Wagerweb scamming and their ensuing extortion attempt hilarity
February 5th, 2013 at 3:26:06 PM
permalink
i've been meaning to put the recent email chain correspondence with them together but haven't had the time. for anyone who is thinking of depositing at wagerweb, long story short not only did they stiff me 11k for 4 years but then they tried to force settle the deal through blatant extortion, their justification for their methods include:
1.) saying i'm blackmailing them for money WTF
2.) i'm stealing from them
3.) i'm holding them hostage
4.) blatant extortion
in weeks to come i will reveal the hilarity that ensued in the email chain including them trying to sneakily quote a cp term that was put in AFTER (kudos to prop who sniffed it out) the THEFT.
first some background here:
http://sportsbettingsites.org/wagerweb/
"WagerWeb Correlated Parlay Theft
I saved this one for last as it is a complaint this company has no leg to stand on in stealing an account balance. Even a fake watchdog site they advertise with ruled partially against them and they ignored the ruling. The specific complaint involves correlated parlays and involves theft against a well-known member of the betting forum community known as trixtrix. Let me explain a bit before covering the theft.
Parlays Defined: a parlay is a wager where you place multiple bets on the same ticket. For example let’s say you stake $110 on Patriots -3.5 -110. This is $110 to win $100. If you instead staked $110 on a 2-team parlay of Patriots -3.5 -110 and Jets +4.5 -110 this is how it works: For the Patriots selection a win returns $110 stake + $100 win = $210. This $210 then rolls over to the Jets +4.5 -110. $210 staked at -110 pays a return of $210 stake +$191 win = $401. Of this, $110 was your stake and winnings are $291. Bookmakers offer parlays to give players the option to roll their stakes forward on wins. It’s attractive because it requires making one bet instead of multiple bets and doesn’t require as much initial stake.
Correlated Parlays: A correlated parlay is a situation where the outcome of one event makes another more likely to occur. For example: in college football if you’re betting a parlay on a large favorite of first half -14 / o20.5 you have heavily correlated parlay bet.
Who is TrixTrix: He’s a well-respected member of many betting forums where he uses the same handle. In his prime he was one of the more helpful posters and it’s possible to learn a lot reading his past posts.
Some Correlated Parlays are Blocked: In the example I gave of a correlated parlay -14 / o20.5 for first half the software of online betting sites will not allow parlay bets. In such an example the correlation is too heavy and gives the player a large edge over the bookmaker.
Some Correlated Parlays are Allowed: There are however correlated parlays which are allowed. Betting a full game -3 / o48 has a very tiny correlation. It is not enough of a correlation that most bookmakers would ever consider blocking a parlay on those selections.
Thoughts on Correlated Parlays: Betting sites need to block the parlays they don’t want. This is how it works at most all betting sites, and this is how it worked at WagerWeb. Some are blocked, some are allowed. The ones the software allows are considered binding bets. There is no ands, ifs, nor buts about this. Voiding legit action after the fact is theft.
The image I shared in the intro to this section was a correlated parlay that on October 11, 2012 some betting sites let me bet and others did not. Understand before attempting this bet I wasn’t sure if it would be allowed or not. It is a close one where, while there is a strong correlation, there is not enough correlation to fully overcome the vig. For competitive advantage reasons I will not mention the sites that accepted the wager, but one site that blocked it was 5Dimes Sportsbook where I got the following message:
Understand if a highly reputable betting site such as Bookmaker.eu accepted the bet I would have no fear it would be cancelled. Reputable sites via the software block parlays they don’t want and accept ones they are willing to book.
Details of TrixTrix vs. WagerWeb
TrixTrix began making “allowed” correlated parlay wagers at WagerWeb on August 23, 2009. He was not very successful at first and by October 17, 2009 was down $11,000 betting these. His lucky break came October 24, 2009 when he grew to net $3752 positive, and was now ahead $4300 from correlated parlay betting.
If you’ve read this article in full you might recall I have covered other instances where WagerWeb benefited from free roll situations. Their company had no problem with the bets trixtrix made when he was down large money. However once he won they confiscated his full balance. Keep in mind this player did not break any rules at all. If they had confiscated only the $4300 in correlated parlay winnings this would be unjust. However what they did here was steal $7,000 additional that was in his account.
This complaint has lingered on forums for over 3-years now. WagerWeb has recently attempted to play the new management roll blaming it on past staff. They’ve also changed the story several times. They went as far as alleging trixtrix is a beard for SBR moderator Justin7 who handled this complaint.
Some quick facts: yes there have been some changes in WagerWeb management. Dave Johnson is now with sportsbettingonline.ag which we suggest avoiding. However Dan Richards who is now billed as the new owner has been with this company since the very beginning. In 2000 he was billed as the head of marketing. At another time he was billed as the manager of their shady white label brands. For several years now he’s been the “non-marketing name” head of WagerWeb, billed simply as being the manager. Recent reports call him the “new owner” which is quite deceptive. His name was used in BetCBS/WagerWeb complaints that date back a dozen years and he also handled this trixtrix case.
Anyone who does unbiased research on the trixtrix complaint will see this was theft. They even went against the ruling of a less than reputable site they advertise with (OSGA). They have since attempted to claim software glitches – which evidence suggests is false. They claim new ownership which we challenge but even if true this ownership hasn’t lifted a finger to right this theft. They have even thrown in the claim that the player was a beard. They state they have proof of this, yet they refuse to share it. On and on and on this company continues to come up with new reasons to justify what was conclusively theft.
There are TON of complaints about Casablanca (WagerWeb) and their associated brands. While it would take a heck of a lot of it, it is possible to someway somehow give them the benefit of the doubt on many complaints. However the previous evidence combined with the outright theft perpetrated against trixtrix has beyond tipped whatever might have existed on the other side of the scale.
We at SBS feel rather safe in saying WagerWeb is not a legit sportsbook, but an elaborate scam that commits fraud against winning players. If you are a losing gambler, and your betting activity shows this, sure they might payout. But do you really want to patronize a sportsbook that is only for losers that might not pay you should you catch a lucky run? If you’re using WagerWeb think about referring to our sportsbook ratings and making a change."
1.) saying i'm blackmailing them for money WTF
2.) i'm stealing from them
3.) i'm holding them hostage
4.) blatant extortion
in weeks to come i will reveal the hilarity that ensued in the email chain including them trying to sneakily quote a cp term that was put in AFTER (kudos to prop who sniffed it out) the THEFT.
first some background here:
http://sportsbettingsites.org/wagerweb/
"WagerWeb Correlated Parlay Theft
I saved this one for last as it is a complaint this company has no leg to stand on in stealing an account balance. Even a fake watchdog site they advertise with ruled partially against them and they ignored the ruling. The specific complaint involves correlated parlays and involves theft against a well-known member of the betting forum community known as trixtrix. Let me explain a bit before covering the theft.
Parlays Defined: a parlay is a wager where you place multiple bets on the same ticket. For example let’s say you stake $110 on Patriots -3.5 -110. This is $110 to win $100. If you instead staked $110 on a 2-team parlay of Patriots -3.5 -110 and Jets +4.5 -110 this is how it works: For the Patriots selection a win returns $110 stake + $100 win = $210. This $210 then rolls over to the Jets +4.5 -110. $210 staked at -110 pays a return of $210 stake +$191 win = $401. Of this, $110 was your stake and winnings are $291. Bookmakers offer parlays to give players the option to roll their stakes forward on wins. It’s attractive because it requires making one bet instead of multiple bets and doesn’t require as much initial stake.
Correlated Parlays: A correlated parlay is a situation where the outcome of one event makes another more likely to occur. For example: in college football if you’re betting a parlay on a large favorite of first half -14 / o20.5 you have heavily correlated parlay bet.
Who is TrixTrix: He’s a well-respected member of many betting forums where he uses the same handle. In his prime he was one of the more helpful posters and it’s possible to learn a lot reading his past posts.
Some Correlated Parlays are Blocked: In the example I gave of a correlated parlay -14 / o20.5 for first half the software of online betting sites will not allow parlay bets. In such an example the correlation is too heavy and gives the player a large edge over the bookmaker.
Some Correlated Parlays are Allowed: There are however correlated parlays which are allowed. Betting a full game -3 / o48 has a very tiny correlation. It is not enough of a correlation that most bookmakers would ever consider blocking a parlay on those selections.
Thoughts on Correlated Parlays: Betting sites need to block the parlays they don’t want. This is how it works at most all betting sites, and this is how it worked at WagerWeb. Some are blocked, some are allowed. The ones the software allows are considered binding bets. There is no ands, ifs, nor buts about this. Voiding legit action after the fact is theft.
The image I shared in the intro to this section was a correlated parlay that on October 11, 2012 some betting sites let me bet and others did not. Understand before attempting this bet I wasn’t sure if it would be allowed or not. It is a close one where, while there is a strong correlation, there is not enough correlation to fully overcome the vig. For competitive advantage reasons I will not mention the sites that accepted the wager, but one site that blocked it was 5Dimes Sportsbook where I got the following message:
Understand if a highly reputable betting site such as Bookmaker.eu accepted the bet I would have no fear it would be cancelled. Reputable sites via the software block parlays they don’t want and accept ones they are willing to book.
Details of TrixTrix vs. WagerWeb
TrixTrix began making “allowed” correlated parlay wagers at WagerWeb on August 23, 2009. He was not very successful at first and by October 17, 2009 was down $11,000 betting these. His lucky break came October 24, 2009 when he grew to net $3752 positive, and was now ahead $4300 from correlated parlay betting.
If you’ve read this article in full you might recall I have covered other instances where WagerWeb benefited from free roll situations. Their company had no problem with the bets trixtrix made when he was down large money. However once he won they confiscated his full balance. Keep in mind this player did not break any rules at all. If they had confiscated only the $4300 in correlated parlay winnings this would be unjust. However what they did here was steal $7,000 additional that was in his account.
This complaint has lingered on forums for over 3-years now. WagerWeb has recently attempted to play the new management roll blaming it on past staff. They’ve also changed the story several times. They went as far as alleging trixtrix is a beard for SBR moderator Justin7 who handled this complaint.
Some quick facts: yes there have been some changes in WagerWeb management. Dave Johnson is now with sportsbettingonline.ag which we suggest avoiding. However Dan Richards who is now billed as the new owner has been with this company since the very beginning. In 2000 he was billed as the head of marketing. At another time he was billed as the manager of their shady white label brands. For several years now he’s been the “non-marketing name” head of WagerWeb, billed simply as being the manager. Recent reports call him the “new owner” which is quite deceptive. His name was used in BetCBS/WagerWeb complaints that date back a dozen years and he also handled this trixtrix case.
Anyone who does unbiased research on the trixtrix complaint will see this was theft. They even went against the ruling of a less than reputable site they advertise with (OSGA). They have since attempted to claim software glitches – which evidence suggests is false. They claim new ownership which we challenge but even if true this ownership hasn’t lifted a finger to right this theft. They have even thrown in the claim that the player was a beard. They state they have proof of this, yet they refuse to share it. On and on and on this company continues to come up with new reasons to justify what was conclusively theft.
There are TON of complaints about Casablanca (WagerWeb) and their associated brands. While it would take a heck of a lot of it, it is possible to someway somehow give them the benefit of the doubt on many complaints. However the previous evidence combined with the outright theft perpetrated against trixtrix has beyond tipped whatever might have existed on the other side of the scale.
We at SBS feel rather safe in saying WagerWeb is not a legit sportsbook, but an elaborate scam that commits fraud against winning players. If you are a losing gambler, and your betting activity shows this, sure they might payout. But do you really want to patronize a sportsbook that is only for losers that might not pay you should you catch a lucky run? If you’re using WagerWeb think about referring to our sportsbook ratings and making a change."
February 5th, 2013 at 3:29:02 PM
permalink
Wagerweb most recent blatant extortion attempt against the player, as documented by former SBR mod (best in the business) Justin7/Daringly here:
http://elihufeustel.blogspot.com/2013/02/wagerweb-extorts-player.html
"
FEB
4
WagerWeb extorts player
Every once in awhile, you read about a dispute between a player and sportsbook, and you have to question the sportsbook's sanity. WagerWeb gave us one such moment.
WagerWeb has had an outstanding dispute for years with a player that posts under the handle Trixtrix. In 2009, the player was playing with WagerWeb, and mostly betting correlated parlays. A correlated parlay is any pair of bets where winning one makes the other more likely to win. For example, if one bet Dallas Cowboys -3, parlayed with Dallas Cowboys moneyline at -160, that would be highly correlated. Any time Dallas covered -3, the wager would also win on the moneyline. In essence, that wager would win 50%, but pay much more than even money.
WagerWeb had a rule addressing correlated parlays. It said "WagerWeb does not accept any bet that is considered a correlated multiple, or parlay; even if it was a system error or a clerk’s mistake, it will be considered no action win or lose. A parlay will be considered correlated when 2 or more parts can affect each other’s outcome." There is big problem with this rule, however. Using WagerWeb's definition, all sorts of wagers could be correlated. If you bet Dallas Cowboys -3 / Over 50, there is a small correlation. If you bet New England Patriots under 45, and parlayed it with Baltimore Ravens under 43, it might be correlated due to weather. WagerWeb does not want to void every correlated parlay though, because most players will lose money, and players will still lose money on weakly correlated parlays (such as Dallas Cowboys -3 parlayed with Over 50). On most two team parlays, you need to win both legs about 28% of the time just to break even, and the "Monday Night" parlays (where squares love to parlay favorites with overs) simply don't win enough to do this.
If a book is worried about a correlated parlay, they typically disable in-game parlays. This can be done on a match by match basis, or automatically with software, disabling in-game parlays where the spread is a large fraction of the total. WagerWeb had done the latter -- many games had in-game parlays disabled. Some were allowed (Such as Ohio State -10 / Over 24 for the first half), but not the "juiciest" correlated parlays. When I reviewed the wagers, I would have guessed that those parlays would win about 30% of the time.The player had the best of it, but could still lose (and in fact, did go down about 11k before depositing more, and finally winning).
WagerWeb later voided all of the player's parlays months after the events were over, and deducted $9578 from his account. This was a clear foul. If you bet correlated parlays at Bookmaker, Pinnacle or Greek, you will be paid (and the book will take great care the first time you do this to not allow it to happen again). The theft of $9578 was surprising.
What was more surprising was WagerWeb's refusal to pay the player's remaining $1,700, which were simply funds the player deposited but had not withdrawn. Even if you voided all the player's parlays (which was wrong, and amounts to theft), WagerWeb owed the player $1,700. It had no reason for keeping the player's money. And here is where extortion comes in to play. What is extortion?
Extortion is "a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion."
WagerWeb made an offer to the player. WagerWeb will pay the player the $1700, and about 44% of his correlated parlay winnings. But only if the player agrees that this matter is fully resolved. WagerWeb is holding the $1700 hostage. It has no claim to that money, but is using it as leverage to coerce the player into settlement. WagerWeb has attempted to extort the player, and the player simply refused.
If you are thinking about posting up with WagerWeb, you might want to think twice. WagerWeb has no qualms with stealing a player balance, and extorting to cover it up later."
http://elihufeustel.blogspot.com/2013/02/wagerweb-extorts-player.html
"
FEB
4
WagerWeb extorts player
Every once in awhile, you read about a dispute between a player and sportsbook, and you have to question the sportsbook's sanity. WagerWeb gave us one such moment.
WagerWeb has had an outstanding dispute for years with a player that posts under the handle Trixtrix. In 2009, the player was playing with WagerWeb, and mostly betting correlated parlays. A correlated parlay is any pair of bets where winning one makes the other more likely to win. For example, if one bet Dallas Cowboys -3, parlayed with Dallas Cowboys moneyline at -160, that would be highly correlated. Any time Dallas covered -3, the wager would also win on the moneyline. In essence, that wager would win 50%, but pay much more than even money.
WagerWeb had a rule addressing correlated parlays. It said "WagerWeb does not accept any bet that is considered a correlated multiple, or parlay; even if it was a system error or a clerk’s mistake, it will be considered no action win or lose. A parlay will be considered correlated when 2 or more parts can affect each other’s outcome." There is big problem with this rule, however. Using WagerWeb's definition, all sorts of wagers could be correlated. If you bet Dallas Cowboys -3 / Over 50, there is a small correlation. If you bet New England Patriots under 45, and parlayed it with Baltimore Ravens under 43, it might be correlated due to weather. WagerWeb does not want to void every correlated parlay though, because most players will lose money, and players will still lose money on weakly correlated parlays (such as Dallas Cowboys -3 parlayed with Over 50). On most two team parlays, you need to win both legs about 28% of the time just to break even, and the "Monday Night" parlays (where squares love to parlay favorites with overs) simply don't win enough to do this.
If a book is worried about a correlated parlay, they typically disable in-game parlays. This can be done on a match by match basis, or automatically with software, disabling in-game parlays where the spread is a large fraction of the total. WagerWeb had done the latter -- many games had in-game parlays disabled. Some were allowed (Such as Ohio State -10 / Over 24 for the first half), but not the "juiciest" correlated parlays. When I reviewed the wagers, I would have guessed that those parlays would win about 30% of the time.The player had the best of it, but could still lose (and in fact, did go down about 11k before depositing more, and finally winning).
WagerWeb later voided all of the player's parlays months after the events were over, and deducted $9578 from his account. This was a clear foul. If you bet correlated parlays at Bookmaker, Pinnacle or Greek, you will be paid (and the book will take great care the first time you do this to not allow it to happen again). The theft of $9578 was surprising.
What was more surprising was WagerWeb's refusal to pay the player's remaining $1,700, which were simply funds the player deposited but had not withdrawn. Even if you voided all the player's parlays (which was wrong, and amounts to theft), WagerWeb owed the player $1,700. It had no reason for keeping the player's money. And here is where extortion comes in to play. What is extortion?
Extortion is "a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion."
WagerWeb made an offer to the player. WagerWeb will pay the player the $1700, and about 44% of his correlated parlay winnings. But only if the player agrees that this matter is fully resolved. WagerWeb is holding the $1700 hostage. It has no claim to that money, but is using it as leverage to coerce the player into settlement. WagerWeb has attempted to extort the player, and the player simply refused.
If you are thinking about posting up with WagerWeb, you might want to think twice. WagerWeb has no qualms with stealing a player balance, and extorting to cover it up later."
February 5th, 2013 at 4:22:23 PM
permalink
Sorry, but no reason in 2013 to bet in any online casino and expect to get paid without hassles.
February 5th, 2013 at 10:21:59 PM
permalink
Thanks for the post. I spend little time in the sportsbook forums -- even though all of the casinos that I use are at Sportbooks -- and as such am not up on their bad behavior. And boy is this bad behavior. It's actually rather inspiring.
I'm glad to hear that Pinnacle, my golden boy, is without this criticism. What about Nordicbet? Have they ever pulled anything crappy?
I'm glad to hear that Pinnacle, my golden boy, is without this criticism. What about Nordicbet? Have they ever pulled anything crappy?
February 11th, 2013 at 4:00:56 PM
permalink
pinnacle is fine
now wagerweb has been upgraded from c- to c by sportsbookreview, despite no improvements in their behaviour and mounting evidence to the contrary (including an article piece written by sbr's former best mod/arbitrator justin7 on how wagerweb tried to extort the player)
this type of dirty collusion between a forum and sportsbook calls into question the validity of rest of the sportsbook reviewed books themselves
now wagerweb has been upgraded from c- to c by sportsbookreview, despite no improvements in their behaviour and mounting evidence to the contrary (including an article piece written by sbr's former best mod/arbitrator justin7 on how wagerweb tried to extort the player)
this type of dirty collusion between a forum and sportsbook calls into question the validity of rest of the sportsbook reviewed books themselves
February 11th, 2013 at 4:05:18 PM
permalink
Quote: BozSorry, but no reason in 2013 to bet in any online casino and expect to get paid without hassles.
That rule has remain unchanged since 1913.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
February 11th, 2013 at 4:16:31 PM
permalink
Quote: spicytunapinnacle is fine
now wagerweb has been upgraded from c- to c by sportsbookreview, despite no improvements in their behaviour and mounting evidence to the contrary (including an article piece written by sbr's former best mod/arbitrator justin7 on how wagerweb tried to extort the player)
this type of dirty collusion between a forum and sportsbook calls into question the validity of rest of the sportsbook reviewed books themselves
SBR is not to be taken seriously anymore. I mean seriously, Betfair get an A-? BetOnline gets a B+? Both have stiffed countless players.
February 13th, 2013 at 6:23:46 PM
permalink
Quote: PokeraddictSBR is not to be taken seriously anymore. I mean seriously, Betfair get an A-? BetOnline gets a B+? Both have stiffed countless players.
If the ratings are supposed to reflect past indiscretions, that would be wrong. If they're designed to reflect the book's quality irrespective of past indiscretions, they're right. I suspect the latter, given A- for Betfair.
February 15th, 2013 at 12:46:21 PM
permalink
Again, I'm not as informed on this as I could be, but after reading the SBR forums, and other places around the web, it almost seems as though SBR's utter corruption is taken for granted. It's as though everyone involved knows about this and simply accepts it! I get a sense of an "in" crowd on the forums who actually value this position of knowledge and seem to enjoy it.
Not surprising I guess. Most forums have that "in crowd" dynamic (*cough*Casinomeister!*cough*). It's only truly unfortunate in this instance because people are suffering financial ills because of it.
Not surprising I guess. Most forums have that "in crowd" dynamic (*cough*Casinomeister!*cough*). It's only truly unfortunate in this instance because people are suffering financial ills because of it.
