Sportbet renegs on deal

[Jake]

Absolute final post by Jake (in this thread or on this subject)...

Pokerking,

When I asked you to work with me, BEFORE this came to the forums, you said you would...but then did not. NOW that it is in the forums, you are willing to work with me? LOL. No thanks. My stance is firm on this situation. You had your chance to keep the bonus, you just chose not to do what you said you would do. I told you I required more regular action, you said you would give that to me, and you did not. After numerous chances, I took back your bonus...NOW you want to see what we can work out? I hope you understand why I would have to decline the offer.

Jake

 

[TOW]

Thanks Pat, as I said I always welcome different opinions as I believe they all have dignity, despite the fact I might share them or not, and I do agree with you that sometimes my judgements are somehow "different" from the rest because of the influence of having been "behind the counter" for quiet a long time.

On the other hand I always try to balance every situation based on both perspectives, player and book. Sometimes I lean more on one, sometimes I lean more on the other, based on the nature of the dispute.

Earlier today I ws chatting with Lenny about the dispute raised by a player who turned out having found a workaround to pastpost horse plays. The workaround issue could eventually lead to an endless discussion, yet the pastpost kills any doubt and closes the dispute in favor of the book.

Back to the original issue :

As I mentioned in an earlier post this whole issue could have easily been avoided if both parties had entered into a written agreement. Hard to twist written words, easy to "modify" verbal agreements.

I also tend to agree with some posters that what Sportbet has offered PK was more of a "relief" than a bailout. However it is impossible to determine which terms had been stipulated, since both parties tend to twist word in each others favor.

Bottomline Pat I am more than willing to side with legitimate players who raise legitimate claims but, at least in my opinion, some of the latest claims, like the ones you have made reference to, leave lots of room for interpretation, unless a line is drawn.

In a very recent case I have sided with BG having seen how the player raising the dispute had knowingly and intentionally circumvented house limits by taking advantage of a software bug. You will never see me standing on a side other than the book's side when such thing occur. Taking advantage of a bug is cheating in my book, and cheaters damage honest players and books alike.

Once again thank you for sharing your opinion. Appreciated.

 

[Pokerking]

Jake,

I gave you about 10k in action since you yelled at me 3 weeks ago. You even complained when I bet a CFL game and you'd only take $1000 even on the phone. I called you after you took the $5,000 out of my account and you were still your usual unreasonable self.

 

[Noreaga+]

what do you expect from a man who picks the name " Jake Slater " to go by

2,300 views... hopefully people learned something and Slater's pockets are hurt more now than if he would have just been a man and kept his word.

 

[SportSavant]

JAKE/POKER,

I have thought about this long & hard...

Jake.... are you trying to tell the forum that you are 100% free of error in this case? is there not any accountability on your side (sportbet)?

by removing the man's 5K you are essentially telling the forum that you are 100% free of error in this case.

1) there was no specified time limit when the rules were set.

2) the cx was not allowed to take part in any of the 'regular' promtions such as free 1/2 points, reduced juice, etc etc etc...... (apart from that your shop does not have anything very exciting to offer with very heavy vig)

3) the cx's online limits were cut to 250$ (you may say he could call but not everybody has that luxury.... some of us have spouces who do not want us to call bookies).

4) You have held the cx's money for all this time & collected interest off his money....

5) Cx has rolled over the money 7 times so far....... any regular customer would have received at least a 20% Bonus from the customer yet you are giving him NOTHING? not even the 20% a regular customer would have had?

6) Unless of course it was specified in the initial rules when the deal was set up... who are you to dictate how much action he gives.... IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF YOU CALLED HIM SEVERAL TIMES.... WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS WAS THIS PART OF THE INITIAL DEAL?

****could pokering have acted a bit more responsibly.... sure he could have, he could have given you a bit more action, even if it was just for smaller amounts, he could have respected what you told him.... WAS HE OBLIGATED TO DO THIS? not according to the deal.... why should the bookie dictate how the money is bet? after all, pokering's style was allowing the bookie to hold his money for a long time & collect interest on that money****

JAKE, you need to really look in the mirror & ask yourself... If there was a way for this case to go to court... In front of a Jury...... do you think.... on a balance of probabilities all independent jurors would vote in your favor? I think you know the answer to that.

Of course this case cannot go to a Jury because you are shielded by the fact that you are offshore where you are safe from pokering's ability to take legal action & you are the one holding the money.

Again I ask... do you honestly beleive that you are 100% free of responsibility in this case? I mean even if it wasn't a 'bailout' you would have given this guy at least a 20% Bonus for being a 'regular' cx woudnt you of?

Jake.... do you honestly beleive a player like pokering would have given you 70K of action if not for the 'bailout'? You took the action... based on the bonus..... come on now.

***pokering may be guilty of 'poor ethics' for not giving Jake more action, but this is business, we are not here to make friends, bookies are here to take our money & we are here to take theirs.... it is a game really... In the REAL business world, a business world with consequences, accountability, where businesses could be sued there would no reason for two companies to act 'ethical' they are there to swallow each other..... ****

I FIND THAT (JAKE) SPORTBET, ERRED IN THIS CASE BY NOT SPECIFYING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AGREEMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TIMEFRAME INVOLVED IN THE DEAL. THIS SINGLE, SIMPLE POINT IS IMPERATIVE TO THIS CASE.

I ALSO FIND THAT THE BEST WAY TO RESOLVE THIS SITUATION NOW IS TO FOLLOW SHRINK'S SUGGESTION. THE CX HAS BEEN REFUNDED HIS MONEY & THE ACCOUNT PRESUME CLOSED, SO THERE IS NO SENSE FOR THE CUSTOMER TO TRY TO FULFILL THE REQUIRMENT AT THIS POINT.

JAKE, THIS MAN COMPLETED 70% OF HIS ROLLOVER & YOU OWE HIM 70% OF THE 'BAILOUT/BONUS'.

JAKE, PLEASE TAKE THIS SITATION SERIOUSLY & HOLD YOUR SELF & THE INDUSTRY THAT YOUR REPRESENT TO THE SAME STRINGINT LAWS, RULES & REQUIRMENTS THAT ANY BUSINESS THAT OPERATES WITH INTEGRITY WOULD BE HELD BY. IF YOU WERE LEGAL, LOCATED IN THE USA & REGULATED BY THE GOVERNEMENT THERE IS NO WAY YOU WOULD GET AWAY WITH THIS, IT IS BREACH OF CONTRACT, YOU HAVE BREACHED YOUR CONTRACT WITH THIS MAN. YOU CANNOT CALL A PERSON ON THE PHONE AFTER YOU HAVE MADE A CONTRACT & TRY TO CHANGE THE DETAILS OF THAT CONTRACT.... THIS WAS A VALID CONTRACT THAT HAD POTENTIAL GAMES FOR BOTH PARTIES..... POKERING RECEIVED A BAILOUT & SOLUTION TO HIS STIFFING, SPORTBET RECEIVED A NEW CUSTOMER, PUBLICITY FOR PROMOTING A BAILOUT, & A POTENTAIL 100k WORTH OF ACTION WITH A POTENTIAL CUSTOMER FOR LIFE IF YOUR SHOP APPEALED TO THEM.... BOTH SIDES GOT SOMETHING, IT DIDNT WORK YOU FOR YOUR SIDE JAKE, YOU MADE A POOR BUSINESS DECISION, YOU FAILED TO MENTION A TIMELINE ON THE ROLLOVER, YOU FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE PLAYER. NOW YOU MUST HOLD UP YOUR END OF THE CONTRACT.

 

[Pokerking]

The main reason for my lack of action was the $250 internet limits he gave me. I make almost all my bets on the net and it was hard to get motivated to look at Sportbet's lines with $250 limits.

 

[JudgeWapner]

PK,any reason you don't call in plays?

 

[SuperSunday]

Uber
I think you are missing the point. The bonus is a gift, but a gift given with expectations.
That's the nature of the analogy.
Of course this topic is a beaten horse, and we don't have to agree. I won't spend any more time justifying my position. Thanks for the input, though. I did step back and think about it, but I came to the same conclusion.
Later
Sunday

 

[Pokerking]

Judge Wapner,

There are a number of reasons I don't like to call in plays. On numerous occassions they gave me a different number than they had on the net. Usually when they had a good number on a dog they would quote me a different number. It's faster to bet on the net, I don't wake people up when I bet at 9:00 am for example on an NFL game.

 

[SportSavant]

PK,any reason you don't call in plays?

interesting question, however irrelevent to this case....

 

[BAUS]

Calling is annoying for a variety of reasons:

1) Worse line than on the screen in front of you.
2) Wasting time on hold.
3) Wasting time speaking to an illiterate.
4) People around, who you may not want knowing what you are doing.
5) Online is much faster.


BTW, good post SS.

BAUS

 

[go2guy]

I told the posters here at the Rx before the football season to stay away from Sportbet (I understand PK you had a proposed deal for a very generous bonus), hopefully others will heed the warning. This isn't the first time Sportbet has pulled a similiar scam like this off and some of the cases never reach the forums. By the way Ronald great observation earlier in this thread, I wonder the same thing at times as far as the MODS jumping to Jake's defense everytime an issue comes up, which is far too often for my comfort :WTF: Reminds me of people who constantly defend Michael Jackson's action but the accusations continue to come in month after month and year after year against him???

Jake aka The Snake Oil Salesman :nono5:

 

[acw]

Am I the only one that is a bit stunned to see how some posters come to the rescue of Jake?

That Jake is in for a bit of 'fun' has been well known to me for quite some time. No need for me to make that clear. Others will do, but some posters here even kind of side with him saying things like 'you must know how hard it is to be a bookie', 'you think you will get some losing client, but he turns out to be smart', 'bookies got to make money somehow', 'a $5000 bonus. What do you expect?'.

Wake up guys! We are not in some charity business!

P.S. I absolutely love this thread!

 

[Ronald]

JAke is a joke. He;s worse than Alan Roberts, Oliver Curran, and the Masons.

 

[wilheim]

Marcellus Wallace returns.


wil.

 

[Fishhead]

I side with POKERKING 100% in this situation.

 

[dickiesmiles]

another deal that looked good

Invite the guy to dinner ..then give him a bill on the way out.....In my opinion Sportbet is pretty lame.....a bettor may opt to wager whenever he wishes on whatever game he wishes....there should be no nazi telling him he has to bet more...what kind of krap is this.....the book doesnt have a leg to stand on. In a court the judge would throw the damn thing out and kick the attorney out of the courtroom...the problem with these damn books is they want to be in the freagin insurance business but they are in the gambling biz....there is a risk involved..sometimes the player actually wins.....

 

[brewster]

My 2 cents FWIW.

There is wrongdoing on both sides of the fence.

Jake, you shouldn't have waited till near the end of his rollover to pull his bonus. This is just wrong. At the very least this should be viewed as a 5 dime deposit with a 20% bonus and a 5x rollover, maybe 8x. Player should get a dime.

Pokerking, your 5 dimes at blue marlin vanished. Zero. Gone. Along comes Sportbet with an offer. Remember, before this offer you have zero. Why in gods name wouldnt you roll this over fast. With all the baseball games on the board, even betting into negative scalps you would walk away with about 3.5-4k of your money. Easily. 3.5k is much better than nothing, which is where you started.

 

[ChuckSims]

pokerking gives Sportbet $10,000 of action in 3 weeks and Jake still steals back the $5,000. Just when you think Jake is as low as it gets he surprises you and reaches a whole new depth. Lesson learned from this thread; stay the hell away from Sportbet.

 

[go2guy]

Take this as a warning sign when dealing with Sportbet or even thinking of doing business with them. Any book desperate enough to keep a $5000 bonus they extended to a customer and change the rules from a verbal agreement along the way is a hurting book.