We do not, by the way, receive revenues from any sportbooks. Please notice there are no "click-through" sportbook banners on this website. When you "click through" to a sportbook from a website such as this they "know" where you "came" from and the sportbook usually pays that site a percentage of your losses. (We've had offers up to 30% from sportbooks to post their banners on this site.) Of course, we consider such arrangements a conflict of interest, and certainly not in your best interest. Websites that claim to help you win and yet have click- through banners actually make more money if you lose. In any case, the amount of money involved in the story at right makes it newsworthy, but what if your book refused to pay you $10,000 or $20,000? What would or could you do about it? Be sure there's a regulatory agency that can arbitrate your case. ^v^v^v^ THINK
EDUCATION
|
BUZZ DALY ON SPORTS BETTING... $482,000 Dispute Pits Offshore Book vs. Pro Bettor /// Disputes between bettors and bookmakers are not uncommon, but how many involve $482,000? That's the amount in question in an ongoing disagreement between an off shore sports book and a professional bettor. Industry watchers know who the participants are, as their beef has been aired on the Internet and in print. Recently, the issue heated up when the bettor's legal counsel sent a letter to the media with a detailed summary of what allegedly happened. The lawyer, Kenneth Hense, a prominent attorney specializing in the off shore industry, told us he held off in taking this action because he didn't want to provide supporters of the Kyl Bill with anti-off shore ammunition. However, since it appears likely that the proposed legislation - in a much less virulent form than was offered last year - is likely to pass, the lawyer decided to press ahead in the interests of his client. Essentially, the bettor claims he is owed money that he won after wiring a total of $350,000 to the sports book. According to the summary supplied by Hense, the bettor initially lost a lot of money, had his limits raised, then won back his losses and substantial profit. When he requested a payout, the full amount wasn't remitted, said Hense. Then the book declined further payment. According to the sports book, the player was part of a betting syndicate. Its house rules clearly and specifically preclude such bettors from having accounts, said the owner. Hense says the book's position is simply wrong, and if his client isn't paid in full, he will spend $1 million in advertising saying the book is a thief. Additionally, Hense is advising the media of potential liability in future litigation, if advertising from the sports book is accepted and similar problems occur. The bookmaker insists this is a dispute between a wise guy and a shop that doesn't take wise guy action. He claims the bettor came in under a beard, and to get paid has to come out from behind the beard, acknowledge who he is and ask for the money. The bookmaker also feels there are issues of substance to be discussed before settlement is made. "I never said I don't owe the man money, and I never told you I wasn't going to pay him. Just have the man call me." That was how the bookmaker left it when we spoke with him last week. Contrary to what both sides fervently claim and obviously believe, this is not a black and white issue. Moreover, the crux of the matter isn't really about money. It is about honor. Each side's position is as calcified as a dinosaur egg because each feels the other has pulled a fast one. Sure, $482,000 is a lot of Kubricks, but what sticks in both these guys' craws is the conviction that he has been snookered. It would be presumptuous to think we can bring this blood feud to a reasonable conclusion. But it would be equally lame not to try to put a spin on the dispute that might give both sides a little pause as to their own righteousness. Our rationale is that this lingering hostility does no one - neither the industry nor either combatant - any good. From the sidelines, it seems to us that for all the time and energy each party has spent justifying its own cause, neither has put itself inside the other man's shoes. If they did, of course, it might lead to a little weakening of their own entrenched positions. Given the amount of money at stake, it is obvious neither of these men are ordinary Joes. With all their success, you'd think intellect would overrule their abundance of testosterone. Presumably, each has bigger fish to sauté than stewing over this petty distraction. C'mon guys, take a good look at the trouble spots around the world and reflect on what accrues to those who can't or won't make a move toward solving a problem through negotiation. Well, if we wrote this right, either these guys will start talking pursuant to a resolution - or else, they'll just think we sided with the other party and never speak to us again. -- Buzz Daly /// (EDITOR'S NOTE: Buzz Daly's website is not to be missed. It's packed with useful information on today's current sports betting scene. Click HERE to visit Buzz Daly's website)
/// |
![[Image]](pict21.jpg){kind=small}