line, he does not want me staring at a Don Best screen and only betting the big moves at this shop. I don’t have don Best anyway but he was clear (clear without it being documented in some signed contract). You can bet some steam if you have a service or follow a poster those lines move all the time you can play those but not only those. There is no time line to finish the rollover, he never told me that you have 120 days or something, He does not care about the timeline.<o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

He is stepping out big time to stabilize the very industry you are advertising when helping guys like me. no other banner in your "collection" even had the thought to have a discussion with me. I’m happily withdrawing funds from those shops as we speak (finishing up some rollovers!) and going to Jake.<o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

Do I think Jake will take my bonus away if I survive the roll over on some technicality? NO I DONT. Not even a small risk.<o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

I guess you could argue that he has been smarter with what he has said to me based on this guys situation. But I dont buy that he seems like a total straight shooter and I dont think there could be any confusion that he wants some continued action and not just hitting a weak prop twice a month and a few big Don Best steam plays. <o

></o

>
<o

></o

>

He offered to give this guy a bail out. help set up terms and then when this guy was clearly a patient betting pro not doing his end of the deal very well Jake called him and reminded him of what he needs, the guy did not follow along. Maybe late in the game he did spike up a few more plays. In my opinion this guy could have EASILY met Jakes terms and saved his bonus and most of his bankroll. But he choose not to. Now the guy is upset.

I normally am 95% behind fellow posters so I hope this does not alienate my from the community. Its just that I have had the same set of discussions with Jake so I know what he is communication to the player in these situation.

<o

></o

>Im ready next week to sent Jake a significant post up for the bailout. and Im happy to do it even with this current news.

I strongly suggest that the Rx in no way downgrades or takes any action to tarnish Jakes operation. He is helping to stabilize the industry and keep offshore players from quiting all together with a few bail out offers. I suggest this entire thread gets moved to the Rubber room as its a dispute with a former advertiser.

shrink I can tell you are feeling very very strong on your position on this but Id ask you to considerconsiderconsider everything.
<o

></o

>

<o

></o

>

bucsfan67 · Nov 20, 2004

As i stated before I see both sides here, and truly wish this could be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties......

I like Jake, and Sportbet, and yet i see where the player is coming from.....the worse part is the "problem" stems from Jake offereing to help a player, that already has had A BAD EXPERIENCE elsewhere, so he is ruffled as well.....

Looks as if both parties entered into this, expecting that the other side knew their intentions, and the parties had "differing" expectations.....

I hate to see the player get done wrong, cause that has already happened to him before the offer...

I hate to see Jake get raked over the coals, when he wouldnt even be involved if he hadnt made a generous offer to the poster.......

I think Shrink's idea would make for a good solution for the mess, and hope that maybe the parties will reconsider it after this settles down a little...

Right now we are still at the point where people are mad, and dont like shots being taken, so they are STANDING TOUGH.....something many of us do....(just look at the pacers game last night)........It might be a case right now of "mine is bigger than yours"

The main problem we have here with trying to reach a "compromise" is that usually when a customer and a business strike a compromise, its for the sake of the business wanting to keep the customer, and the customer wanting to do business with them.....In this case, the player obviously doenst want to play there anymore, and the book obviously doesnt want the customer anymore....This will cause a "deal" to take longer for sure....

Hopefully BOTH parties will step back after a little time, and get this settled.......

Seems there is enough to be gained, and enough to be lost, by both parties, for this not to happen......

good luck to both sides........

JudgeWapner · Nov 20, 2004

There is a lot of gray area here. i do believe a compromise is in order,but I see nothing to justify throwing SB off the site. Just my humble opinion.

Muddy · Nov 20, 2004

hawkeye171 said:
I agree with Shrink on this issue and his compromise.

I agree. SHRINKs compromise is very fair and makes alot of sense!

valueman · Nov 20, 2004

This is my first post on this issue and my thoughts are:

1 - Sportbet are at fault for trying to change the terms of the initial agreement once they had discovered the client was very sharp but if you don't lay out all the terms of the agreement from day 1 then you are only to blame.

2 - Pokerking is a sharp player that only bets when he feels things are in his favor - he is not going to throw bets a certain direction to fullfill rollover requirements in a shorter time period. This is not a crime and he had no rules on time limit or number of wagers etc. As a bookmaker I'd kick him out very quickly but you have to honour the deals made.

the shrink's compromise is fair and should be agreeable to both parties.

Matter closed

THE SHRINK · Nov 20, 2004

Judge,

A sports book who closes its doors down to negotiations when 90% of the posters here including yourself believe a compromise is in order isn't one that I want to include on this site, period...

Why is is OK for a sports book to pay hardball but not a WATCHDOG SITE that has given SPORTBET every opportunity to do the RIGHT THING and reopen communications with this gambler????

THE SHRINK

Jake · Nov 20, 2004

Now that the "ban" has been delayed...

Gents,

Read my post, on page 5, just after SS posted. I was willing to give him a 20% on his deposit, based on SS's post. I did not take that back, until after the Shrink threatened to ban me. I think it is appalling that he would even mention banning me, a poster who has been here since the beginning, as well as a representative of a book who advertised here for 6+ years. Why? HE HAS NOT EVEN SPOKEN TO ME ABOUT THIS!!! Instead, he reads here, like the rest of you, and makes his decision. He does not know my whole side, nor does he appear to care. I have spoke more to the mods on this site regarding this situation, than Ken.

G2G,

Oh clueless one, please read what you highlighted. I do not currently advertise here, but I stated, "If this decision means that all of you guys will not continue to ask us to advertise on your site, then so be it." In other words, they have been asking us to return as advertisers on this site, on a pretty regular basis.

Pokerking,

Thanks to Sports Savant, I am willing to make one offer and one offer only. Please contact me, should you see fit. Please understand that whether or not I am banned, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on my decision, rather entirely on the rationale presented by SS.

Jake

ChuckSims · Nov 20, 2004

I have to laugh at the posters that say "Jake was offering to help a player". Yeah sure, send me $5,000 and I will help you. And you better lose it or I will steal back the bonus offer. That sounds fair Jake. I really like this guy. NOT.

Pokerking · Nov 20, 2004

Shrink,

Thank you for trying to make some reasonable compromise. I think what you have suggested is fair and I am agreeable to it. I talked to Jake about 3 months ago and he talked to me in a very threatening manner and was totally unprofessional. I only told him that I would try to give him more action. I've given him about $10,000 in action since that call 3 weeks ago although I don't have the betting records. I never agreed to change the initial agreement. I keep my word and I expect the people I do business with too keep their word as well.

THE SHRINK · Nov 20, 2004

Pokerking said:
Shrink,

Thank you for trying to make some reasonable compromise. I think what you have suggested is fair and I am agreeable to it. I talked to Jake about 3 months ago and he talked to me in a very threatening manner and was totally unprofessional. I only told him that I would try to give him more action. I've given him about $10,000 in action since that call 3 weeks ago although I don't have the betting records. I never agreed to change the initial agreement. I keep my word and I expect the people I do business with too keep their word as well.

Pokerking,

I have tried to do what is right regardless of the fact that I don't even know you. I have talked with every moderator, including the General and they all believe you should get 70% of the bonus since you met 70% of the requirements before the s h i t hit the fan (so to speak)...

If SPORTBET didn't want your action, then they should have sent you your money back after the first of second call, but they didn't...

A sports book can't have it both ways. They took your action and they need to make good on their PROMISE to pay out on the bonus to you, imho...

Best of Luck,

THE SHRINK

Fishhead · Nov 20, 2004

Exactly!

PatrickMcIrish · Nov 20, 2004

Looks like the old Shrink is back, strong work here on behalf of the players.

Pokerking · Nov 20, 2004

My deal was setup through Patrick McIrish. It was all up front and Jake should have known who I was. Patrick did a great job trying to help the players robbed by Blue Marlin. I'd like to thank him for his efforts.

peteep · Nov 20, 2004

I think Jake is being fair. 70% is far too much to offer given the discussions he had. You can't simply yell at a book without looking at conditions the player were given and he did not meet.

The sad thing is that a good book like sportbet who has been able to help players who were screwed over by other books will be reluctant to do so in the future. Totally unfair to jump all over sportbet. Was Jake completely right in his initial decision; probably not. Was the player completely innocent? No. A 70% bonus in my mind is too generous. 20-40% would seem more appropriate.

THE SHRINK · Nov 20, 2004

Pokerking,

I don't normally do this BUT....

This is a matter of PRINCIPLE for me and because it is, if SPORTBET doesn't pony up the 3500 dollars, then I will...

Be good...:banger:

THE SHRINK

PatrickMcIrish · Nov 20, 2004

Your welcome PokerKing. One of the things about these bail outs is that I told all these sportbooks the same thing, I doubt you are getting Joe Square so don't count on it, pretend you are getting at least bettors with a clue, if not sharp action and above. If you have the means so that you can get a read on the type of action he has given to books in the past then by all means do so, if not make a deal you can live with. In fact I told the players at the time don't get upset if you are not accepted, not everyone will be. Several books passed over some on my list and some books passed completely from helping at all but a few stepped up even knowing the risks that not every player was probably going to be a dead loser. For that reason and several others I have already made it clear this was a bad call by Jake IMO, the time to pass was before the deal was agreed upon.

I hope this one decision doesn't trump everything else he has done here, in fact I hope that the RX and him work it all out, but this one is a little over the top. Again action by sportbooks that seem iffy at best while TOW and other places who proclaim to be here for the players stand back and approve. Not to get off the point here but places that claim to be an advocate for the players need to be just that, we play in an unregulated industry and send out post up funds to books, in short they hold all the cards. Sites such as this one are often the last resort for players so decisions from "player advocates" need to be measured and thought through completely. When TOW and others set precedent after precedent that goes against the players it hurts them much more than it is helping anyone from this side of the counter.

For those who say well at least he got his $5,000 back that's not the point, he's still out the 5k we were attempting to get back for him. In fact had we not gotten Sportbet to make this offer then maybe I could have gotten him into another book at the time? He just doesn't deserve to have a deal agreed upon and then amended over and over again until ultimately it is completely taken back. If ever I could I would do almost anything as a favor for Jake personally but hard to agree with what he has done here. My last post on this topic, thanks for hearing me out.

Pokerking · Nov 20, 2004

Shrink,

Kudos to you for sticking up for your principles. That's what is needed in this business. I'd like to point out to everybody that Shrink donated $2,000 to the prize fund for the poker tournament at the Rx Bash because he had initially said there would be a $5,000 prize fund and the sponsers only contributed $3,000.
You're a class act. Thanks for all your help.

go2guy · Nov 20, 2004

Jake you said, "Oh clueless one, please read what you highlighted. I do not currently advertise here, but I stated, "If this decision means that all of you guys will not continue to ask us to advertise on your site, then so be it." In other words, they have been asking us to return as advertisers on this site, on a pretty regular basis."

Thanks Jake it all makes sense now, I figured that for some time and now here's the confirmation. Regardless to that fact, you should still give this guy his 70% he played for ya think? It says something that Shrink is willing to pay the guy out of his own pocket on principle alone. I'm sure you'll get the $3500 back in one day of booking anyway. Chalk it up as a lesson learned and pay the guy.