All Forums | Gaming Industry - US

Let's get a grip people

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 10471
Posts: 203
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #26
rich,

We provide a service on this site, you know. We are the biggest sports gambling site on the Internet, by far, and it takes a lot of money to provide this service. Dozens of employees are paid, huge amounts of bandwidth are consumed, development happens on a daily basis.

We pay a huge monthly check to our hosting and technology providers to support this.

Therefore we place advertising on our site to pay for it all. We are not getting rich, especially during down periods like this.

One of the - free - services we offer is a ranked list of places that accept business from US customers.

Our top-rated advertiser was a small, well-run shop, that fit the mold for our customers perfectly. And for three years we never heard a peep of complaints, other than the occasional whine from somebody who wanted to lay big money and got shown the door.

In three years, not a single valid complaint was received by us that wasn't eventually handled professionally. They were a great operation.

Then, the American government formed a company and entrapped that business into performing activity that's only illegal when you are living in America. Then the American government imposed their laws and seized their domain and bank accounts - a fact that can be proven in the form of publicly-released affidavits.

This is a situation that had never been done before in the industry and completely unprecedented. Unpredicatable. Unforeseeable. There is no way we could have predicted this outcome for anybody. A meteor strike.

Now, because of this situation, and you own irrational and completely unproven belief that betED took off with your money, you feel that we should be financially responsible because we provided you with a list and a link to betED and charged you nothing for it.

I disagree.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #27
Quote Originally Posted by richsox24:

Then why did they addemantly claim that in order to receive this outrageous bonus, you had to do a p2p transfer, instead of an echeck? 


I don't know. That's the first I've heard of it. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:


I don't know. That's the first I've heard of it. 

Well, its true

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #29
Well, I guess that's the smoking gun, isn't it?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #30
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:

rich,

We provide a service on this site, you know. We are the biggest sports gambling site on the Internet, by far, and it takes a lot of money to provide this service. Dozens of employees are paid, huge amounts of bandwidth are consumed, development happens on a daily basis.

We pay a huge monthly check to our hosting and technology providers to support this.

Therefore we place advertising on our site to pay for it all. We are not getting rich, especially during down periods like this.

One of the - free - services we offer is a ranked list of places that accept business from US customers.

Our top-rated advertiser was a small, well-run shop, that fit the mold for our customers perfectly. And for three years we never heard a peep of complaints, other than the occasional whine from somebody who wanted to lay big money and got shown the door.

In three years, not a single valid complaint was received by us that wasn't eventually handled professionally. They were a great operation.

Then, the American government formed a company and entrapped that business into performing activity that's only illegal when you are living in America. Then the American government imposed their laws and seized their domain and bank accounts - a fact that can be proven in the form of publicly-released affidavits.

This is a situation that had never been done before in the industry and completely unprecedented. Unpredicatable. Unforeseeable. There is no way we could have predicted this outcome for anybody. A meteor strike.

Now, because of this situation, and you own irrational and completely unproven belief that betED took off with your money, you feel that we should be financially responsible because we provided you with a list and a link to betED and charged you nothing for it.

I disagree.


How is Rich irrational? You may not see eye to eye with him, and he may not be able to prove those assertions to your satisfaction, but he provided some references to strong circumstantial evidence. Those suggestions are certainly stronger than some of the analogies you've lobbed to distance yourself from a questionable business relationship.

The definition of entrapment is luring someone into doing something they would not otherwise do........by definition Beted was engaging in exactly this form of behavior.

And to the point that this was totally unexpected and unprecedented.........that is highly suspect given the very recent moves against the poker industry.

Beted was obviously a poorly run entity engaging in some form of criminal enterprise beyond that of almost every book.......the type of thing Covers players expected to be made aware of.......not pushed toward.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #31
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:



How is Rich irrational? You may not see eye to eye with him, and he may not be able to prove those assertions to your satisfaction, but he provided some references to strong circumstantial evidence. Those suggestions are certainly stronger than some of the analogies you've lobbed to distance yourself from a questionable business relationship.

The definition of entrapment is luring someone into doing something they would not otherwise do........by definition Beted was engaging in exactly this form of behavior.

And to the point that this was totally unexpected and unprecedented.........that is highly suspect given the very recent moves against the poker industry.

Beted was obviously a poorly run entity engaging in some form of criminal enterprise beyond that of almost every book.......the type of thing Covers players expected to be made aware of.......not pushed toward.

You want definitions?

Irrational (According to Wikipedia): "... It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate reasoning, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency."

The fact that there has been absolutely no proof provided that betED took the money, while there is actual verifiable proof that the DOJ did seize their accounts would seem to indicate that repeatedly stating that betED took the money is, by definiteion, irrational.


As for entrapment.. the DOJ created a company with the expressed purpose of luring online gaming companies into transacting online gamine transactions through the American banking system - an illegal act. So by YOUR definition, betED was entrapped. Are you seriously defending the DOJ here?

The poker indictments were an indication that the DOJ was indicting poker companies that had been laundering money. The additional factor that some of those poker companies were allegedly purchasing ownership shares in the banking institutions involved indicates a certain amount of egregious behavior that couldn't possibly be compared to betED.

Furthermore, the only reason betED got shutdown was because of the sting operation, which had nothing to do with anything in the poker indictments.

So - no - I wouldn't necessarily conclude that because of the poker situation, that betED was therefore any more at risk than any other online sportsbook. It was only because of the totally unprecedented sting operation that they were at risk - and nobody knew about that.

Finally, your statement that "Beted was obviously a poorly run entity engaging in some form of criminal enterprise beyond that of almost every book" is completely pulled out of your ass and baseless.

If anything, this situation has proven that they were involved in fewer illegalities than other books, which is why they didn't have the financial structure to survive the seizures.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2011
Posts: 19
Posted: #32
After reading all this,

Being the biggest sportsbook advertisement site on the internet as freedom mentions must mean that any one advertising here pays plenty of money.

Running this operation must mean a lot of expenses, agreed, but if this business was not making money I dont think it will be running it out of love for the industry.  If you are hiring writers, spending on servers an development, then it is definitely running as a making money business.

I will say that grabbing some of those funds and putting them down on a deal to save the players balance will be a fair thing to do.

Just my opinion.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #33
Scott, I would be lying if I said that the idea hasn't been considered. Of course it has.

This has been PR disaster from the word Go. And let's not forget the fact that, while it might be hard for some people to believe, we actually feel terrible about the situation. If there was an easy way to buy ourselves out of it, we would do it.

But there is always more to the story.

Yes, we have done well over the last few years, but times have changed. With the exodus of companies from the American market, we've seen our revenues take a significant hit. I'm talking about a major chunk. We have a responsibility to our employees and the future of this company. I'm not going to put anybody's livelihood at risk just to buy ourselves out of some PR mess - especially when we did nothing wrong.

So we are not going to even entertain that idea whatsoever until many other options have played out and we receive certain information - and not just rumors.

For instance:

1) The possibility of a bailout? OK, scratch that off the list for now, but maybe down the road...? I doubt it.

2) We don't even know how much is owed or has been seized, so that's a big hurdle right there. What? Am I supposed to believe richsox about how much he says he is owed? Even after I paid him off, he's gonna show up in the forum next day saying that he thinks I gave him fake money and he doesn't trust it. 

3) I'll be damned if I start coughing up the company's money before I completely exhaust every possibility of getting the money out of the hands of the real thieves who took it... the American government. Maybe that's a small chance, but we've got to play that situation out completely or else we'd just be stupid.

4) Legal ramifications... Rule 1: Don't apologize and offer to pay for anything that isn't your fault. 
It would be awesome if we could just start paying off customers. We'd be heroes, right? Yeah, until the government indicts ME, closes down Covers, and says that we are covering betED's obligations because we owned the joint. And don't say it isn't a possibility, because anything is possible - especially when wannabe billionaires are doing everything they can to make people believe that rumor is true.

So while it sure would be a nice thing for Covers to pay off the players' balances, we don't think we necessarily should have to, and we have a lot of really good reasons why we really shouldn't.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:


You want definitions?

Irrational (According to Wikipedia): "... It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate reasoning, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency."

The fact that there has been absolutely no proof provided that betED took the money, while there is actual verifiable proof that the DOJ did seize their accounts would seem to indicate that repeatedly stating that betED took the money is, by definiteion, irrational.


As for entrapment.. the DOJ created a company with the expressed purpose of luring online gaming companies into transacting online gamine transactions through the American banking system - an illegal act. So by YOUR definition, betED was entrapped. Are you seriously defending the DOJ here?

The poker indictments were an indication that the DOJ was indicting poker companies that had been laundering money. The additional factor that some of those poker companies were allegedly purchasing ownership shares in the banking institutions involved indicates a certain amount of egregious behavior that couldn't possibly be compared to betED.

Furthermore, the only reason betED got shutdown was because of the sting operation, which had nothing to do with anything in the poker indictments.

So - no - I wouldn't necessarily conclude that because of the poker situation, that betED was therefore any more at risk than any other online sportsbook. It was only because of the totally unprecedented sting operation that they were at risk - and nobody knew about that.

Finally, your statement that "Beted was obviously a poorly run entity engaging in some form of criminal enterprise beyond that of almost every book" is completely pulled out of your ass and baseless.

If anything, this situation has proven that they were involved in fewer illegalities than other books, which is why they didn't have the financial structure to survive the seizures.

Freedom,..all the other books that were effected that day knew something was up...hence bookmaker, betmaker, etc all puchasing new domains just days earlier. 

What did beted do while the other sites were purchasing new domains???  Did beted purchase a new domain??  No...instead they send out mass emails and make a ridiculous bonus offers to those who will send cash only by Sunday at the lastest.  You cant possibly be as stupid as you are leading on. 

Im also not going to make statements as to how much of beteds money was siezed.  I dont know if it was 5%, 10%, 30%,  etc.  I do know that not a single top ranked book would ever keep all their eggs in one basket and you know that too.  You keep saying there is no evidence that beted stole players funds.  Where is your so called evidence that the DOJ seized every penny that beted had.  You're the one who has made that statement numerous times. 

You need to grow up, look at yourself in the mirror, and be the bigger man here and do the right thing....help those that got royally screwed by YOUR #1 ranked book.  We needs actions, not just talk talk talk and buying time.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #35
rich, I heard that story too.

I'm not going to deny that there was a rumor about Bookmaker, because it was around for a month beforehand. Nobody knew what was going to happen, but everybody seemed to know that Bookmaker had been targeted.

And Bookmaker was smart and took some steps. I applaud that.

Are you saying there were rumors about betED? Because I never heard any. You seem well informed. Ask around and let me know, please. If you can find anybody who wasn't completely blown away and shocked when betED got nailed.

And I never said that I have evidence that the Feds have ALL of betED's money. All I know is that I have evidence that the Feds did seize their bank accounts - and that's 1000X more evidence than you have that they ran with the money.

Finally, read my above post about covering the balances. You might learn a little about the realities of running a business. There's more to think about than keeping richsox happy.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #36

Well it seems that your realities of running a business are making as much money as possible...no matter who gets hurt. 

And yes, you have eluded many times that beted has no money left after the seizures.  Of course those threads have most likely been conveniently deleted. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2010
Posts: 4793
Posted: #37
Rich, I got screwed just like you. I never even made a bet. I made the p2p and they were down before I was ready to place a wager...But I cant in good faith put Covers and BetED in the same boat....Did Covers handle this thing poorly? Hell yes they did, as Freedom said a situation like this is unprecedented and should not have promised anything back to anybody. I actually had my hopes up for the first 48 HRS before I realized nobody has to pay me back so why would they. Freedom may owe an apology for that because he runs a business and intentionally informed his BedED clients that he would make this right. I believe he would like to get us our money back and I do give him credit for putting up with a lot of shit but he may deserve that shit if he continues to try to put hope out there for us BetDED victims.  Rich we will never see our money and the bad thing is BetED and the FEDS are the only ones to blame and they dont give a flying fuck about us.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #38
rich, You are right. I did say that I believed there is no money left.

I still do.


 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 994
Posted: #39
So what's the current status between Beted and the DOJ?  Obviously some people were charged (though I heard they denied ownership).  Is there a court date set up?  What's next for the Beted owners?  Are they going to court or are they basically going to disappear from existence?  The way I see it, if a trial happens and this whole situation can be put behind us, then there may actually be hope of a future bailout after the fact (and assuming they don't end up rotting in jail).  Am I incorrect in thinking so?

Apparently Beted is in a "lay low" mode.  Until when though?  Forever?  What are they waiting for is basically what I am asking.  If there is no actual court date and no sign of there being one and if the DOJ is content with what they collected, what damage would agreeing to a bailout have on the Beted owners? 

I am not saying that there is no damage or anything I am just asking as I am unclear on the situation.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 11
Posted: #40
Quote Originally Posted by richsox24:

Then why did they addemantly claim that in order to receive this outrageous bonus, you had to do a p2p transfer, instead of an echeck? 

The reason BETED was seized is the DOJ set up a sting echeck 3rd party processer in Maryland. When the DJ seized BETD, they seized all of their accounts that paid into and out of their e-check funds. Echeck was the major source of beted transactions. That is what made them such a good book. Their 100% bnus was after their echeck accts were already seized. Thus, they KNEW they were screwed and it was a last ditch effort for cash before they closed. They couldn't cllect via echeck because that was already doomed. Freedom- for someone who knew soo much of what was going on, I am shocked you are not aware of this. Or you are playing stupid.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #41
Quote Originally Posted by ShavenCoinpurse:

The reason BETED was seized is the DOJ set up a sting echeck 3rd party processer in Maryland. When the DJ seized BETD, they seized all of their accounts that paid into and out of their e-check funds. Echeck was the major source of beted transactions. That is what made them such a good book. Their 100% bnus was after their echeck accts were already seized. Thus, they KNEW they were screwed and it was a last ditch effort for cash before they closed. They couldn't cllect via echeck because that was already doomed. Freedom- for someone who knew soo much of what was going on, I am shocked you are not aware of this. Or you are playing stupid.

Wow...that just aggravates me and pisses me off even more.  Their echeck processor was down a few days before they closed??  If so, I (along with many others) just got taken for a ride. 

I had a balance with them of just over 1500.  All i want is my fuckin $250 back i sent to these fuickin crooks.  God im fuckin pissed now. 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #42
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:


You want definitions?

Irrational (According to Wikipedia): "... It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate reasoning, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency."

The fact that there has been absolutely no proof provided that betED took the money, while there is actual verifiable proof that the DOJ did seize their accounts would seem to indicate that repeatedly stating that betED took the money is, by definiteion, irrational.


As for entrapment.. the DOJ created a company with the expressed purpose of luring online gaming companies into transacting online gamine transactions through the American banking system - an illegal act. So by YOUR definition, betED was entrapped. Are you seriously defending the DOJ here?

No, that's not my definition of entrapment at all, nor is it the legal definition. Beted was using processors of this type already. Who knows why they decided to use the DOJ processor, but they were breaking the law already in the eyes of the DOJ.

The poker indictments were an indication that the DOJ was indicting poker companies that had been laundering money. The additional factor that some of those poker companies were allegedly purchasing ownership shares in the banking institutions involved indicates a certain amount of egregious behavior that couldn't possibly be compared to betED.

The accusation is that Beted was laundering money as well. Any crackdown in the internet gambling sphere was warning that there were problems on the horizon. It is incredibly small minded to hide behind the "hey that was poker.'

Furthermore, the only reason betED got shutdown was because of the sting operation, which had nothing to do with anything in the poker indictments.

This is conjecture. Out of the hundreds of operating books, they targeted a select few. Bookmaker was unphased. Your #1 book ran for the hills.

So - no - I wouldn't necessarily conclude that because of the poker situation, that betED was therefore any more at risk than any other online sportsbook. It was only because of the totally unprecedented sting operation that they were at risk - and nobody knew about that.

I pulled money out of several books when it was obvious there were issues with internet gambling. I don't see how any rational gaming advocate would not recognize these potential problems and advise his customers.

Finally, your statement that "Beted was obviously a poorly run entity engaging in some form of criminal enterprise beyond that of almost every book" is completely pulled out of your ass and baseless.

I have refrained from name calling despite a near 5 figure loss at your #1 book. I would hope you could show the same level of character. You claim there were no unresolved complaints (with merit) against Beted. Perhaps that is exactly because players were aware of the relationship you had with this book and took their complaints elsewhere. i am personally aware of several significant cases of "gotcha" bookmaking on their part, turning relatively minor infractions into unfair account confiscations. Their is a reason they were a C book elsewhere.

If anything, this situation has proven that they were involved in fewer illegalities than other books, which is why they didn't have the financial structure to survive the seizures.

Not at all. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, at best it shows that they were less competent than the other books. The "late inning" bonus makes them look duplicitous as hell. It's laughable to say they were more honest than anyone else. We know the DOJ grabbed some cash, neither you nor we know how much, so your continued claim that they got it all is illusionary at best. They got all that they got.........obviously. If beted lost all their money, they were a stupid enterprise and one which you shouldn't have been pushing your customers towards.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #43
Shaven and Rich, look at the affidavits.

The betED accounts seized were in Panama.

It's called "commingling". Basically, any account that the processor sent money to is considered dirty and is therefore OK to seize.

So it's not just the e-check accounts jammed, it's every account that received money from the processor.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 11
Posted: #44
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:

Shaven and Rich, look at the affidavits.

The betED accounts seized were in Panama.

It's called "commingling". Basically, any account that the processor sent money to is considered dirty and is therefore OK to seize.

So it's not just the e-check accounts jammed, it's every account that received money from the processor.

That is exactly what I said. All accounts that paid into and out of the dirty processer was seized.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 2401
Posted: #45

Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Esplanade - I appreciate your back and forth with Freedom as it's a respectful disagreement.  I wasn't involved with Beted but have been following nonetheless.  I commend freedom for being responsive to the abusive attacks and continuing to communicate with angered patrons.  It does, however, see as though he's denying that Beted did anything wrong/shady/duplicitous whatsoever (100% bonus, on p2p transactions, no communication).  Anywho - I'm following and hope more constructive banter will continue as opposed to name calling.  Here's to hoping all the players get their money back!!!

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 2401
Posted: #46
#5 WP
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 2401
Posted: #47

Quote Originally Posted by Jelax:

#5 WP

wrong forum - please ignore or delete please

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2010
Posts: 1460
Posted: #48
don't tell us to get a fucking grip. your number 1 book just took our money and ran. and wont make a deal. 

the nerve of covers in this is getting towards insulting
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #49
Covers passed insulting miles ago. 
 
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 994
Posted: #50
LOL...I'm not sure what happened between you two, but it seems that Calvin guy really has it out for you, Freedom(s).  According to the article, though, it points out that the 2 people are going to court in Maryland.  When is this? 

Basically just scroll up a quarter-page and I'm just re-asking the questions I asked earlier.  I understand you're a grown man with many of things to do (run a business, spend time with family, etc) other than answer every little question on the forums but if you have any insights on the questions I asked above that would be much appreciated.
All Forums | Gaming Industry - US
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.