⭐ Merited by memehunter (1)
Your numbers are wrong and it shows why you take so much time. Doing it your way makes it about $400,000.
My number is... wrong? Which? The post that you quoted earlier, it shows which combo bets became a losing bet because it loses a leg or two, thus lost. Nothing more, nothing less. The aim of the discussion at the moment is to meet a middle ground where OP asked for credit of his cashout, and the casino came with a number. I did a time to investigate the actual eligible cash-out number, in attempt to get them both to a new number.
Where is the misinformation? Far as I remember, the data provided [as also acknowledged by the player] actually helped him to zeroing into a number in a scenario where he doesn't have to settle for eligible cash-out amount, but rather the full winning from the fulfilled all-winning combo.
So, again, the misinfirmation came from...? Which part?
Here's the difference between our conversations with books. Because you put out in the open that I communicated with XYes, I'll post this.
1. I ask XYes why they aren't paying.
2. They tell me the players bets are a certain percentage off the closing line.
3. I say that while they are +EV, they aren't bad lines. I say that all governing bodies are going to rule for the player. Then I say other books pay then limit.
4. XYes says they aren't paying.
5. I say I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.
6. XYes agrees and the conversation is ended.
7. I tell the player that XYes said they aren't paying and the only chance is forum pressure in ANN thread and scam accusations.
1. I ask XYes why they aren't paying.
2. They tell me the players bets are a certain percentage off the closing line.
3. I say that while they are +EV, they aren't bad lines. I say that all governing bodies are going to rule for the player. Then I say other books pay then limit.
4. XYes says they aren't paying.
5. I say I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.
6. XYes agrees and the conversation is ended.
7. I tell the player that XYes said they aren't paying and the only chance is forum pressure in ANN thread and scam accusations.
Xyes... I thought when you say "other things", we're focusing on this thread, but you dwell on this old case as you seemed to cling and think this is your ace card. So let's give you a slap of reality. But first, I'll put a disclaimer that we are moving out of topic here and I don't want to be asked by a prominent member to move our spat battle elsewhere, so this will be the only instance I brushed upon it, regardless of your answer, just to point out the hypocrisy and the irony. And oh, I "put out in the open that you communicated with XYes," is under your full permission. Is there any reason you worded it that way llike it's me violating sometihg? You want me to quote it? I'll just link it [ DO NOT POST SESC LINKS ]here[/url], as this will be the only instance I brush this topic on this thread.
Since you're talking about Xyes, wasn't ironically, this below, amongs others that I conveyed in your ever growing questionable trait that I listed and you refused to answer, is a very good example of misinformation?
What I think is happening is that Holy is getting bad information from reps because he’s misinterpreting a lot. The rules he posted yesterday weren’t from XYes, they were from another book and he added the CLV on his own. I’ve never seen CLV listed at any book.
Some of what he said in the huge post above can be done but it’s not applicable here. It’s as if they searched the whole house for evidence, couldn’t find anything and had to plant something.
It’s the stuff he makes up on his own is what bothers me.
Some of what he said in the huge post above can be done but it’s not applicable here. It’s as if they searched the whole house for evidence, couldn’t find anything and had to plant something.
It’s the stuff he makes up on his own is what bothers me.
Holy made up stuff? The rules holy posted was't from the casino, while I address this on my next reply, in full version with their logo on it, and my screenshot is word-for-word for that version. I have the archive if you want. And holy fabcirate ToS? Whose misinformation is this?
Your way and how I perceive it. Tell me if I'm wrong.
1. You contact XYes and tell us that it will take a few days to discuss this with XYes.
2. You get some information and tell the forum it's for your eyes only. The info is just a flag which means nothing. It's to profile.
3. It takes a few days and you say after looking at the for your eyes only information, that XYes is right in confiscating the money.
You do a lot of good for the forum and get posters paid. You should be praised for this. I just think you should take poster input, not mine, more seriously because of the mistakes. Books will give you bad information. They make you take your eye off the ball. Both your decisions with Betfury are way off and easy cases. Ahoy is right on the money.
1. You contact XYes and tell us that it will take a few days to discuss this with XYes.
2. You get some information and tell the forum it's for your eyes only. The info is just a flag which means nothing. It's to profile.
3. It takes a few days and you say after looking at the for your eyes only information, that XYes is right in confiscating the money.
You do a lot of good for the forum and get posters paid. You should be praised for this. I just think you should take poster input, not mine, more seriously because of the mistakes. Books will give you bad information. They make you take your eye off the ball. Both your decisions with Betfury are way off and easy cases. Ahoy is right on the money.
You're wrong.
Why? Because during those days, during the entire cases that you claimed it should only take minutes [I don't want to waste my brain capacity to remember the exact wording of the suppoaws timeline you rambled. I inquired both sides, as well as persuading the casino to budge. Hence, days, because they'll need to mull over my words.
And that, I believe, is what make us different. The level of someone that's been arbitrating cases for years longer than me versus me, a simple bridge: I pursue the bottom of case, either the truth of the truth or something that satisfy both sides. the years-long-arbitrator? Well, as you shown to us yourself took literally minutes [or was it seconds?] to talk with casino, and then decided to leave it out of your plate. You? A years-long standing arbitrator that's been doing much more than me? Or was that part a misinfirmation?
Of which... bring us back to this case, where upon my leave and you take the lead, you ended up suggesting the player to escalate elsewhere. An arbitrator?
For public information, this is what happened behind the screen, this is what "holy always sided with casinos" actually looks like, this is one of the reason why it took days instead of minutes. And this, amongst other factors, majorly OP's initial willingness to meet in the middle, lead to me doing my last effort to establish a discussion of settlement that ultimately tossed off the window and lead to me withdrawing to fulfill my words that I am dropping.
And for the context, the casino gave me [IIRC] three drafts of their final verdict, of which thwarted and revised upon my ask for reconsideration. ANd for a better context, following that words [actually, on each of their draft of final verdict] they explained why they can't budge as the player violated their ToS. Of which I argued at that time that the ToS doesn't cover the situation, but later upon diving deeper, there is indeed clause that cover it.
So again, which part of my post sending misinfirmation?