rainbow
EOG Master
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
BEING HONEST, READING ALL YOUR REPLIES I WOULDN'T TRUST YOU IF I BLINKED MY EYE....
Betjamaica Dispute
- Thread starter PSUONE
- Start date
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
JUST REMEMBER ONE THING, I KNOW MORE IN MY SLEEP THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW PERIOD ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY. I KNOW YOUR PROBLEM YOU STILL WET BEHIND YOUR EARS...
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
I knew more than you in kindergarten...I knew right from wrong. It took until about 3rd grade to learn grammar, so you must be a 2nd grade dropout.
I knew more than you in kindergarten...I knew right from wrong. It took until about 3rd grade to learn grammar, so you must be a 2nd grade dropout.
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
YOU MIGHT HAVE ME IN GRAMMAR, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN THE TOP 1000 AS FAR AS KNOWING THIS INDUSTRY ON THIS FORUM.... THAT I WOULD BET HIGH ON...........
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM, YOU DON'T KNOW THE GOOD BOOKS FROM THE BAD ONE'S PERIOD...
Doctormeds
Banned
Buy Brand And Generic Viagra From Online Pharmacy.
Buy Brand And Generic Viagra From Online Pharmacy.
sorry..
no soliciting
Buy Brand And Generic Viagra From Online Pharmacy.
sorry..
no soliciting
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
That question was never asked; it is irrelevant whether a book is considered "good" or "bad". The question is whether the book did what is "right" or what is "wrong".
And you posted this....
Originally Posted by rainbow
THE BOTTOMLINE IS I KNOW WHO SCOTTY AND SPIRO ARE, THAT'S WHY YOU ARE 10000000000000% WRONG.
....now how could the fact that you know "who Scotty and Spiro are" have any influence on whether they are "right" or "wrong"? That is a ridiculous and illogical statement and I offer it as exhibit Z in my case proving you are an idiot(I've already offered multiple other examples).
That question was never asked; it is irrelevant whether a book is considered "good" or "bad". The question is whether the book did what is "right" or what is "wrong".
And you posted this....
Originally Posted by rainbow
THE BOTTOMLINE IS I KNOW WHO SCOTTY AND SPIRO ARE, THAT'S WHY YOU ARE 10000000000000% WRONG.
....now how could the fact that you know "who Scotty and Spiro are" have any influence on whether they are "right" or "wrong"? That is a ridiculous and illogical statement and I offer it as exhibit Z in my case proving you are an idiot(I've already offered multiple other examples).
rainbow
EOG Master
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
BECAUSE THEY DON'T TAKE SHOTS AT PLAYERS. ITS NOT STUPID WHEN YOU KNOW 2 PEOPLE ARE 100% HONEST, MAYBE IN YOUR BOOKS YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW THAT PERSON, I GUESS I'M DIFFERENT FROM YOU ABOUT THAT...That question was never asked; it is irrelevant whether a book is considered "good" or "bad". The question is whether the book did what is "right" or what is "wrong".
And you posted this....
Originally Posted by rainbow
THE BOTTOMLINE IS I KNOW WHO SCOTTY AND SPIRO ARE, THAT'S WHY YOU ARE 10000000000000% WRONG.
....now how could the fact that you know "who Scotty and Spiro are" have any influence on whether they are "right" or "wrong"? That is a ridiculous and illogical statement and I offer it as exhibit Z in my case proving you are an idiot(I've already offered multiple other examples).
ballwonder
EOG Master
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
Pioneer, you getting a cut for lobbying or what?
Pioneer, you getting a cut for lobbying or what?
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
Interesting that you would ask me another question! You asked me a question in the "Logic at the RX" thread, and I answered you and asked you a question which you have not answered yet.
But since it's the Christmas season, I'll answer you. NO, my only concern is truth and doing the right thing.
Interesting that you would ask me another question! You asked me a question in the "Logic at the RX" thread, and I answered you and asked you a question which you have not answered yet.
But since it's the Christmas season, I'll answer you. NO, my only concern is truth and doing the right thing.
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
Due to your limited verbal/intellectual skills, I feel compelled to ask you what the definition of a "shot" is?
By the way, Wilheim defines it perfectly and I cut and pasted it in the "Logic at the RX" thread.
Due to your limited verbal/intellectual skills, I feel compelled to ask you what the definition of a "shot" is?
By the way, Wilheim defines it perfectly and I cut and pasted it in the "Logic at the RX" thread.
raycabino
Long Live Wilson!
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
How is he taking a shot? If he lost the race he would have lost the dime. Where is the shot taking here? Oh thats right, by the book waiting til he nailed a longshot. Like I said, the player is not all right here. He should have found out if he could bet more than the $500 on a horse to prevent all this, but being that he had been firing dimes for a couple weeks on the horses with no problems, I can't agree with the books stance to not pay here. Not in a million years could you convince anyone with half a brain that if this oscar would have lost 40 races at a dime a pop, and for some reason they would have realized he was betting dimes when they only wanted nickels, that oscar would have been reembersed 20k. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool I don't care how honorable Scotty is supposed to be.
How is he taking a shot? If he lost the race he would have lost the dime. Where is the shot taking here? Oh thats right, by the book waiting til he nailed a longshot. Like I said, the player is not all right here. He should have found out if he could bet more than the $500 on a horse to prevent all this, but being that he had been firing dimes for a couple weeks on the horses with no problems, I can't agree with the books stance to not pay here. Not in a million years could you convince anyone with half a brain that if this oscar would have lost 40 races at a dime a pop, and for some reason they would have realized he was betting dimes when they only wanted nickels, that oscar would have been reembersed 20k. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool I don't care how honorable Scotty is supposed to be.
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
Someone please explain how somebody betting a large HORSE wager is taking a shot at a book. What motive would the player have to overbet at Betjm? The freaking horse rebate? These shot taking and "extortion" claims against the player are absolute BS. If anyone was taken advantage of it's the player, who CLEARLY got freerolled. Scotty says they aren't going to notice anybody going over their limits untill they win big. This this crap can happen again, untill you fix your software. Sounds like a real sweet deal for Betjm though..
Also, Scotty... Isn't it true that all horse players wishing to bet more than $1,000 on "WIN" must place two bets?
Someone please explain how somebody betting a large HORSE wager is taking a shot at a book. What motive would the player have to overbet at Betjm? The freaking horse rebate? These shot taking and "extortion" claims against the player are absolute BS. If anyone was taken advantage of it's the player, who CLEARLY got freerolled. Scotty says they aren't going to notice anybody going over their limits untill they win big. This this crap can happen again, untill you fix your software. Sounds like a real sweet deal for Betjm though..
Also, Scotty... Isn't it true that all horse players wishing to bet more than $1,000 on "WIN" must place two bets?
4625
2
Re: Betjamaica Dispute
How does "knowing the industry" have any relevance to the dispute at issue here? Based on the "facts" that we know (there are critical facts that we don't know), there is a valid argument for both sides. The guy had a nickel limit, which the sportsbook software enforced. However, the racebook software didn't enforce the limit, so the player could reasonably believe that the limit applied only to the sportsbook. Based only on these facts, a good case can be made for either side. . . .
How does "knowing the industry" have any relevance to the dispute at issue here? Based on the "facts" that we know (there are critical facts that we don't know), there is a valid argument for both sides. The guy had a nickel limit, which the sportsbook software enforced. However, the racebook software didn't enforce the limit, so the player could reasonably believe that the limit applied only to the sportsbook. Based only on these facts, a good case can be made for either side. . . .