Sportbet renegs on deal

[Pokerking]

Earl,

The problem is when you deal with someone like jake who is always changing the rules mid-stream he'll always have an excuse to take away the $5,000. You're only betting strong plays, you didn't fulfill the spirit of the bonus, etc. He kept changing things on me. Cutting my limits to $250, quoting me different numbers when I'd phone in than what they had on the net for example.

 

[InsideThePylons]

I love the rationalization in this thread by some real non-thinking posters.

Let's see.........

Jake made a deal.

Four times he threatened to welch on the deal.

Finally he welched on the deal claiming that because he threatened to welch on the deal four times, he has absolute justification to now welch on the deal.

I guess if I see a bad line (switched 15 point favorite) and I tell a book 4 times they made a mistake, I would be justified to bet as much as I could on the game if the mistake wasn't corrected and fully expect to be able to keep the bet.

 

[JayC]

My two cents if anyone cares.

The deal was made with no constraints on bets per months or time to rollover. The original deal should have been honored. If Pokerking came here after the first conversation with Jake where Jake laying down new terms, this would be an easy call. Once Pokerking agreed to these terms, it becomes a question of whether or not he had any choice. Was he under duress? Could he have said "No Jake, I want the original deal where I bet what I want and take as long as I like." Sounds like he couldn't.

This is what you get for offering ridiculous deals. Jake didn't do his homework on the guy, made him a ridiculous offer based on who he is, (actually it's a bad deal to offer even to a square) and then tried to revise the terms ex-post facto. It's not that Sportbet doesn't like how often he bets, the problem is what he bets. Lowering his limits, that's fair game. But realize it's going to take him much longer to reach his 100K goal, he was 70% there. I'm sure if he made 8 bets a month, the Monday night favorite and the over he wouldn't have had his bonus stolen.

You cut his limits, why do you care if he takes 5 years to meet his rollover?

Ahh the bonus. Let's call these deals what they are, just another bonus program. A "Bail out" is where some entity actually covers your losses from somewhere else, because they have recovered some assets of the blown out entity or out of the goodness of their heart and their quest for favorable PR. You don't need to send money in for a "Bail out."

All this situation is is a 100% bonus with a 10X rollover. It's a loser for the house. It breaks even after expected win but doesn't cover expenses. The only unknown is the good will and marketing value of offering it. The book thinks that the "bailed out" players will be so enthralled with the book that they will re-up and continue playing there past their rollover requirement. The book hopes it will get good PR for its actions and get new business from it.

I think the book should honor the bonus, let the player make his rollover at the lower limits.

I don't think the player should have ever agreed to the new terms, and I am not sure if he really had a choice.

 

[Dante]

I have met Pokerking at the last vegas bash and he seemed like a straight good guy he, he talked to Fishhead and Myself for a few hrs and is a good poker player and I would consider him a sharp as he knows his stuff IMO

.....I also for years have seen jake in the forums and always there when a problem arouse with sporbet...I hope these 2 can work something out ... just my 2 cents for what its worth

 

[Pokerking]

Jay,

I never agreed to any new terms. I said I'd try to give him more action when he yelled at me that he was unhappy with the amount of my action even though he refused to raise my limits from $250 on the net. When I make a deal I stick with it. I prefer not to deal with people who don't keep their deals like Jake.

 

[go2guy]

Jay C. said, "Ahh the bonus. Let's call these deals what they are, just another bonus program. A "Bail out" is where some entity actually covers your losses from somewhere else, because they have recovered some assets of the blown out entity or out of the goodness of their heart and their quest for favorable PR. You don't need to send money in for a "Bail out." Jay, I totally agree with you on this especially this statement. By the way, Jake has a history of trying to bend players with his phone calls. I wouldn't put it past him at all. IMO the player got the shaft here.

 

[wilheim]

From a moderators stand point Jake has always been very axcessable and helpful. He has never not done anything he promised to do in an E-mail regarding player disputes. He responds promptly and with curtesy. I also hope this issue can be resolved.



wil.

 

[michael777]

bottom line is,jake changed the rules in midstream

 

[Pokerking]

I was under a lot of restrictions because of their so called bailout. I couldn't make any withdrawls and I was entitiled to take advantage of promtions like their free half point in basketball.

 

[BAUS]

What JayC said made a lot of sense.

One thing I don't understand: If the player has a large balance sitting "semi-idle", why is this a problem? Wouldn't Sportbet be theoretically making some interest off this players balance? Why should Sportbet care if it takes the player takes 1 month or 12 to meet rollover?

I also see nothing wrong with playing steam.

BAUS

 

[christof]

Is the legal system in Jake's country similar to the U.S.?

In a U.S. court, Poker King would get a summery judgement before it even went to the jury. Simple breach by Jake.

 

[BillDozer]

Pokerking got a raw deal. He likely lost a boatload of cash because of Sportbet's mistake. In the $60k of action he gave, how likely is it that Sportbet always had the best line and price? Not likely.

PokerKing was working and investing towards something and ended up working for free. The warnings didn't do him any favors.

As Jay C said, Sportbet offered a bonus and it was business move. This is another example of SB having their cake and eating it too. When the bonus offer is profitable it sticks. When the 300 lb guy walks into the buffet the vegetables come out and crab cakes go away. If he still eats the best vegies, hes out.

 

[Pokerking]

Billdozer,

You summed it up well. Often I'd bet with them at -110 even though some low juice place would have a line at -107. I really started to get fed up when they were only taking $250 bets from me. It just felt like a total waste of time.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Shrink,

How can you say it's honourable to make an offer and keep changing the rules.
I couldn't make any withdrawls and left my money there, then he just takes my 5k back.

Pokerking,

I never said THAT was honorable, but what I did say is that I have known Jake to be honorable...

I believe a FAIR compromise can be reached as I am beginning to see BOTH sides of the story...

Since the PLAYER reached 70% of the BONUS requirement, why not reward him 70% of the $5,000 dollars he was promised and we can all move on???

I believe that would be $3500...

Any takers for what I perceive to be a FAIR compromise?

SPORTBET?

POKERKING?

THE SHRINK

 

[Pokerking]

Shrink,

I'm more than willing to mediate. Your suggestion sounds fair to me. I phoned Jake and he said that's the way it was and he had the money so there wasn't much I could do. I was just happy to get the rest of my money back.

 

[BAUS]

Since the PLAYER reached 70% of the BONUS requirement, why not reward him 70% of the $5,000 dollars he was promised and we can all move on???

I believe that would be $3500...

Because then Jake gets off the hook for $1500....

BAUS

 

[Muddy]

I believe a FAIR compromise can be reached as I am beginning to see BOTH sides of the story...

Since the PLAYER reached 70% of the BONUS requirement, why not reward him 70% of the $5,000 dollars he was promised and we can all move on???

I believe that would be $3500...

Any takers for what I perceive to be a FAIR compromise?


THE SHRINK

Sharp post! I think thats fair.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Shrink,

I'm more than willing to mediate. Your suggestion sounds fair to me. I phoned Jake and he said that's the way it was and he had the money so there wasn't much I could do. I was just happy to get the rest of my money back.

Thanks Pokerking for the compromise.

We'll just have to wait and see if this is acceptable with Jake and SportBet...

Thanks,

THE SHRINK

 

[bucsfan67]

This is another example of SB having their cake and eating it too. When the bonus offer is profitable it sticks. When the 300 lb guy walks into the buffet the vegetables come out and crab cakes go away. If he still eats the best vegies, hes out.

I agree more with Sportbet on this issue then the player, but i do see both sides, and why they are both aggravated....but i reflect back to this being a bailout, therefore it is dealt with differently....the player would have gotten nothing for his money from HIS BOOK, here he got an extra 5,000 to play with and use to win.....he got the winnings just not the bonus...

That being said, that quote above was FUNNY.............

 

[Pokerking]

Bucsfan,

It wasn't really a bailout since I had to send them $5,000 and give them 100k in action. I also couldn't make any withdrawls or take advantage of any promotions like their free half point for Basketball. It was more like a generous bonus with very stringent conditions.