Watchdogs, Sportsbooks and Posters – we need a consensus

JohnBuzz · Jul 2, 2005

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

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

>

In reference to account confiscation cases:
<o

> </o

>
In any case where a player has money removed, forfeited or otherwise had funds subtracted from his account, the sportsbook must show proof as to their justification for the confiscation. –this paragraph has been widely adopted in the aftermath of the 2002 case against SportsInteraction-
<o

> </o

>
If the sportsbook confiscates funds citing proof of impropriety:<o

></o

>

The sportsbook must make their facility reasonably available for the purpose of verification including software, hardware, reporting system, in-house IT, original tape recordings, clerks, ect., to the watchdog community for verification. (at the expense of the watchdogs)
<o

> </o

>
If a sportsbook fails to allow the watchdog community to verify and authenticate the evidence which they are using to confiscate a player’s money, then any claim of valid evidence against the player should be ignored and the confiscation reconsidered on the known, verified merits.
<o

> </o

>
The latter paragraph we very much need to form a strong consensus. This is needed to protect both the players and the sportsbooks.<o

></o

>

sherman · Jul 2, 2005

this industry needs regulation like a pint of blood!

Jarbo · Jul 2, 2005

JohnBuzz said:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

In reference to account confiscation cases:
<o></o>
In any case where a player has money removed, forfeited or otherwise had funds subtracted from his account, the sportsbook must show proof as to their justification for the confiscation. –this paragraph has been widely adopted in the aftermath of the 2002 case against SportsInteraction-
<o></o>
If the sportsbook confiscates funds citing proof of impropriety:<o></o>

The sportsbook must make their facility reasonably available for the purpose of verification including software, hardware, reporting system, in-house IT, original tape recordings, clerks, ect., to the watchdog community for verification. (at the expense of the watchdogs)
<o></o>
If a sportsbook fails to allow the watchdog community to verify and authenticate the evidence which they are using to confiscate a player’s money, then any claim of valid evidence against the player should be ignored and the confiscation reconsidered on the known, verified merits.
<o></o>
The latter paragraph we very much need to form a strong consensus. This is needed to protect both the players and the sportsbooks.<o></o>

PLEASE- we don't need ant Fucking Lawyers!

Go post on West Law!

ChuckSims · Jul 2, 2005

Any bettor would definitely agree with the statement below:

"If a sportsbook fails to allow the watchdog community to verify and authenticate the evidence which they are using to confiscate a player’s money, then any claim of valid evidence against the player should be ignored and the confiscation reconsidered on the known, verified merits."

DarrylParsons · Jul 2, 2005

^
.l
.l
.l

What he said

ClipJoint · Jul 2, 2005

JohnBuzz said:
The sportsbook must make their facility reasonably available for the purpose of verification including software, hardware, reporting system, in-house IT, original tape recordings, clerks, ect., to the watchdog community for verification. (at the expense of the watchdogs)

That seems a little ridiculous to me. I am not very tech smart, but I don't think there is any way I would let a watchdog site come in and go through my software and hardware.

I like the approach of getting a set of rules to go by...but that seems a little extreme.

lander · Jul 2, 2005

If it's true that 90-some % of the players don't know about watchdogs then I'm with ClipJoint -- why the h*ll would a book agree to this?

DarrylParsons · Jul 2, 2005

I also agree we're better off staying far away from fukking lawyers. Let each party make their case on the forums and the combined experience and intelligence here will see through whichever side is BS-ing 98% of the time. As for the other 2%, a good book knows it's better off in the long run giving the player the benefit of the doubt, so if it doesn't then we'll know it's not a good book just from that.

JohnBuzz · Jul 3, 2005

Has nothing to do with lawyers.

We had a case where the book swore they had the goods on a player and their software reports proved it.

We said fine, we will hire a 3rd party software expert, that we both agree on, to come by and verify the claim and we will close the case in favor of the sportsbook.

The player insisted he did nothing wrong.

While we were arranging a verification meeting the book finally admitted it did not have the goods but it still "believed" the player committed fraud. Result: Judgment for the player and the book paid a 5 figure settlement in full.

If we had not pressed to have the book's claim verified this player would have been defrauded.

One day it could be you. And plus, any book with proof is going to have no problem verifying it.

Santo · Jul 3, 2005

Seems logical to me..

You're not asking the book to incur any expense, and the situation is resolved beyond reasonable doubt...

ChuckSims · Jul 3, 2005

Good work John Buzz. The grading of books at your site is well respected. I will still be on your ass for that A+ VIP grade though! LOL.

silver7 · Jul 3, 2005

John B

Don`t see how the hell you can rate VIP A+. All you have to do is read "players Reviews" published on your site to see the multitude of complaints of all kinds re. this book. To me for any book to be given in effect a "10" which just like women is supposed to flawless. Anything less would be an A on down. Why are you having such a difficult time with the logic in this? Don`t say "no one is perfect" because if that`s the case just as in life there are no 10`s or A+'s!!

DarrylParsons · Jul 3, 2005

JohnBuzz said:
While we were arranging a verification meeting the book finally admitted it did not have the goods but it still "believed" the player committed fraud. Result: Judgment for the player and the book paid a 5 figure settlement in full.

If we had not pressed to have the book's claim verified this player would have been defrauded.

One day it could be you. And plus, any book with proof is going to have no problem verifying it.

Sounds like a good job by you guys and a good result. Why do you need the documentation with the gobbledegook, then? All that's been written about this case on the forums is documentation enough, no? Next time something similar happens you can just do the same thing but faster since you've been through it once already.

Or if you're concerned about the book claiming you violated your contract with them, just put in some general wording about allowing a watchdog to be a proper watchdog and the fact that they pay you for certain services doesn't give them an exception on that.

The less gobbledegook the better IMO.

THE SHRINK · Jul 3, 2005

John,

For what it's worth, I think it's an excellent and nobel idea.

The key will be execution and I am willing to help...

THE SHRINK

JohnBuzz · Jul 3, 2005

Thanks ken.

The first line of defense against books doctoring records is to let them know they will be held accountable to show proof. What SBG and SIA did cost players and there was never any proof. There were no strong watchdogs, or at least not strong enough that they could make such a demand when those cases came up, but times are changing.

Players have to demand that proof is made available. The day of "we got it on tape, end of story" needs to end. The fact that the proof will be verified in itself will help deter books from falsely doctoring evidence. And the more faith the general public has in the honesty of industry the bigger it will become.

Number13 · Jul 3, 2005

Well considering that most of these "watchdogs" are more corrupt than the books.....

Dante · Jul 3, 2005

Number 13 said:
Well considering that most of these "watchdogs" are more corrupt than the books.....

Number 13 ...I disagree on "MOST" only because if a Watchdog tries that the posters Lambast them on a regular basis...

The posters would not stand for it they would bring the heat as the 4 major WD sites, IMO have VERY sharp posters and MANY people in the know..that can spot bullshit and are not afriaid to call someone out on it.

Old#7 · Jul 3, 2005

Why don't you guys like VIP? Bacause they limit winners?

Great book for squares IMO.

lander · Jul 3, 2005

Old #7 said:
Why don't you guys like VIP? Bacause they limit winners?

Great book for squares IMO.

This has been rehashed time and time again, but for John's latest lackey ...

Seeing how most squares play the fav and over, and seeing how VIP inflates the fav and over, and seeing how sharps are booted quicker than a fat guy at a buffet, it would seems the squares are getting the price shaft.

Unless squares want to be price gouged, then VIP isn't so great.

ClipJoint · Jul 3, 2005

lander said:
This has been rehashed time and time again, but for John's latest lackey ...

Seeing how most squares play the fav and over, and seeing how VIP inflates the fav and over, and seeing how sharps are booted quicker than a fat guy at a buffet, it would seems the squares are getting the price shaft.

Unless squares want to be price gouged, then VIP isn't so great.

Yea...that is pretty ridiculous to give them the same rating as say Pinnacle.

VIP forces you to bet a bad line. If you bet the side with value, you are gone. That isn't bookmaking.