Betjamaica Dispute

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#81
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

It may be an oversight, it's more likely that their horse software is made by different people than their sports software, and doesn't have a no duplicates feature.
The racebook software does not have a no duplicates feature, that is not an issue here. In fact, the racebook has a $1000 limit on some major tracks, but the software does not allow a $1000 bet, but instead you must make 2 $500 "dupe" bets.

But I know what you mean, Santo....you mean the racebook software, unlike the sportsbook software, might not have the ability to restrict a player, like oscark, from making 2 "dupe" bets. If that is true, then they SHOULD have that feature in the racebook software. I do know for a fact that their racebook software was updated just last year, as opposed to their sportsbook software which is much older.

Which brings up another issue....their sportsbook software has an interesting feature. Try parlaying 2 teams, one at -110 and one at -105...if you bet $110 and win the first game, you would have $210, which parlayed with the -105 team, should result in a net win of $300....but I just checked again, and it pays $294 instead. Now that just happens to be an easy parlay payoff to figure out but it is the same with every negative odds parlay(interestingly, they don't do it on +odds parlays, probably because these are so easy for anyone to figure out what the correct payoff should be), ie. they cheat you just a little bit on the payoff, because then can. No one has complained to them about it...save for me. I've complained to Scotty for 5 years about this and to his credit he said he would make sure that I got paid the correct amount, $300 if I bet any such parlays. But that is not the point with me...I just want them to do the right thing and correct it. So far they haven't; Scotty says it's Spiro's fault; I don't know, but I do know that they haven't corrected it....yet!
 
#83
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

Never fear then...to eliminate the need for you to edit, let's continue this discussion...

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by pioneer

Then why did BetJm restrict him to making just $500 bets in the sportsbook and not in the racebook?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

PROBABLY JUST AN OVERSIGHT........HE WAS TOLD $500 LIMITS........HE BROKE THE RULES THAT WERE GIVEN TO HIM......PERIOD......

...so we agree that BetJm not only told oscark that he could not bet more than $500 in the sportsbook, but they also insured by their software, that oscark was physically unable to bet more than $500 in their sportsbook.

But BetJm did not insure by their software, that oscark was physically unable to bet more than $500 in their racebook. In fact, they posted that the limits at certain major tracks was $1000 and allowed oscark to make 2 $500 bets in the racebook, as opposed to not letting him make 2 $500 bets in the sportsbook. Therefore, it could be logically argued that BetJm was profferring oscark implicit consent to bet the posted limits in the racebook($1000), as opposed to his $500 limit in the sportsbook.

Now even as you say, Devil, this may have been just an oversight on the part of BetJm, shouldn't BetJm be responsible for their oversights? I certainly agree, as I said in post #24, that it would have been better for oscark to call BetJm and confirm what his racebook limits before making any limit bets. As anal as I am, I sure would have! And I would be willing to side with BetJm if they had made their claim on one of the first six $1000 bets which they had no trouble accepting and paying oscark.

But this appears to be BetJm taking a NEEDLESS shot at the player. Needless is all caps, not to try to emulate the Devil, but to make the point that BetJm is cutting their nose to spite their face! BetJm should have congratulated the player on his win and let him keep betting...chances are he would give all the money back in the long run if not the short run. If anything, BetJm should reconsider allowing horseplayers to bet $1000 if BetJm is not laying off those bets. Obviously, $1000 bet on a longshot and not put into the parimutuel pool, makes a huge difference in the payout.

That should be enough to get you irritated again!
PIONEER......LIKE I SAID PROBABLY AN OVERSIGHT.....HE HAD ONLY BET SPORTS PRIOR TO THIS, HAD NEVER BET A HORSE......HOW WAS SCOTTY TO KNOW A MONTH OR TWO DOWN THE ROAD HE WOULD BET HORSES???? HE TOLD THE CLIENT $500 LIMITS NO DUPS.....

POINT NUMBER TWO.......SCOTTY PROBABLY DIDN'T BLOCK THE GUY ON THE SOFTWARE......HE GAVE THE ORDER TO SOMEONE BENEATH HIM TO PUT A $500 CAP ON THIS GUYS BETS.......AND THERE ALSO IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT NO ONE KNEW ONE BLOCK DID NOT BLOCK ALL........
 

trytrytry

All I do is trytrytry
#84
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

he was only blocked in the sportsbook Devil not the racebook. you can not have the action the guy had which was all sportsbook and have that limit set on the casino, pools, racebook etc. big daddy has the best post of them all in another thread where his limits have been cut and he still can bet more in other areas at bet jam... come on Scottie get this one turned around.
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#85
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

PIONEER......LIKE I SAID PROBABLY AN OVERSIGHT.....HE HAD ONLY BET SPORTS PRIOR TO THIS, HAD NEVER BET A HORSE......HOW WAS SCOTTY TO KNOW A MONTH OR TWO DOWN THE ROAD HE WOULD BET HORSES???? HE TOLD THE CLIENT $500 LIMITS NO DUPS.....

POINT NUMBER TWO.......SCOTTY PROBABLY DIDN'T BLOCK THE GUY ON THE SOFTWARE......HE GAVE THE ORDER TO SOMEONE BENEATH HIM TO PUT A $500 CAP ON THIS GUYS BETS.......AND THERE ALSO IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT NO ONE KNEW ONE BLOCK DID NOT BLOCK ALL........
OK Devil...we agree, it's probably an oversight. But like I asked...
"Now even as you say, Devil, this may have been just an oversight on the part of BetJm, shouldn't BetJm be responsible for their oversights?"

And surely you agree that Scotty and BetJamaica are responsible for the actions or in this case, the inactions of his employees.

By the way, Devil, the Shrink confirms (in his sticky thread at the top of the page) that BetJamaica would NOT have reimbursed the player if he had only losing $1000 horse bets. The Shrink says that only large winning bets will be monitored for security concerns.
 
#86
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

KEN IS CORRECT THAT THE WIN TRIGGERED THE SEARCH......BUT I THINK HAD THE GUY LOST 40K AND WON 26 ON THE WINNING PLAY THAT THEY CAUGHT.....SCOTTY WOULD HAVE PAID BACK THE LOSSES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN INCURRED........
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#87
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

KEN IS CORRECT THAT THE WIN TRIGGERED THE SEARCH......BUT I THINK HAD THE GUY LOST 40K AND WON 26 ON THE WINNING PLAY THAT THEY CAUGHT.....SCOTTY WOULD HAVE PAID BACK THE LOSSES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN INCURRED........
Well...DUH....we know that....that has already happened!!!!! What we don't know, and what I asked was what if he had never won a large wager and only lost say some $20,000 or $40,000 worth of $1000 horse wagers? By the Shrink's own admission and your agreement with him, BetJamaica never would have looked at his account, and the player wouldn't have complained because he thought he was making legitimate horse wagers. So he could have lost money on these $1000 wagers, but he could never win. That is the definition of "taking a shot", but it's BetJamaica taking a shot against a player!
 
#88
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I ALSO SAID THAT IF HE HAD WON 26K AFTER LOSING 40K........HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED HIS LOSSES.........

IF HE NEVER WON, IT IS VERY POSSIBLE IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN NOTICED............
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#89
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

IF HE NEVER WON, IT IS VERY POSSIBLE IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN NOTICED............
OMG....aliens have abducted The Devil and commandeered his keyboard(although they too can't find the capslock key). I am going to have to take you off my most irritating poster list(although I never put you on it)...lol
 
#90
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

IF HE NEVER WON, IT IS VERY POSSIBLE IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN NOTICED............



that is 100% true.....i was jsut talking to Scotty a little bit ago, and he verified that...he said with all the accts they have, there is no way they can audit every losing bet made....they audit large winning wagers just like any place would have....AS SOON AS the wager was found, that circumvented the players KNOWN limits, the acct was audited, and ALL BETS over the 500 limit, all losers that is, were credited back as well.....not after he complained, but as soon as it was seen.....
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#91
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

that is 100% true.....i was jsut talking to Scotty a little bit ago, and he verified that...he said with all the accts they have, there is no way they can audit every losing bet made....they audit large winning wagers just like any place would have....AS SOON AS the wager was found, that circumvented the players KNOWN limits, the acct was audited, and ALL BETS over the 500 limit, all losers that is, were credited back as well.....not after he complained, but as soon as it was seen.....
maybe you can explain this simple concept to dirty...I would rather argue with my wife than him...he makes her look rational!
 
#92
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

that is 100% true.....i was jsut talking to Scotty a little bit ago, and he verified that...he said with all the accts they have, there is no way they can audit every losing bet made....they audit large winning wagers just like any place would have....AS SOON AS the wager was found, that circumvented the players KNOWN limits, the acct was audited, and ALL BETS over the 500 limit, all losers that is, were credited back as well.....not after he complained, but as soon as it was seen.....
IF THAT IS TRUE BUCS.......ISN'T IT ODD THAT THE PLAYER NEVER SAID THAT??? ALL HE DID WAS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WIN BEING TAKEN AWAY............NEVER DID HE SAY THE LOSSES WERE CREDITED BACK BEFORE HE SAID ANYTHING.............
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#93
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

IF THAT IS TRUE BUCS.......ISN'T IT ODD THAT THE PLAYER NEVER SAID THAT??? ALL HE DID WAS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WIN BEING TAKEN AWAY............NEVER DID HE SAY THE LOSSES WERE CREDITED BACK BEFORE HE SAID ANYTHING.............
Read the thread over at LVA....the losses were NOT credited back immediately, the first thing that happened was that the $13,000 win was deducted from his account. Then oscark contacted ScottyJ and ScottyJ did make sure that the losses were credited back to his account. I'm not blaming you, Devil, it is a long and confusing thread.
 

dirty

EOG Master
#94
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

that is 100% true.....i was jsut talking to Scotty a little bit ago, and he verified that...he said with all the accts they have, there is no way they can audit every losing bet made....they audit large winning wagers just like any place would have....AS SOON AS the wager was found, that circumvented the players KNOWN limits, the acct was audited, and ALL BETS over the 500 limit, all losers that is, were credited back as well.....not after he complained, but as soon as it was seen.....
maybe you can explain this simple concept to dirty...I would rather argue with my wife than him...he makes her look rational!
IF THAT IS TRUE BUCS.......ISN'T IT ODD THAT THE PLAYER NEVER SAID THAT??? ALL HE DID WAS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WIN BEING TAKEN AWAY............NEVER DID HE SAY THE LOSSES WERE CREDITED BACK BEFORE HE SAID ANYTHING.............
Read the thread over at LVA....the losses were NOT credited back immediately, the first thing that happened was that the $13,000 win was deducted from his account. Then oscark contacted ScottyJ and ScottyJ did make sure that the losses were credited back to his account. I'm not blaming you, Devil, it is a long and confusing thread.


What Bucs said is what I have been arguing all night.... Once the Winner was found, they took it away and started the Audit... I am sure the player contacted BJ... but the Audit was underway and Scotty assured him everything would be credited back... In no way did BJ try to steal from this player....


I have said this from the Beginning... Never anything different...
 
#95
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

Well...DUH....we know that....that has already happened!!!!! What we don't know, and what I asked was what if he had never won a large wager and only lost say some $20,000 or $40,000 worth of $1000 horse wagers? By the Shrink's own admission and your agreement with him, BetJamaica never would have looked at his account, and the player wouldn't have complained because he thought he was making legitimate horse wagers. So he could have lost money on these $1000 wagers, but he could never win. That is the definition of "taking a shot", but it's BetJamaica taking a shot against a player!
DUH.... FIRST OFF SCOTTY IS NO SHOT TAKER, AND I KNOW HIM WELL, HE IS IF NOT ONE OF THE MOST HONEST GUYS IN THE WHOLE INDUSTRY.........
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
#96
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

DUH.... FIRST OFF SCOTTY IS NO SHOT TAKER, AND I KNOW HIM WELL, HE IS IF NOT ONE OF THE MOST HONEST GUYS IN THE WHOLE INDUSTRY.........
I'd ask you to read the thread, but why bother? A guy who can't find his capslock key is not going to be able to understand it!
 

JC

EOG Veteran
#97
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I can see both sides here, but I think the book should pay.

The software limited sports but not horse bets.

If I were limiting someone at sports who never bet horses before, it wouldn't dawn on me to include horses.

They took several $1,000 bets on horses, winners and losers.

If I went out of my way to send someone such a message, I would follow up and make sure he wasn't violating the terms.

With BJ's reputation for sending winners to The Greek, I can't imagine they have that many $500 or $1,000 horse bets. Someone was asleep at the switch if this guy was supposed to be blocked.

If the customer never won a bet, and called and said "I have been making all of these $1,000 bets but am supposed to be limited to $500, will you refund half of them?" what would they have done?

It's a case of poor communication, bad software, and poor internal controls. The book should pay, learn from it, and move on. It sounds like the net cost is $10,000 since they wouldnot have to refund the losers. This bad publicity will probably cost them at least that in the long run.

Again, I see both sides. I think it's a close call, but I think the book should pay.
 
#98
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I can see both sides here, but I think the book should pay.

The software limited sports but not horse bets.

If I were limiting someone at sports who never bet horses before, it wouldn't dawn on me to include horses.

They took several $1,000 bets on horses, winners and losers.

If I went out of my way to send someone such a message, I would follow up and make sure he wasn't violating the terms.

With BJ's reputation for sending winners to The Greek, I can't imagine they have that many $500 or $1,000 horse bets. Someone was asleep at the switch if this guy was supposed to be blocked.

If the customer never won a bet, and called and said "I have been making all of these $1,000 bets but am supposed to be limited to $500, will you refund half of them?" what would they have done?

It's a case of poor communication, bad software, and poor internal controls. The book should pay, learn from it, and move on. It sounds like the net cost is $10,000 since they wouldnot have to refund the losers. This bad publicity will probably cost them at least that in the long run.

Again, I see both sides. I think it's a close call, but I think the book should pay.
JC, I CAN'T SAY YOU WRONG ABOUT THE POINTS YOU MAKE, THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS SCOTTY IS A VERY, VERY HONEST PERSON.
 
#99
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I'd ask you to read the thread, but why bother? A guy who can't find his capslock key is not going to be able to understand it!
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO SCOTTY IS, WHENEVER YOU DO FIND THAT OUT, THAN YOU WILL REALIZE WHO YOU DEALING WITH. YOU STILL A ROOKIE KID....
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I can see both sides here, but I think the book should pay.

The software limited sports but not horse bets.

If I were limiting someone at sports who never bet horses before, it wouldn't dawn on me to include horses.

They took several $1,000 bets on horses, winners and losers.

If I went out of my way to send someone such a message, I would follow up and make sure he wasn't violating the terms.

With BJ's reputation for sending winners to The Greek, I can't imagine they have that many $500 or $1,000 horse bets. Someone was asleep at the switch if this guy was supposed to be blocked.

If the customer never won a bet, and called and said "I have been making all of these $1,000 bets but am supposed to be limited to $500, will you refund half of them?" what would they have done?

It's a case of poor communication, bad software, and poor internal controls. The book should pay, learn from it, and move on. It sounds like the net cost is $10,000 since they wouldnot have to refund the losers. This bad publicity will probably cost them at least that in the long run.

Again, I see both sides. I think it's a close call, but I think the book should pay.
JC,

As always, I have the utmost respect for your opinion. If the gambler calls me, I will try and be of service to him.

I, too, have a much greater appreciation of this entire situation than I did several hours ago...

Scotty has always done the right thing in the past, and I suspect he will do so if the situation calls for reconsideration..

THE SHRINK
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

JC has it figured out.

This bettor should get paid.

Software improvements should also be made and his account should be more closely monitored.

As we say where I come from............We Move On
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I can see both sides here, but I think the book should pay.

The software limited sports but not horse bets.

If I were limiting someone at sports who never bet horses before, it wouldn't dawn on me to include horses.

They took several $1,000 bets on horses, winners and losers.

If I went out of my way to send someone such a message, I would follow up and make sure he wasn't violating the terms.

With BJ's reputation for sending winners to The Greek, I can't imagine they have that many $500 or $1,000 horse bets. Someone was asleep at the switch if this guy was supposed to be blocked.

If the customer never won a bet, and called and said "I have been making all of these $1,000 bets but am supposed to be limited to $500, will you refund half of them?" what would they have done?

It's a case of poor communication, bad software, and poor internal controls. The book should pay, learn from it, and move on. It sounds like the net cost is $10,000 since they wouldnot have to refund the losers. This bad publicity will probably cost them at least that in the long run.

Again, I see both sides. I think it's a close call, but I think the book should pay.

honest question- have you ever run into someone you would limit on horses because they are too sharp?
 

Bagiant

EOG Dedicated
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

try i think you're missing one key point... jamaia told him 500 limit and no duplicate bets and left that message displaying in his account permanently.

however, they need to go back and refund all his losing bets 50% in the racebook too
You're missing the point that there are no duplicate bets in horse racing!
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

honest question- have you ever run into someone you would limit on horses because they are too sharp?

YES MR SMITH I HAVE.......DOZENS OF TIMES.........THERE ARE TONS OF WINNING HORSE PLAYERS, GUYS THAT THE 12-17% TAKEOUT MEANS NOTHING TO........


WHAT MANY PEOPLE FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT PROS KNOW THAT HALF THE FIELD IS INCAPABLE OF WINNING ON A PARTICULAR DAY........THEY KNOW THOSE HORSES AND GET GREAT VALUE OUT OF THOSE THAT CAN WIN..........
 

Halifax

EOG Senior Member
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

This case comes down to whether the SportsBook and RaceBook are typically treated as separate entities by the larger betting houses such as Olympic, CRIS, etc., and whether the typical bettor views the SportsBook and RaceBook as different entities.

I think a strong argument can be made that most bettors, as well as most of the large offshore betting operations, do consider the SportsBook to be different from the RaceBook, which are both considered different from the Casino, which are all considered different from the Poker Room. Different limits, bonus structures, bonus rollover requirements, etc. exist in each of these arms of the betting organization. If you don't believe this, just look back at the post by The Shrink in the other thread showing where Scotty left his "No Dupes" message ... you will notice that there are 4 different links, one for each of the SportsBook, RaceBook, Casino, and Poker Room.

As such, it would not be unreasonable for a bettor to assume that whatever limits were placed upon him in the SportsBook do not apply to him in the RaceBook, Casino, or Poker Room.

Combine this with the facts that (1) the software limited this bettor to $500 on sports bets, but on horse racing the software gave him the same, normal $1,000 limits ($500 x 2) that applied to most everyone else in the RaceBook, and (2) the half-dozen or so $1,000 horse bets ($500 x 2) that this particular person made over the previous 2-3 weeks were freely accepted by BetJamaica (presumably because they were net losers).

People may recall that in the case involving the F1 dispute at The Greek, I sided with The Greek.

However, in this case, BetJamaica really needs to pay the guy ... and it's not even a situation that I'm 'on the fence' with ... I think it's pretty cut and dried that he deserves to be paid.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

HALIFAX, I BELIEVE THAT IS NOT TRUE ABOUT THE $500X2.......I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY PEOPLE THAT BET AT BETJAM THAT YOU CAN BET $1000 ON A HORSE AT ONCE (NO NEED TO BET 500 TWICE) AT THE TRACKS WHERE THERE IS A $1000 LIMIT.................
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

HALIFAX, I BELIEVE THAT IS NOT TRUE ABOUT THE $500X2.......I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY PEOPLE THAT BET AT BETJAM THAT YOU CAN BET $1000 ON A HORSE AT ONCE (NO NEED TO BET 500 TWICE) AT THE TRACKS WHERE THERE IS A $1000 LIMIT.................


That is True Mr. Devil.....



If your limits are not cut you can bet $1k on tracks that allow you to. It would be laughable to think that they would expect every player that wanted to bet a dime in a game to play $500 twice.....


comical how some think
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

Gentlemen,<O></O>
<O></O>
I personally put this extremely successful client on ?STRICT NICKEL LIMITS / NO DUPES? months ago. The urgent message pops up every time he logs in and he must close it by actually clicking on it to get past it. He knows exactly what he was doing as he had to make the bet twice clearly violating his specific strict limits. I?m not sure about you guys however when my Book puts me on STRICT NICKEL LIMITS / NO DUPES then I assume that is exactly what it means because I do read and understand English pretty well.<O></O>
<O></O>
Yes he did get some other dupes by because we do not audit losing tickets nor are nickel/dime horse tickets uncommon. Large winning tickets get a look for obvious reasons. When his account was found his over limit violations were refunds and winner corrected properly. This particular situation has no grey areas.<O></O>
<O></O>
Could his urgent reminder message have read ?STRICT NICKEL LIMITS / NO DUPES ?Scotty <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = SKYPE /><SKYPE:SPAN onmouseup="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,1,'0',true,16,'');return skype_tb_stopEvents();" class=skype_tb_injection oncontextmenu="javascript:skype_tb_SwitchDrop(this,'0','sms=0');return skype_tb_stopEvents();" onmousedown="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,2,'0',true,16,'');return skype_tb_stopEvents();" id=softomate_highlight_0 onmouseover="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,1,'0',true,16,'');" title="Call this phone number in United States of America with Skype: +18003292640" onclick="javascript:doRunCMD('call','0',null,0);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" onmouseout="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,0,'0',true,16,'');" context="800 329 2640"><SKYPE:SPAN onmouseup="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'0',1,1,16);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" class=skype_tb_imgA onmousedown="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'0',2,1,16);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" id=skype_tb_droppart_0 onmouseover="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'0',1,1,16);" title="Change country code ..." style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(C: OCUME~1scottyjLOCALS~1Temp__SkypeIEToolbar_Cache㋨e4efb12ac2f 8b4c147250be8b2staticinactive_a.compat.flex.w16.gif)" onclick="javascript:doHandleChdial(this,1,'0',1);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" onmouseout="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'0',0,1,16);"><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_imgFlag id=skype_tb_img_f0 style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(C: OCUME~1scottyjLOCALS~1Temp__SkypeIEToolbar_Cache㋨e4efb12ac2f 8b4c147250be8b2static?mfamfam/US.gif)"></SKYPE:SPAN></SKYPE:SPAN><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_imgS id=skype_tb_img_s0></SKYPE:SPAN><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_injectionIn id=skype_tb_text0><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_innerText id=skype_tb_innerText0>800 329 2640</SKYPE:SPAN> </SKYPE:SPAN><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_imgR id=skype_tb_img_r0></SKYPE:SPAN></SKYPE:SPAN>(this means sports, ponies, black jack, slot machines, tennis, auto racing, soccer, props, futures, etc. etc. etc??)?? Possibly but that is not needed for sharps, don?t let him fool you.His strict limits are Bet Jamaica house limits created especially for him period. He is well aware of this and anyone who thinks differently has fallen for this entire soap opera.<O></O>
<O></O>>
BetJM respects our clients and hopes to receive the same. Anyone who would like to discuss this with me personally I welcome your call and will be happy to enlighten you further one on one.<O></O>
<O></O>
Have fun and have a good night,<O></O>
Scottyj<O></O>
<O></O>
<SKYPE:SPAN onmouseup="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,1,'1',true,16,'');return skype_tb_stopEvents();" class=skype_tb_injection oncontextmenu="javascript:skype_tb_SwitchDrop(this,'1','sms=0');return skype_tb_stopEvents();" onmousedown="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,2,'1',true,16,'');return skype_tb_stopEvents();" id=softomate_highlight_1 onmouseover="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,1,'1',true,16,'');" title="Call this phone number in United States of America with Skype: +18003292640" onclick="javascript:doRunCMD('call','1',null,0);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" onmouseout="javascript:skype_tb_imgOnOff(this,0,'1',true,16,'');" context="800 329 2640"><SKYPE:SPAN onmouseup="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'1',1,1,16);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" class=skype_tb_imgA onmousedown="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'1',2,1,16);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" id=skype_tb_droppart_1 onmouseover="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'1',1,1,16);" title="Change country code ..." style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(C: OCUME~1scottyjLOCALS~1Temp__SkypeIEToolbar_Cache㋨e4efb12ac2f 8b4c147250be8b2staticinactive_a.compat.flex.w16.gif)" onclick="javascript:doHandleChdial(this,1,'1',1);return skype_tb_stopEvents();" onmouseout="javascript:doSkypeFlag(this,'1',0,1,16);"><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_imgFlag id=skype_tb_img_f1 style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(C: OCUME~1scottyjLOCALS~1Temp__SkypeIEToolbar_Cache㋨e4efb12ac2f 8b4c147250be8b2static?mfamfam/US.gif)"></SKYPE:SPAN></SKYPE:SPAN><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_imgS id=skype_tb_img_s1></SKYPE:SPAN><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_injectionIn id=skype_tb_text1><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_innerText id=skype_tb_innerText1>800 329 2640</SKYPE:SPAN> </SKYPE:SPAN><SKYPE:SPAN class=skype_tb_imgR id=skype_tb_img_r1></SKYPE:SPAN></SKYPE:SPAN><O></O>
www.betjm.com <O></O>>
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

[/font]


Was strict in there? It wasn't on the screenshot at LVA.

Scotty was not trying to replicate the message when he posted that... he was making a point in the response to this guy taking shots at his book and the guy knew that....
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

Tough case, but is hard to ignore the pop-up. Player really could have called to verify limits with Scotty.

It might even be possible that track bets were made to inflate this horse to 26-1 ?

Slight lean to the book, IMO !
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by The Devil

HALIFAX, I BELIEVE THAT IS NOT TRUE ABOUT THE $500X2.......I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY PEOPLE THAT BET AT BETJAM THAT YOU CAN BET $1000 ON A HORSE AT ONCE (NO NEED TO BET 500 TWICE) AT THE TRACKS WHERE THERE IS A $1000 LIMIT.................
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




That is True Mr. Devil.....



If your limits are not cut you can bet $1k on tracks that allow you to. It would be laughable to think that they would expect every player that wanted to bet a dime in a game to play $500 twice.....


comical how some think
dirty,
You have a strange sense of comedy....some people think that BetJm made horsebettors bet $500 times 2 because that is exactly what oscark said in his post on page 4 of the LVA thread...

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=ftstatuscell vAlign=top width="1%" wrap><CENTER>oscark

[FONT=Arial,Verdana,Helvetica]Posts: 206
Joined: Mar 2007[/FONT]

</CENTER></TD><TD class=ftalternatingbaron vAlign=top align=right width="99%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap align=left width="20%">
12/8/07 4:02 PM (NEW!) </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right width="80%"><TABLE class=fttoolbarback height="1%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="2%" align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top noWrap width="2%">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>

Quote
<HR>Originally posted by: twoniner
1- They should pay. They took the losers, pay the winners.
2- Would the software actually take more than $500 per ticket? Poster said he bet 2 $500 tickets. I didn't know if this was after he was rejected for one ticket greater than $500. <HR>​

It doesn't take more than $500 a ticket. Also didn't let me bet more than 2 $500 tickets, so they have some form of control over the maximum, just don't know if it's account specific.

Oscar
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
...now I don't know if that's true or not, but that is what oscark said.
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I strive to have a limit placed on me by Betjam!!
I'm not sure either party has "clean hands" here, but I do appreciate the honcho from Betjam appearing here; it shows they care and are concerned about their reputation among the players. . . .
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

I strive to have a limit placed on me by Betjam!!
I'm not sure either party has "clean hands" here, but I do appreciate the honcho from Betjam appearing here; it shows they care and are concerned about their reputation among the players. . . .
agreed...

Which is more than can be said about the player who has refused to even send me an email or call so I can hear "HIS SIDE."

The only conclusion I can draw is that he certainly likes Public attention and recognition...

I have contacts at Pinnacle that I will seek out since he boasted about having his horse limits cut off completely there at the end of November...

Something just doesn't appear to be adding up right for me...

Usually, the players who avoid offers for help are the guilty ones..

It appears he is hiding something...

THE SHRINK
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

pioneer,

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is weak, even for you...

I am grateful I no longer go through life with your attitude...

Happy Holidays,

THE SHRINK
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

his story is posted on the lva forum, which you clearly have not read. you came into the thread immidiatly blasting away at oscars credibility, for no reason other than your association with the book in question, and the fact that he wouldnt contact you, as if youre some sort of holy grail. without even knowing the facts, you accused him of "extortion." why in the fuck would he want to speak to you on the matter when you are clearly biased based on your initial stance. deflate the ego a little,
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

his story is posted on the lva forum, which you clearly have not read. you came into the thread immidiatly blasting away at oscars credibility, for no reason other than your association with the book in question, and the fact that he wouldnt contact you, as if youre some sort of holy grail. without even knowing the facts, you accused him of "extortion." why in the fuck would he want to speak to you on the matter when you are clearly biased based on your initial stance. deflate the ego a little,
absolutvodka,

I admitted I had just heard Scotty's version before posting. Yes, I was biased at first. But, LVA has nobody that can be of service to this player, so I offered.

Excuse me if his refusal makes me suspicious. He has absolutely nothing to lose and I've been resolving disputes for almost 12 years now...

All he has to do is hang up the phone if he feels he isn't being given a fair shake...

Something smells fishy and often is when a player refuses an offer for help...

THE SHRINK
 
Re: Betjamaica Dispute

It is nice to see Scotty's take on this and I agree that by posting here, it shows that the opinions of the EOG membership are important to him.

Personally, I think that it is clear that the player knew very well that his duplicate wagers were curcumventing the $500 limit imposed on him by the book and now that the appropriate amount of his overlimit losing wagers has been refunded, he has nothing to complain about.

How many times have we seen less scrupulous shops simply confiscate a player's entire account over theres types of rule violations yet BetJam has actually refunded losing wagers in keeping with the policy established for this particular player. I see nothing wrong with BetJam's actions here and my faith in their operation remains unwavered.
 
Top