Current status of Rx.com negotiations with Sportsbook.com..

I know there is a lot of talk around the internet about Sportsbook.com confiscating balances from what I understand are 31 players. To be more accurate it's actually 31 players from approximately 25 different books, not just Sportsbook.com.

Getting back to Sportsbook.com so far I have received one single email (with two follow ups) from a person (not an Rx poster) who has aked me to help him.

I am actually still trying because even though he admits to betting more than 20 correlated parlays in the two weeks prior to the decision at Sportsbook.com on October 10th. he also bet over 125 straight wagers. I have copies of all of the bets in the email.

Other than that I received two other emails asking for help, one from a player who bet at Playersonly.com (not a Rxer) and another from a player and an Rx poster who bet at Sportsfanatik.com. Neither book is an advertiser here at The Rx.com but that does not mean I will not try to do what I can to help them.

These three players have my attention and I am trying to have their specific cases looked at and especially the case from Sportsbook.com which I am trying to have the straight wagers graded out separately and credited as separate transactions that did not break any rules or policies at Sportsbook.com.

The other two case are not as simple because I am dealing with non-sponsers where I lack the contacts necessary to achieve the same results I can at an Rx sponsor. I also do not have the same information as the player from Sportsbook.com forwarded to me.

My goal is to do what I can for all three but I am specifically holding out hope that I can get the Sportsbook.com player's case re-evaluated and have the correllaeted parlays he readily admits making separated from the totally legit straight wagers he made during the same two weeks. We are talking about close to 150 wagers in a two week period of which 22 were correlated parlays.

This is a complicated negotiation mainly because it is difficult to reach by telephone the uppermost management level at Sportsbook.com (actually Janzette Enterprises in this case) anytime I want unlike almost all other Rx. sponsors.

Everything else being posted at SBR about these other 28 players are totally out of my hands because I have no idea who they are, where they played, what their account numbers are or any information at all.
The players from Playersonly.com and Sportsfanatik.cm face a more difficult mediation here at The Rx.com because while those books are sister books of Sportsbook.com they are still non-advertisers and it is hard for me to reach anyone at either book with any clout but I have not stopped trying.

Eariler this year I worked extremely hard and long with people from Sportsbook.com when they were having processor bank problems and managed to get everyone paid (over 25 cases) but this is a more complicated issue that calls for dealing with the highest level of management at Sportsbook.com's parent company Janzette Enterprises rather than the mid level management I dealt with regarding the bank problems.

I know many of you want us to take down the Sportsbook.com banner to show them we will not tolerate what they are doing but in all honesty based on the single case we are working where the player still has a chance of recouping at least his funds won from the straight wagers he made during the two week period prior to the announcement email he recieved from Sportsbook.com that they would be confiscating funds won from that period removing banners would only lesson any chance he has of winning the mediation.

I am not using this case as an excuse to maintain the banner, but simply stating that cutting off all contact by removing it will certainly doom any chance this player has of recouping at least the straight wager funds.
My argument in this case is they claim this player made "exclusively correlated parlays, with no (or almost no) other action" during the period mentioned. However I have proof that he actually placed about 80 or more percent of his action on straight wagers rather than correlated parlays.

Rick is aware of this case (again our only one against Sportsbook.com) and is working with me trying to reach someone who can make what we both feel is the right decision in this particular case.

Rick is also working very hard on another aspect of this issue that I will let him discuss when he is ready to.

I am trying to keep you Rx posters informed as much as possible while still maintaining player confidentiality but I promise to keep this board posted as much as possible as to the final outcome of the mediation.

Thank you, wilheim

What difference does it make if the individual made "other" wagers or not?

If they ONLY made correalated parlays(even in the hundreds) and they were accepted by Sportsbook.com...........they need to pay.

Fishhead said:

What difference does it make if the individual made "other" wagers or not?

If they ONLY made correalated parlays(even in the hundreds) and they were accepted by Sportsbook.com...........they need to pay.

Click to expand...

t

I understand that having placed other wagers makes it easier for the RX staff to deal with this situation though, if that should occur.

Wil-

So if this 1 case you are negotiating gets taken care of, the banner will still fly?

I think they took the banner down across the street out of principle. No?

Fishhead said:

What difference does it make if the individual made "other" wagers or not?

If they ONLY made correalated parlays(even in the hundreds) and they were accepted by Sportsbook.com...........they need to pay.

Click to expand...

I agree but also

Wil what is the stance that they still take the wagers.

What has management told you about this and when will it come down from the site?

ANd if you do not get a satisfactory result (also known as Sportsbook.com is allowed the out and out theft and robbery they have done) will their banner still be allowed to hang here? That is the question: If they do not pay the players that are owed and are allowed to steal will the banner still hang here? It should not. We need to protect ourselves as a team and cannot condone robbery. EOG did the right thing and good for Shrink...RX needs to do the same.

Have they also confiscated money from straight wagers? That's what it sounds like from your post.

Up until now, I was under the impression they only took back winnings from the parlays.

As for the separate books, it is clear this decision was made at a central location, and therefore it can be reversed at the same central location.

Fishhead

In this case separating the straight wagers from the correllated parlays could mean a significant difference in compensated funds.

The larger issue of why compemsate correllated parlay funds at all is another matter altogether.

I am simply working the one case I have according to the way I interpret the players wishes. That is to separate the straight wagers from the correleated parlays and readjust his balance accordingly.


wil..

Jay C said:

Have they also confiscated money from straight wagers? That's what it sounds like from your post.

Up until now, I was under the impression they only took back winnings from the parlays.

Click to expand...

same feeling here JC





are players still allowed to submit correlated parlays at their books? many say they can as of this time, why have they not disabled their software from accecpting these plays?

<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Have they also confiscated money from straight wagers? That's what it sounds like from your post

Click to expand...

Jay C. that is what I am trying to find out, as of Tuesday the player was still playing straight wagers at Sportsbook.com but had stopped playing the correlated parlays. Which leads me to believe that straight wagers are being graded and credit/debited correctly.

I am hoping to get some sort of audit of all bets made during the period from September 1st thru Oct. 10th to be sure that no winning straight wagers were confiscated while losers were charged as losers.

Regarding EOG taking down the single banner of Sportsbetting.com a book that has supported Shrink for years, I doubt highly if there is a single case out of the 31 alleged cases from Sportsbetting.com. Taking that single banner down was pure grandstanding.


wil.

wilheim said:

Regarding EOG taking down the single banner of Sportsbetting.com a book that has supported Shrink for years, I doubt highly if there is a single case out of the 31 alleged cases from Sportsbetting.com. Taking that single banner down was pure grandstanding.


wil.

Click to expand...

Wil, I amnot sure what you mean here? Please explain? Thanks.
A single case of the 31 is what???

It's one book. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind separate front doors.

They are all owned by Jazzette.

wilheim said:

Regarding EOG taking down the single banner of Sportsbetting.com a book that has supported Shrink for years, I doubt highly if there is a single case out of the 31 alleged cases from Sportsbetting.com. Taking that single banner down was pure grandstanding.


wil.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth I initially felt that it was a solid effort on EOG's part.

That is until I saw that Hache Man, a moderator over there, came here to post for only the 3rd time this year advertising the fact.

http://www.therxforum.com/showpost.php?p=4610916&postcount=51

Which clearly indicated a publicity stunt.

That doesn't take away from the fact that SPORTSBOOK.COM's banner should be removed from TheRx though. And ASAP.

Shrink is scum period and a thief.

Wilheim has a lot bettor traits and will try and help the players.

Timetopay said:

I agree but also

Wil what is the stance that they still take the wagers.

What has management told you about this and when will it come down from the site?

Click to expand...

Wil can you please answer these for me.

Cause although we all feel they stole from the players I think the fact they are still allowing it and the feeling they are freerolling is what really is horrible.

Thanks

fucnluc, rest assured, the decision accross the street is not one of shivalry.

Everyone is up in arms, but have not allowed for a reasonable amount of time to pass before getting all worked up.

its a shame.

RickA, wilheim, myself and the rest of the RX crew remain committed to our customers. Plain and simple.

fucnluc said:

For what it's worth I initially felt that it was a solid effort on EOG's part.

That is until I saw that Hache Man, a moderator over there, came here to post for only the 3rd time this year advertising the fact.

http://www.therxforum.com/showpost.php?p=4610916&postcount=51

Which clearly indicated a publicity stunt.

That doesn't take away from the fact that SPORTSBOOK.COM's banner should be removed from TheRx though. And ASAP.

Click to expand...

everyone should've realized this instantly, and on top of that I'm gonna go on a hunch and guess advertising space costs more over here

Jay C said:

Have they also confiscated money from straight wagers? That's what it sounds like from your post.

Up until now, I was under the impression they only took back winnings from the parlays.

As for the separate books, it is clear this decision was made at a central location, and therefore it can be reversed at the same central location.

Click to expand...

Jay - Only winnings from the correlated parlays has been confiscated.

thanks
Rick

thank you Mr Cleo for bringing some sanity to the picture.

Tom

Someone broke the story that 31 players from various books that are related to Sportsbook.com (which is by now everyone should know is owed by Janzette Enterprises) had funds confiscated for betting correlated parlays which has caused a stir amoung these forums. My point is there are around 25 sister books involved, knowing Sportsbetting.com like I do I doubt if they were one of the books that allowed the correlated parlays to take place.

Why Sportsbook.com is taking most of the heat is anyone's guess. I was told by a supervisor at Janzette that none of the actual players involved have even come forward as of last Tuesday. That does not mean some have not contacted forums or other websites that assist players to seek assistance.

I have the one case at Sportsbok.com and am doing what I can to help the player involved. He may have given up on The Rx. because we refused to remove any banners but I have not given up on his case. I also to repeat myself have a single case each from Playersonly.com and Sportsfanatik.com.


wil..