Nearly a year ago, I wrote
When you take advertising from a sportsbook, and limit criticism of that book in this way, your website hurts the integrity of offshore gamling in its entirety. Whether or not you are a watchdog site, this policy hurts the players, and makes TheRX appear to be in cahoots with a criminal enterprise.
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=423897&highlight=daringly
Sportsbook.com recently confiscated winnings since September 1st from 31 players who bet correlated parlays. No one has disputed this. Sportsbook.com did NOT credit players who lost on these same type of bets in that time period. In effect, Sportsbook.com selectively chose which wagers to cancel 6 weeks later. If the set of plays lost, they stood. If they won, they were cancelled. This is a book "taking a shot" to an extreme degree.
In all my years of sports betting, I have never seen a worse case of thievery short of outright no-paying.
RickA recently stated that while he disagrees with their decision, he will continue to advertise for them. His decision to support Sportsbook.com will help them get higher google ratings at non-forum sites. It will encourage readers here to play there (could a book that cancels $100k's of wagers 6 weeks later be allowed to advertise here? of course not).
There comes a point in every person's life where they have to weigh integrity versus money. I hope RickA reconsiders his decision carefully, and removes all Sportsbook.com advertising.
When you take advertising from a sportsbook, and limit criticism of that book in this way, your website hurts the integrity of offshore gamling in its entirety. Whether or not you are a watchdog site, this policy hurts the players, and makes TheRX appear to be in cahoots with a criminal enterprise.
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=423897&highlight=daringly
Sportsbook.com recently confiscated winnings since September 1st from 31 players who bet correlated parlays. No one has disputed this. Sportsbook.com did NOT credit players who lost on these same type of bets in that time period. In effect, Sportsbook.com selectively chose which wagers to cancel 6 weeks later. If the set of plays lost, they stood. If they won, they were cancelled. This is a book "taking a shot" to an extreme degree.
In all my years of sports betting, I have never seen a worse case of thievery short of outright no-paying.
RickA recently stated that while he disagrees with their decision, he will continue to advertise for them. His decision to support Sportsbook.com will help them get higher google ratings at non-forum sites. It will encourage readers here to play there (could a book that cancels $100k's of wagers 6 weeks later be allowed to advertise here? of course not).
There comes a point in every person's life where they have to weigh integrity versus money. I hope RickA reconsiders his decision carefully, and removes all Sportsbook.com advertising.
