JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT - Page 2
Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 631

Thread: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

  1. #36

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    Rainbow, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.

    How's your buddy Lenny ? Still a stand-up guy ? Still going to pay everyone ? I hope he "ain't gonna' mule no one".
    ARE YOU STILL THE SAME OLD BONUS WHORE, TRUST ME ON THIS I KNOW YOU ARE A 10000000000000% BONUS WHORE, YOU BONUS WHORED ME WHEN I RAN 777 ROCK. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DUMB ASSSSSSSS?

  2. #37

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Its just a bunch of bs. I think my account was up to 3k before i forwarded the email to my dad so should i not get that amount since it is what i had in my account before the so called bonus abuse took place. its a joke that there is not mediation. I would have been satisfied with a split down the middle. give me 4k and call it a day.

    Oddsmaker is the real loser here. they will continue to get a lot of bad press over 8k. They lost out on a big customer that does not cause problems. I do most of my business at sportsbook.com and i can assure you they would tell you they would hate to lose my business.

    this situation got blown up and turned into something it was not.

    If anything i am guilty of being naive and not realizng how shady the offshore business is. No where did it cross my mind that referring my dad would get me in trouble. And no i did not think oh you should call my guy. I had never even spoken to my guy. I was busy gambling so i told my dad i would forward the email and let him contact them however he wished.

  3. #38

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Bad call here

    Rules are rules, but that rule gives the book way too much leverage in my opinion. They can basically just steal any money won from a bonus on even the littlest technicality. I could see it being needed to protect a book if money was won from applying the bonus in a second account, etc. but money should not have been taken away from the first account.

    The book also needs to consider future business here. While their action and this decision are going by the words of the law, the spirit of the law is that it should have only had an impact on the second account opened - not the first. By enforcing this lame rule, it will make others not want to take them up on bonuses no matter how good and especially not deposit ANY real money there.

    Shrink and anyone agreeing with this should not be taken seriously anymore. I will not be depositing with Oddsmaker again no matter how many free calendars, hats, or magazines with the Shrink's picture on them that I get in the mail this season.

  4. #39

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    I suspect all the other unpaid mods agree with you .. and I'm certain all the paid mods do.
    YOU REALLY ARE DUMB.......... THATS NO LIE EITHER BONUS WHORE........... TRUST ME, I KNOW WHO YOU ARE.................

  5. #40
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwonder View Post

    I dont really think it is a weak decision at all. Seems like some are missing the point. If I am given a free play of this size (which to me is very large without a deposit) and my father was interested in the same thing, I would have my father contact my contact at that book.

    Not only does it show my contact I am spreading the word of generous offers by that book, but I am trying to give them buisness as well.

    I always feel you get more with a phone call then an email, its more personable and sometimes you get more accomplished. I think if Jimmys father called the book and explained he was Jimmys son, maybe they would have given him some type of answer of if he was entitled or not rather than what result is going on now. JMO.
    This is not rocket science!!!

    The player DELIBERATELY tried to ABUSE the BONUS that was meant exclusively for him by sharing it with his Father... I use the word "deliberate" because he meticulously went through the plan of signing up online an additional VIP account using his Father. Then, after the account was established, neither the player nor his Father tried calling Antony Stewart or the 800 number that was provided on the email....

    For if they had used the traceable number provided on the original email or the name that was required, they knew they'd be caught. Also I believe had they done this with honest intentions, they would have called Anthony directly to ask for his approval ...

    Rather, they tried to get an extra 500 dollar FREE PLAY by calling another toll free customer support number in the hopes that the clerk wouldn't know the difference.

    The player got caught. At first he lied to Oddsmaker about his foiled attempt to abuse the bonus that was meant only for him, but the truth eventually came to light... Oddsmaker has proof to back all of this by the additional online application and tapes. Additionally, SBR (The General) also agreed with this finding in his report.

    <b>Professional players or PLAYERS CONSIDERED TO BE ABUSING THE BONUS SYSTEM BY ANY MEANS may have bonuses revoked and be subject to further sanctions, at the discretion of OddsMaker.com management.</b>

    This is in their rules and justifies their actions whether you like it or not..

  6. #41
    Smokin' HotStreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 28, 2008
    Location
    under the bridge downtown
    Posts
    1,642

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Players free roll on books using bonus abuse or charge backs.

    Books free roll on players using terms and condition littered with gray areas. The gray areas are only used to the books advantage.

    A simple "you are not entitled to this bonus" ends the whole Jimmy's dad thing. You can not abuse a bonus that was never given to you.

    Jimmy only received his bonus. He won using his bonus. He gained no advantage from the father situation. If he had lost the free play and later won 8400 on money he deposited, what then. Still no pay?

    The reason I ever came to EOG in April of last year, was to complain about Oddsmaker. I had received a similar offer to Jimmy's, a free $200. Mixed in with my initial bets, was a $20 teaser. Realizing I had violated the terms, I e-mailed them and asked for permission to continue the promotion by giving up the teaser bet. I wanted clarification that I would still be able to continue without jeopordizing future winnings.

    I NEVER HEARD BACK FROM THEM, despite 6 e-mails(I wanted it in writing that I could continue).

    Came here to bitch as Shrink was on the back of their Ad, and ended up sticking around.

    I would never recommend Oddsmaker to anyone.

  7. #42

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    This is all a joke, a bonus was never given to the father, he never played a game - This stuff is all too common amoung sportsbook, they always have something up their sleeve - This reminds me of one time I had a bet with the book, I called in a big parlay right at game time, 3 hours later I had 3 of 4 in with the fourth team winning in the 2nd half, I then got a call saying my bet was no good I called in too late, how convenient, wait until it looks like I am going to win - IMO, same thing happen here, oddsmakers didn't say anything at first bc they didn't think Jimmymac would run his account from 500 to 8400, they were hoping he'd lose, MAKE THAT DEPOSIT, then all would be good - Instead, he did win and oddsmakers went to their backup plan of saying Jimmymac had tried scamming them - How anyone could side with a sportsbook is a joke.....

  8. #43

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    I suspect all the other unpaid mods agree with you .. and I'm certain all the paid mods do.
    Thanks for the input, however please see post #38. And we are both unpaid mods.


  9. #44

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by rainbow View Post
    ARE YOU STILL THE SAME OLD BONUS WHORE, TRUST ME ON THIS I KNOW YOU ARE A 10000000000000% BONUS WHORE, YOU BONUS WHORED ME WE I RAN 777 ROCK. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DUMB ASSSSSSSS?
    Are you asking me if I accepted a bonus when I deposited money to 777 Rock ? Well, duh .. I'm not an idiot ... of course I did ... a bonus which 777 Rock gladly dished out.

    Sorry to hear about them going tits up ... I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with your stellar work there.:thumbsup

  10. #45
    EOG Dedicated michael777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 19, 2005
    Location
    mi
    Posts
    4,810

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    the player and his father got nothing from the try to open the second account,that is the bottom line,he should be paid

  11. #46

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    guys,

    See here below. this is the original email i received. do you see anything about bonus abuse?? should it not say something about seeing the rules page on our website. they mention the requirements of this offer and NOWHERE does it say anything about bonus abuse.







    Since you’re obviously reluctant to try us out, and we’re convinced you’ll be happy with us once you do, simply open an account at www.oddsmaker.com (no credit card required) and email us your username and we’ll add $500.00 to your account so you can try our site risk free!

    If after that you feel comfortable enough to make a deposit with us, we will then give you a 100% Real Money Match Bonus on your first deposit up to $1000.00.
    Take us up on the offer………...you’ve got nothing to lose!
    Here again are some of our VIP benefits:
    •Exclusive VIP Number and Personal VIP Host
    •VIP Trips to Las Vegas and the Caribbean
    •Superior Tickets to Top Sporting Events
    •Withdrawal Priority for Faster Payouts
    •Special Birthday & Holiday Bonuses
    •Premium Restaurant Certificates
    •Unlimited FREE Withdrawals
    •Generous Cash Comps

    *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

    Sincerely,

    Anthony Stewart
    1-866-509-6664
    vip@oddsmaker.com


  12. #47

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwonder View Post
    Thanks for the input, however please see post #38. And we are both unpaid mods.

    Good to see a dissenting voice here.

    I guess the good thing about being an unpaid mod is that the Shrink can't cut your salary if he's pissed that you disagree with his decision.

  13. #48

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    Rainbow, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.

    How's your buddy Lenny ? Still a stand-up guy ? Still going to pay everyone ? I hope he "ain't gonna' mule no one".
    I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT, I WAS RUNNING HIS OFFICE AT THE TIME, I HAD NO IDEA THAT HE WAS REALLY BROKE, HE HAD JUST MADE ALOT OF MONEY WHEN HE WAS UNDER DELMARS UMBRELLA, TERRY, SKIP, AND LARRY WERE ALL SHOCKED THAT HE WAS BROKE, BECAUSE HE MADE ALOT OF MONEY WHEN HE WAS UNDER THEIR WINGS... REMEMBER ONE THING, ALOT OF PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES IN THIS BUSINESS, TAKE IT FROM MY 36YRS EXPERIENCED IN THIS BUSINESS....................................

  14. #49

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    If thats the whole email then the dude got fucked...

  15. #50

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    Are you asking me if I accepted a bonus when I deposited money to 777 Rock ? Well, duh .. I'm not an idiot ... of course I did ... a bonus which 777 Rock gladly dished out.

    Sorry to hear about them going tits up ... I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with your stellar work there.:thumbsup
    THEY DIDN'T MULE NO ONE, EVERYONE GOT PAID IN FULL, SAME AS WHEN I RAN BET ATLANTIC, THEY ALL GOT PAID IN FULL TOO.........

  16. #51

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    So I wonder if I can partake in this promotion now that I see the email

  17. #52

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    SHRINK- How can you mediate this situation based on what you "think" the player was doing? You have to use the facts. How was it bonus abuse when no bonus was given to the second account? If a bnus is asked for and not given why is that bonus abuse? The $8400 was won fair and square admitted by both parties.

  18. #53

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    Are you asking me if I accepted a bonus when I deposited money to 777 Rock ? Well, duh .. I'm not an idiot ... of course I did ... a bonus which 777 Rock gladly dished out.

    Sorry to hear about them going tits up ... I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with your stellar work there.:thumbsup
    I HATE BONUS WHORES, I TOLD MY BOSS TO SWEEP ALL OF THEM OUT THE DOOR........ I'M NOT SCARE TO BOOK WISEGUYS, BUT A BONUS WHORE IS ANOTHER THING.........

  19. #54
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by michael777 View Post

    the player and his father got nothing from the try to open the second account,that is the bottom line,he should be paid
    If someone tries to steal your money but you catch them in the act, does it exonerate them?

  20. #55

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by ShavenCoinpurse View Post
    The player's dad tried to get the same offer and was denyed. No plays were made on this new account. Correct. How does a player forwarding an email to someone else and them asking to get the same bonus constitute bonus abuse? No plays were made and the account not granted the bonus. And this gives Oddsmaker the right to keep $8400 of the player's money which was won fair and square?

    So, if I have a balance of say $5000 at a book. And I deposit more and try to get a bonus I don't deserve and they say NO. Does that give them the right t also close my acct and keep my $5000?

    I can see Oddsmakers side if the money was won on the new acct that didn't deserve the bonus. Not in this case.
    +1

  21. #56

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by THE SHRINK View Post

    Professional players or PLAYERS CONSIDERED TO BE ABUSING THE BONUS SYSTEM BY ANY MEANS may have bonuses revoked and be subject to further sanctions, at the discretion of OddsMaker.com management.

    This is in their rules and justifies their actions whether you like it or not..
    We don't like it and we won't be depositing there. Understood that they need rules like this to cover their ass in certain cases, but I still see no need to withhold anything from the first account or won from the first bonus. Pay the guy his money and if they then no longer want a bonus abuser, then that's when him, his father, his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl can be shown the door.

  22. #57

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by ShavenCoinpurse View Post
    SHRINK- How can you mediate this situation based on what you "think" the player was doing? You have to use the facts. How was it bonus abuse when no bonus was given to the second account? If a bnus is asked for and not given why is that bonus abuse? The $8400 was won fair and square admitted by both parties.
    im with ya now.


    There is nowhere in that thing thats says do not share this offer.(which I figured had to be in there)

    They fucking him. How can it be an abuse if there was no rule not to pass the offer on???

  23. #58

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Reload View Post
    Bad call here

    Rules are rules, but that rule gives the book way too much leverage in my opinion. They can basically just steal any money won from a bonus on even the littlest technicality. I could see it being needed to protect a book if money was won from applying the bonus in a second account, etc. but money should not have been taken away from the first account.

    Shrink and anyone agreeing with this should not be taken seriously anymore. I will not be depositing with Oddsmaker again no matter how many free calendars and hats I get in the mail this season.
    I fail to understand why anyone would deposit with any book simply because of getting free calendars or hats in the mail. If that is your only criteria for a book you are willing to trust your money at, perhaps you need to do some serious self evaluation.

    Seems to me you were more than willing to take ken seriously when his wife was signing your paycheck and would bow at his feet in agreement if he said the sky was falling...

  24. #59

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by THE SHRINK View Post
    If someone tries to steal your money but you catch them in the act, does it exonerate them?

    Shrink I agreed in the beginning but where in that email does it say he cant forward the email to anyone or limited to just himself?

  25. #60

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by THE SHRINK View Post
    If someone tries to steal your money but you catch them in the act, does it exonerate them?
    How do you know he tried to steal a bonus? Oddsmaker said he did. PLayer says he didn't. Player DID get a valid bonus and won $8400. Oddsmaker stole it.

  26. #61

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Blondie View Post
    I fail to understand why anyone would deposit with any book simply because of getting free calendars or hats in the mail. If that is your only criteria for a book you are willing to trust your money at, perhaps you need to do some serious self evaluation.

    Seems to me you were more than willing to take ken seriously when his wife was signing your paycheck and would bow at his feet in agreement if he said the sky was falling...

    Reload is a gas bag. First a ball licker and now he wants out of that image so trying to be opposite.

    Guy needs therapy is what he needs

  27. #62

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Blondie View Post
    I fail to understand why anyone would deposit with any book simply because of getting free calendars or hats in the mail. If that is your only criteria for a book you are willing to trust your money at, perhaps you need to do some serious self evaluation.

    Seems to me you were more than willing to take ken seriously when his wife was signing your paycheck and would bow at his feet in agreement if he said the sky was falling...
    This is a fucked up response to Reload's opinin n the matter Blondie. Just because he doesn't work for Shrink anymore does not mean he can't have a differing opinion without having an agenda. Just because you follow Shrink;s posts and agree with anything he says.....

  28. #63

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by Halifax View Post
    BINGO !

    Shrink, that's a pretty weak-assed decision on your part ... I find it hard to believe that Jay C supports you in this recommendation ... would love to hear his take on the matter.

    Here's what you should do ... 2 things ...

    1. Tell your shit book to pay the man his money.

    2. Tell this shit book, and every other shit book, to stop giving out these idiotic no-deposit free plays. Has any book in the history of offshore sports betting EVER got a legitimate ongoing, paying customer from these stupid promos ?

    All the book gets from these free give-aways are (1) the Americans/Canadians who don't have a pot to piss in, who hope they can turn the free money into real money, (2) the advantage players who, if they do eventually sign up with the book, will likely beat the book long-term, anyway, and (3) 73,567 Eastern European accounts.
    I don't support this decision. I don't think they proved it was actual bonus abuse, or even attempted abuse. What the player posted today confirms my opinion. I honestly have not been following this one until last night.

    Oddsmaker is and always has been a crooked book run by....crooks. Maybe if I get in the mood later I will start bumping old threads with all of their past robberies that have never been resolved.

  29. #64

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    It's not Rocket Science here!

    Shrink tried to get the book to pay and failed.

    So his verdict is now the Book's verdict.

    No Back bone = More money

  30. #65

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Two lessons to be learned here:

    1. Oddsmaker is a shit book that will confiscate winning players' funds in whatever manner they possibly can.

    2. SHRINK/EOG FULLY support scam books and have absolutely NO interest in resolving book/player disputes fairly if it effects their bottom line.

    PATHETIC!!!

  31. #66

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Well God Damnit, I am going to try and sign up for this promotion. Maybe I will even create a seperate thread with all of the plays. Lets see if they give it to me since I have never had an account with them

  32. #67
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by ShavenCoinpurse View Post

    SHRINK- How can you mediate this situation based on what you "think" the player was doing? You have to use the facts. How was it bonus abuse when no bonus was given to the second account? If a bnus is asked for and not given why is that bonus abuse? The $8400 was won fair and square admitted by both parties.
    Here is how bonus abuse is defined by oddsmaker under their rules...

    Bonus abuse may be defined as (but not restricted to) clients cashing out for the purpose of redepositing, or referring new accounts that they are using themselves...

    Once again, it is paramount that players read the rules before doing business with online sports books...

    The player clearly admits to referring the bonus to his Dad which I believe falls under the definition of bonus abuse as provided by Oddsmaker...

    Maybe I should provide the entire section for posters to read...

    Bonus Abuse

    A Player or group of players working together in any fashion, also known as a syndicate, (to receive either eCash winnings or Activity bonuses) may only have one OddsMaker.com account in total, and any redundant accounts will be consolidated into the one account. An administration fee may be charged and payouts refused for each redundant account, at the discretion of OddsMaker.com. All wagering transactions in redundant accounts are subject to reversal at the sole option of OddsMaker.com. OddsMaker.com also reserves the right to keep the principle of any wager placed in an attempt to defraud the house of any bonus monies, whether a party does this on their own or in collusion with other players or other sportsbooks. There is no obligation on behalf of OddsMaker.com to warn players or syndicates of this other than as explained here in the Player Agreement.

    If you lose your account privileges with OddsMaker.com due to misrepresentation, fraud or purchase disputes, OddsMaker.com reserves the right to terminate your account and all transactions from the account in question may be immediately reversed at the sole discretion of OddsMaker.com.

    From time to time, OddsMaker.com may run special promotions, contests, tournaments, and may establish rules and regulations governing the conduct of those promotions, contests, and tournaments. OddsMaker.com or a third party shall post these rules on the Internet, and the Customer Service Representatives of OddsMaker.com shall enforce the rules. Said promotions, contests, and tournaments may be cancelled or suspended at any time without notice by OddsMaker.com. In the event of an error or omission in the printed rules of a particular promotion, contest, or tournament, the decision of OddsMaker.com Management will be considered final and binding.

    Bonus programs are intended for recreational bettors only. Professional players or players considered to be abusing the bonus system by any means may have bonuses revoked and be subject to further sanctions, at the discretion of OddsMaker.com management. Bonus abuse may be defined as (but not restricted to) clients cashing out for the purpose of redepositing, or referring new accounts that they are using themselves. Sanctions may be in the form of increased rollover requirements or loss of bonus privileges altogether for the offending account as well as any linked accounts.

    OddsMaker.com takes no responsibility for notifying winners other than to update the information available in the wager account summary statement.

    OddsMaker.com reserves the right to refuse payment to anyone that is found to be party to any organized wagering syndicates dedicated to changing and manipulating the odds available at OddsMaker.com.

    OddsMaker.com shall have the right to reject any wager or withdraw any game at its absolute discretion. OddsMaker.com will not be liable for any loss whatever arising from the cancellation of any OddsMaker.com game or sports wager, including any realizable or perceived loss, for whatever reason, and/or the chance to participate in OddsMaker.com Sportsbook, Casino and Poker's system. Furthermore, OddsMaker.com reserves the right to terminate any account at any time without reason.

    The player agrees that their account may be closed and account balances forfeited if such account has been dormant for over 12 months and the profile information for such account does not contain current or correct information, making it impossible for OddsMaker.com to contact the player.

    At OddsMaker.com's option, a win may be subject to verification by an independent judging organization before any payment is made. Decisions of the judging organization are final, binding and conclusive in all matters. A player's sole remedy for any error or mistake by OddsMaker.com in connection with a wager placed on OddsMaker.com's system shall be a replacement wager.

    THE SHRINK

  33. #68

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by THE SHRINK View Post
    If someone tries to steal your money but you catch them in the act, does it exonerate them?
    How is it stealing money when they gave it to you for FREE!!!!! Once they give that money away it is gone until they WIN it back when the player loses it - The only people stealing money here are ODDSMAKERS!!!! Oddsmakers gave the money away free, the player turned 500 into 8400 by making HIS PICKS, that money was his that he won and that oddsmakers lost to them - Oddsmakers is basically just stealing the money from the player for greed purposes and bc the player offended someone in their home office, which is a joke - How often do the members here have a problem with say a retail store or something and get heated about it, if the store messed up they aren't going to decide not to reimburse you bc yuo were mean to one of their employees, give me a break - Oddsmakers is a joke of a book!

  34. #69

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    Quote Originally Posted by ShavenCoinpurse View Post
    This is a fucked up response to Reload's opinin n the matter Blondie. Just because he doesn't work for Shrink anymore does not mean he can't have a differing opinion without having an agenda. Just because you follow Shrink;s posts and agree with anything he says.....
    I am not bashing Reload's opinion on this issue in the least. I am simply stating that back when he was on payroll he seldom if ever disagreed with Shrink and would back him even if he said the grass was purple.

    Anyone that has back room access can tell you Shrink and I don't always see eye to eye neither do Mo and I. I am very opinionated and am more than willing to share my opinion on issues when I have one.

    However, Reload's response was tactless and another underhanded smack against Shrink. Not his first today or even this month.

  35. #70

    Default Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

    The man apologized to Jimmy and said he was close to a fair compromize..

    That means he was on Jimmy's side despite now posting the opposite and defending his book to the max.

    I'm not sure who got the worst of it? Shrink or Oddsm. Both look like shit . and have before. Once a piece of shit always a POS

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •