JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK

THE SHRINK

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

BigOrange said:
Shitty decision by the book. Even worse spin put on it by Shrink. Very disappointing indeed!

And this is the opinion of someone whose family has been on the bookmaking side of the business for the past 35 years!

BigOrange
Click to expand...

I am surprised to hear you say that since house rules normally trump over everything else when disputes arise..

There is a certain "peace" that I feel within when I believe I have done the right thing...

There are no "committees" making noise in my head, etc...

This sports book has rules. Neither the player nor any of the previous arbitrators bothered to read them.

For if you truly wanted justice to be served, then there is no getting around the fact that oddsmaker had terms and conditions that defined and supported their position....

I found in player of the sportsbook in this case but I can certainly understand your disappointment...

Hopefully, the next time you will respect my judgement and understand there are 3 sides to every story...:cheers

THE SHRINK

BigOrange said:
Do you think Shrink's decision and statement here was intended to drive traffic? There will be several outraged people posting several threads with 1000+ views over the next week on this.

If he had gotten the player paid, this whole scenario would have been over in an hour and forgotten!
Click to expand...

What a bunch of crap...
 
TonyMar

TonyMar

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

ATX said:
I have seen nothing mentioned about a promo code, I have seen nothing stating that the offer was non-transferable.
Click to expand...

there was no promo code...

no declaration to not forward...

or send...

or pass this fuckin' email along to anyone you know...

all horseshit...

fuck the phone number...

hi shirley!:+waving-5
 
BigOrange

BigOrange

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Shrink: I just haven't seen any form of bonus abuse. He "attempted" to pass along the offer to his dad, but that was turned down by Oddsmaker. There weren't multiple accounts "in play". Where's the abuse? I would be the first to say fuck Jimmy, the scamming thieving piece of shit, if there was proof that he did scam them, but that's just not the case unless there is more evidence that hasn't been shown in these threads.
 
Flamingo kid

Flamingo kid

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

Geez, was the 8 grand THAT important? Was it worth 8 thousand dollars to get the reputation of a stiff book?

Whether this book in question was right or wrong, the bottom line remains that they will forever be known as stiffs who don't pay.

Players and player advocated don't give a rats ass about technicalities in bylaws and sneaky wording, they just want their money, its not too much to ask.
 
Brewers in 7

Brewers in 7

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

sportsbooks dont have rules, they do whatever the hell they want thats the problem.. and apparently there gonna continue to get away with this crap
 
raiders72001

raiders72001

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Shrink - Can you answer what I just asked mo.

How can there be bonus abuse? There was no code and it was sent by Email. It can't be abused.

You'll have to ignore this one because you can't get out of it.
 
TonyMar

TonyMar

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

i think some other book is going to help jimmy out here...

&

help jimmy out here...

to get over this unreal horseshit fuckin'.
 
THE SHRINK

THE SHRINK

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

BigOrange said:
Shrink: I just haven't seen any form of bonus abuse. He "attempted" to pass along the offer to his dad, but that was turned down by Oddsmaker. There weren't multiple accounts "in play". Where's the abuse? I would be the first to say fuck Jimmy, the scamming thieving piece of shit, if there was proof that he did scam them, but that's just not the case unless there is more evidence that hasn't been shown in these threads.
Click to expand...

raiders72001 said:
Shrink - Can you answer what I just asked mo.

How can there be bonus abuse? There was no code and it was sent by Email. It can't be abused.

You'll have to ignore this one because you can't get out of it.
Click to expand...


How would either of you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a %2
 
Brewers in 7

Brewers in 7

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

THE SHRINK said:
How would you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a 'friend' without your permission and then each of their "friends" also shared their 500 dollar free play offer with another friend...

Then their friends each tried to circumvent your big book by calling to claim their 500 dollar free plays by dialing all of your different clerks?

If this doesn't fall under the category of bonus abuse then what the hell does?
Click to expand...

thats why there should be a code attached to the promo, once the code is used the promo cant be used again...... there was no code here so no abuse... just a guy getting screwed by a book....
 
TonyMar

TonyMar

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

raiders72001 said:
Bailout wold be nice. Put a big roll on it.
Click to expand...

1st sportsbook to the table wins...

especially if they DO NOT advertise here...

they will get alot of props for doin' it...

&

will get alot of new players for football season...

tough times indeed...

time to differentiate oneself from these other horseshit books...

:cheers
 
THE SHRINK

THE SHRINK

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Brewers in 7 said:
thats why there should be a code attached to the promo, once the code is used the promo cant be used again...... there was no code here so no abuse... just a guy getting screwed by a book....
Click to expand...

the code was done by giving each player a specific phone number to use and a specific name to ask for...

This player violated that if u read their rules...

Back later..

THE SHRINK
 
BigOrange

BigOrange

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK said:
How would you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a 'friend' without your permission and then each of their "friends" also shared their 500 dollar free play offer with another friend...

Then their friends each tried to circumvent your big book by calling to claim their 500 dollar free plays by dialing all of your different clerks?

If this doesn't fall under the category of bonus abuse then what the hell does?
Click to expand...

I would be fine with it.
If my efforts were to reach the "profiled Players" only, then I just wouldn't allow the tag alongs to use the offer. This is exactly what Oddsmaker did. No reason to go any further than to disallow the offer to friends and family members of the "profiled players" and certainly no reason to steal the money from their accounts!
 
HotStreak

HotStreak

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK said:
How would you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a 'friend' without your permission and then each of their "friends" also shared their 500 dollar free play offer with another friend...

Then their friends each tried to circumvent your big book by calling to claim their 500 dollar free plays by dialing all of your different clerks?

If this doesn't fall under the category of bonus abuse then what the hell does?
Click to expand...


They can't share the bonus if there is an approval process. Which there obviously is. Your 100 good customers would be on a list entitled to the bonus. Anyone else inquiring about it..."Sorry Mr....you do not qualify for this offer, but how about a 100% match on your first deposit"

No one is harmed, and the person passing on the e-mail provided free advertising for Oddsmaker. The e-mail itself did not give a bonus. Oddsmaker is being beyond unreasonable with this.
 
A

Atlantic Coast Kid

Banned
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK said:
How would either of you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a %2
Click to expand...

but that's not what happened here , Joker. 2938u4ji23

You have too much to lose is the reality....you're not fooling anyone with this bogus decision.
 
raiders72001

raiders72001

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK said:
How would either of you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a %2
Click to expand...

How can jimmymac share the free play on this one?
 
ATX

ATX

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK said:
How would either of you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a %2
Click to expand...

weak. no, very weak argument.

like no one has ever shared a good offer with someone else in the history of bonuses.

oddsmaker knows what they are doing and it's called free rolling.
 
Mammon

Mammon

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

I want Shrink to admit he had nothing to do with the verdict.

"Worked day and night" just to follow the vague rules of the book.

What a load of crap. He wanted the player paid. His decision was rejected by the book.
 
TonyMar

TonyMar

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

THE SHRINK said:
How would either of you feel if you profiled 100 good customers, offered each of them a 500 dollar free play to entice them to join you, but each of them shared their free play with a %2
Click to expand...

unless specific rules were outlined in those mass emails...to not send or FORWARD....those emails to any other friends...

hookers...

dads...

moms...

bro's...

sisters...

neighbors...

business partners...

syndicate brethren...

than fuck me!

for makin' that offer...
cheers...:cheers
 
THE SHRINK

THE SHRINK

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

BigOrange said:
I would be fine with it.
If my efforts were to reach the "profiled Players" only, then I just wouldn't allow the tag alongs to use the offer. This is exactly what Oddsmaker did. No reason to go any further than to disallow the offer to friends and family members of the "profiled players" and certainly no reason to steal the money from their accounts!
Click to expand...

You might be fine with it until it occurred 10,000 times. At some point, you would need to set am example to deter others from doing it to you or you'd go broke trying to stop it..

the cost would be too high...

now later, really..

please..

I am going to a meeting....

SEE WHAT U GUYS DO TO ME, LOL?
 
ATX

ATX

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

Mamon said:
I want Shrink to admit he had nothing to do with the verdict.

"Worked day and night" just to follow the vague rules of the book.

What a load of crap. He wanted the player paid. He decision was rejected by the book.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you, Mamon.

but maybe a little, "I want to keep Oddsmaker's advertising money so I won't push them too hard" sprinkled on top.
 
Mammon

Mammon

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

I may be assuming a lot in my theory but so is Oddsmaker and Shrink with the Bonus abuse.
 
HotStreak

HotStreak

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

THE SHRINK said:
the code was done by giving each player a specific phone number to use and a specific name to ask for...

This player violated that if u read their rules...

Back later..

THE SHRINK
Click to expand...

His father called the wrong number.... NO BONUS.

If his father called the right number..... NO BONUS.

E-mail is worth shit if you are not in their profiled database.
 
munson15

munson15

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

JC said:
Furthermore, let's not attack the Shrink. Attack the decision!
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't see anything positive for Shrink in making this public. He could have let Jimmy rant and rave without rebuttal but he explained his decision in detail. I wouldn't want to be in that position, even if I would have come to a different conclusion.:cheers
 
N

nedrow

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

please..

I am going to a meeting....

SEE WHAT U GUYS DO TO ME, LOL?
some days just being sober has to be enuff
were both winners today
 
THE SHRINK

THE SHRINK

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

munson15 said:
Agreed. I don't see anything positive for Shrink in making this public. He could have let Jimmy rant and rave without rebuttal but he explained his decision in detail. I wouldn't want to be in that position, even if I would have come to a different conclusion.:cheers
Click to expand...

A voice of reason...

ty for seeing my side ...12io4j2w90

nedrow said:
please..



I am going to a meeting....



SEE WHAT U GUYS DO TO ME, LOL?

some days just being sober has to be enuff

were both winners today
Click to expand...


YEPPERS!!!

YOU BETCHA!!!
 
Mammon

Mammon

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

THE SHRINK said:
I also assume you are probably a good guy who just doesnt see this as i do...
Click to expand...


Would this be different for you if it was a 500$ bonus from a 500$ Deposit.

I'm a good guy ...just got my horsie up since you claimed to work so hard on this. I guess any work seems hard to you now.

I love you Shrinkie just come down to earth once in awhile.
 
TonyMar

TonyMar

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

THE SHRINK said:
You might be fine with it until it occurred 10,000 times. At some point, you would need to set am example to deter others from doing it to you or you'd go broke trying to stop it..
Click to expand...

huh?

wtf!?!?!??!

eight-&-half dimes isnt anything to the mighty oddsmaker...

you have already stated this...

oddsmaker uses 'ben franklin' as puffs...

weak...

weak assed.
 
HotStreak

HotStreak

2
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

mofome said:
Calling someone who didn't know any better and claiming authorization. Perhaps.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some CS rep does not have the authority to give out bonuses. Who cares what the operator knew. They punch his info into the system Bonus/No Bonus?Call manager....whatever.
 
raiders72001

raiders72001

1
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

munson15 said:
Agreed. I don't see anything positive for Shrink in making this public. He could have let Jimmy rant and rave without rebuttal but he explained his decision in detail. I wouldn't want to be in that position, even if I would have come to a different conclusion.:cheers
Click to expand...

This was the easiest decision that I've ever seen.

All that needed to be said is it's impossible to bonus abuse on this offer. I side with the player.
 
Flamingo kid

Flamingo kid

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

THE SHRINK said:
:finger004

sorry not true...
Click to expand...


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.
 
mofome

mofome

Banned
Re: JIMMYMAC VS. ODDSMAKER DISPUTE: THE VERDICT

HotStreak said:
I'm sure some CS rep does not have the authority to give out bonuses. Who cares what the operator knew. They punch his info into the system Bonus/No Bonus?Call manager....whatever.
Click to expand...


Whatever Jimmys thinking was, he felt the need to lie about it. Seems telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top