JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Other than yourself and a few EOG employees, no one thinks this is a good decision.

if it was a good decision, wouldnt' at least a few people here think it was good? Wouldn't this be split 50/50 down the middle? No one thinks this is legit. In fact, the EOG employees don't count because they have conflict of interest, so besides you, no one thinks this is the right decision.

its really hard to justify not paying off a bet. The most important thing in gambling is to pay. Books who aren't going to pay, even if they think they are in the right, are hurting the industry. They are hurting YOUR industry. The industry of offshore books is getting this reputation of not paying if they don't feel like it. Whether that's true or not is not as relevant as reputation.

The thing that most people will take out of this is that you really can't be sure if a book is going to pay the winners or not. Who's to say that next time they won't find another 'rule' to not have to pay?

You gotta pay, even if you think you are in the right, because in the long run, you have to find a way to restore a damaged reputation.

Time to rethink this and pay off Jimmy. Pay him his money and 86 him from ever playing there again and at the same time, find a way to not have little hidden 'rules' that might put the book in a bad position like this in the future.

Offshore books need to find a way to pay, no matter what.
I don't even see one person agreeing, outside of the EOG clan.
 

TonyMar

EOG Dedicated
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

this is all horseshit...

some other nonsponsor will step up to make this right...

oddsmaker is a fuckon' horseshit book...

need to set a schedule for eog posters to start bumpin' this thread come the end of july...

fuck 'em for football...

they will not pay winners.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Other than yourself and a few EOG employees, no one thinks this is a good decision.

if it was a good decision, wouldnt' at least a few people here think it was good? Wouldn't this be split 50/50 down the middle? No one thinks this is legit. In fact, the EOG employees don't count because they have conflict of interest, so besides you, no one thinks this is the right decision.

its really hard to justify not paying off a bet. The most important thing in gambling is to pay. Books who aren't going to pay, even if they think they are in the right, are hurting the industry. They are hurting YOUR industry. The industry of offshore books is getting this reputation of not paying if they don't feel like it. Whether that's true or not is not as relevant as reputation.

The thing that most people will take out of this is that you really can't be sure if a book is going to pay the winners or not. Who's to say that next time they won't find another 'rule' to not have to pay?

You gotta pay, even if you think you are in the right, because in the long run, you have to find a way to restore a damaged reputation.

Time to rethink this and pay off Jimmy. Pay him his money and 86 him from ever playing there again and at the same time, find a way to not have little hidden 'rules' that might put the book in a bad position like this in the future.

Offshore books need to find a way to pay, no matter what.[/quot


:thumbsup
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Whatever Jimmys thinking was, he felt the need to lie about it. Seems telling.

The only problem was Jimmy's dad having the same name as him. If some random had called and said they were authorized for a $500 bonus, with there being no code on the e-mail, they would have no way to connect Jimmy to it.

Now they see an opportunity to use the all encompassing rules to get out of paying some guy who got lucky with their free money.

If Jimmy had sent the e-mail to his plumber, how do they connect it to him.

They simply tell the plumber "You do not qualify for that offer"

No harm done.

Why is Jimmy a bad guy for doing something that was safe guarded by their own internal controls? The promo is set up to not allow abuse.
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Maybe it could have been checked if JimmyMac made off with bonuses from other sportsbooks. To establish a pattern of bonus abuse or at least show that he was bonusing other books. I remember Sportsbook.com used to keep an archive of transactions to list your deposits, bonuses and payouts.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

The only problem was Jimmy's dad having the same name as him. If some random had called and said they were authorized for a $500 bonus, with there being no code on the e-mail, they would have no way to connect Jimmy to it.

Now they see an opportunity to use the all encompassing rules to get out of paying some guy who got lucky with their free money.

If Jimmy had sent the e-mail to his plumber, how do they connect it to him.

They simply tell the plumber "You do not qualify for that offer"

No harm done.

Why is Jimmy a bad guy for doing something that was safe guarded by their own internal controls? The promo is set up to not allow abuse.

But here you seem to think that its about the money? They have paid several people, much more, off of the same bonus. They wanted jimmy there to lose 10s of thousands of dollars, thats why they recruited him over. Him winning 8400 was not a bad thing for them, it was not a concern.
 

Flamingo kid

Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

The only problem was Jimmy's dad having the same name as him. If some random had called and said they were authorized for a $500 bonus, with there being no code on the e-mail, they would have no way to connect Jimmy to it.

Now they see an opportunity to use the all encompassing rules to get out of paying some guy who got lucky with their free money.

If Jimmy had sent the e-mail to his plumber, how do they connect it to him.

They simply tell the plumber "You do not qualify for that offer"

No harm done.

Why is Jimmy a bad guy for doing something that was safe guarded by their own internal controls? The promo is set up to not allow abuse.
If jimmy was a sharp (like they think he is) wouldn't he be smarter and not use his dad and his dad's name which happens to be his own name too? No, he would use a friend who has a totally different name and he would know the ropes and he would have gotten away with it.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Maybe it could have been checked if JimmyMac made off with bonuses from other sportsbooks. To establish a pattern of bonus abuse or at least show that he was bonusing other books. I remember Sportsbook.com used to keep an archive of transactions to list your deposits, bonuses and payouts.

What I do know is that only one person who read the email Jimmy got contacted someone other than the person they were instructed to. It is an unfortunate situation.
 

Flamingo kid

Everybody's hands go UP!
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

But here you seem to think that its about the money? They have paid several people, much more, off of the same bonus. They wanted jimmy there to lose 10s of thousands of dollars, thats why they recruited him over. Him winning 8400 was not a bad thing for them, it was not a concern.

Its always about the money.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

If jimmy was a sharp (like they think he is) wouldn't he be smarter and not use his dad and his dad's name which happens to be his own name too? No, he would use a friend who has a totally different name and he would know the ropes and he would have gotten away with it.
They did not make him the offer because they think he is a sharp.
 

TonyMar

EOG Dedicated
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Maybe it could have been checked if JimmyMac made off with bonuses from other sportsbooks. To establish a pattern of bonus abuse or at least show that he was bonusing other books. I remember Sportsbook.com used to keep an archive of transactions to list your deposits, bonuses and payouts.
yep...

a player that loses 8 diimes on a regular basis...

with sportsbook.com... is a 'bonus hooker'...

c'mon now...

please.
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

A voice of reason...

ty for seeing my side ...12io4j2w90
Honestly, this is a lousy situation for all involved, and I empathize with you on this one while feeling bad for Jimmy on the chance he is being upfront with his facts.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Honestly, this is a lousy situation for all involved, and I empathize with you on this one while feeling bad for Jimmy on the chance he is being upfront with his facts.

lying is never upfront and he definitely lied. he knew, 100%, that he was doing something wrong.
 

TonyMar

EOG Dedicated
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Honestly, this is a lousy situation for all involved, and I empathize with you on this one while feeling bad for Jimmy on the chance he is being upfront with his facts.
it does not matter if he lied about his dad...

he made bets...

oddsmaker booked 'em...

they need to fuckin' pay the man,...

jesus.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

is mofome the only person in this thread that believes in the single bullet theory and the easter bunny?
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

lying is never upfront and he definitely lied. he knew, 100%, that he was doing something wrong.
I've tried to read the whole thread in an attempt at some objectivity, but it seems there's disagreement on some of the dialogue between the book and the player. If he did indeed lie to Shrink or Oddsmaker then I would suppose his position is weakened for sure. One thing I do know is that you and Shrink have oftentimes gone the extra mile for the player in the past. On the other hand, I don't know Jimmy, but he seems like a player that a book would want for a customer.
 

TonyMar

EOG Dedicated
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

On the other hand, I don't know Jimmy, but he seems like a player that a book would want for a customer.
some other sportsbook is goin' to step up to help this man with the unreal sphincter screwin' he took from oddsmaker.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

I've tried to read the whole thread in an attempt at some objectivity, but it seems there's disagreement on some of the dialogue between the book and the player. If he did indeed lie to Shrink or Oddsmaker then I would suppose his position is weakened for sure. One thing I do know is that you and Shrink have oftentimes gone the extra mile for the player in the past. On the other hand, I don't know Jimmy, but he seems like a player that a book would want for a customer.

Yes we have and its a shame that people forget it.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

is mofome the only person in this thread that believes in the single bullet theory and the easter bunny?
What the fuck man? I believe in Easter Bunnies! Why do you have to ruin my hopes and dreams? That's not cool...

 

TonyMar

EOG Dedicated
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Wow, I have a lot of reading to do...last I looked today, we were on page 3 or 4.
here are the 'cliffs notes'...

jimmy...

was solicited by email...

from oddsmaker...

aka...

sphinctermaker...

they made 'em an offer with TWO FUCKIN' restrictions...

*Bonus has a 5 times rollover requirement, can?t be played in the Poker Room, and cannot be withdrawn for 30 days.
*THIS OFFER IS NOT VALID FOR ANYONE WHO ALREADY HAS AN ACTIVE ACCOUNT WITH ODDSMAKER.COM


that all folks...

jimmy gets fucked on 8 dimes...

so do not send oddsmaker any of your cash...

if you feel the urge to do so...

then just take the cash...

pour gas on it,..

enjoy the fire...

:cheers
 

TonyMar

EOG Dedicated
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

My job is not to do anything more than make a decision given the facts. Should you care to find something in this thread or another, be my guest. He lied on tape to oddsmaker.
oh yeah?

so what?

oddsmaker lied in print to jimmy.
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

here are the 'cliffs notes'...

jimmy...

was solicited by email...

from oddsmaker...

aka...

sphinctermaker...

they made 'em an offer with TWO FUCKIN' restrictions...

*Bonus has a 5 times rollover requirement, can?t be played in the Poker Room, and cannot be withdrawn for 30 days.
*THIS OFFER IS NOT VALID FOR ANYONE WHO ALREADY HAS AN ACTIVE ACCOUNT WITH ODDSMAKER.COM

that all folks...

jimmy gets fucked on 8 dimes...

so do not send oddsmaker any of your cash...

if you feel the urge to do so...

then just take the cash...

pour gas on it,..

enjoy the fire...

:cheers
nice summary for how quickly you responded. :thumbsup
 
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

I found a picture of Jimmy calling into Oddmakers under his mothers name now.... When will he learn!!!!

 
Top