LegalBook / Five Card Charlie / Fair Deal answers ROO....

[stardust]

Chasing sharps is the books call, not paying them is a disgrace.

Telling me that winner = sharps is total nonsense. Right you are then - play here as long as you like - as long as you don't win.

I think all of this will hurt offshore business. I have a lot more respect for books who take sharps action, then move the line before they take another wager. Royal, among a few others, is a good example.

I'll wait to hear the answer to my question before I comment on this specific example of a player losing out.

As always - Good Luck,

Sonny

[sportshobby]

I've really been soul-searching on this one for a day or so, trying not to spill out my first reaction. But nothing has changed.

In my humble opinion, LegalBook a.k.a Five Card Charlie AND Fair Deal Sports have done the dishonorable thing. I don't see the "white knight", I see only the self-serving business decision. I see a really troublesome mentality that it is OK to stiff some players, because of their MO.

I find it troublesome that FiveCardCharlie doesn't even think that Roo was stiffed.

[egg nog]

i love the way legal book blames roo for winning. "your reckless loan". roo is the bad guy. if roo got paid, all the other guys would suffer.

i also love the way legal book says "you only bet when you have a big advantage". give me a friggin break! doesn't legal book only take bets when THEY have they advantage 99% of the time? don't they charge the player 11 dollars to win 10? aren't you getting the best of it day in and day out? then you cry like a baby when someone like roo as the brains to get the best of the book!

[chestrockwells]

Lost in all of this seems to be that Fairdeal owed ROO the money........not Legalbook.

Ronbets, your comment about Nevada and Federal bankruptcy laws would be very interesting if any of this actually occurred in the US. Despite what some Americans believe or perhaps want to believe due to a combination of ignorance, bravado and moral superiority........US laws do not apply globally, nor are they necessarily superior.
So if everyone wants to argue the moral or the "right" thing to do, that's perfectly fine. But I think that to apply US laws to this is pretty outrageous....... when we know that neither Legalbook nor Fairdeal were US companies, that none of this occurred in the US and that ROO doesn't live in the US!
I would presume and assume that Legalbooks' actions in this matter apparently did not break Dutch law, or Dutch derived law........which is the only law that matters in this case.

[sportshobby]

This is certainly not about the law. It is about fairness and integrity in bookmaking. Let me use an exaggerated example to make my point. Suppose that LegalBook decided to honor all except the top 10 players - would that be fair? Supppose they offered to pay all except the top 100 that were owed? Suppose they only offered to honor deposits of accounts that were net losers over the life of their accounts. Would that be right?

These guys came in, plain and simple, and picked off a level that would be in THEIR benefit to pay. To come here and pitch themselves as heroes is really pathetic.

[sportshobby]

I'd like to hear from Reno, who at one point pitched these guys to be really stand-up.

[natty]

My Vote is THIEF.
Who would want to put $$ in your book knowing that you don't wanna pay winners!?
If you were smart, you would of paid the man. In this business, reputation is EVERYTHING!

[chestrockwells]

Sportshobby, you essentially echoed the post that I made yesterday regarding this. I think it does in fact open precedents for non-payment. From a purely business standpoint though, it's extremely difficult to justify paying out an amount of that size to one individual who you don't intend to retain as a customer when you don't LEGALLY have to. How many people can truthfully say that they don't use the law to their advantage. As a basic example, how many millions declared bankruptcy in the US last year? Why does one declare bankruptcy anyway? Because you don't have the money to pay your creditors? Certainly that's not even half the answer.
I'm sorry but I think a lot of the critics here are looking at this purely academically and saying "well he got screwed, pay him!" Well, maybe if the critics personally had to make a decision of this sort......with THEIR own money, maybe it wouldn't be that clear cut. Maybe they would be pouring through law books themselves and/or consulting lawyers to see if they are justified in taking an alternate position. The one big tactical mistake Legalbook made, in my opinion, is to post here and at the other forums. If it was my call, from a business standpoint, I would have remained silent. There was nothing to be gained from this exposure, especially since they had an unblemished reputation, that apparently was well deserved.

[Roo]

First I would like to thank Mike Fine for finally responding. In addition I would like to thank all other posters that have expressed an opinion on this situation.

I understand the difficulty in drawing proper conclusions from limited data so I am happy to answer any questions readers feel may enable them to understand the situation more clearly.

I will leave the issue of a reply to Mike’s post until after this process.

[Ronbets]

chestrockwells,

Are you a natural contrarian? Are you playing the advocate here for some perverse reason? Did you defend McVeigh in Ok City?, a don't player on the crap table? Stop the short selling and look at the facts. Morally, ethically, and according to Dutch Law, Roo wins here.

[chestrockwells]

Ronbets,
I apologize for not realizing that you're one of those people that has his head stuck up his as*. If you believe that Legalbook has broken the law in Curacao, then make a recommendation that ROO take them to court. In fact if that's the case, then let's not waste any more time here. It's hardly necessary to argue morals etc. when it's such a open and shut legal case. I'm done with this silliness and certainly with you.

[Ronbets]

chestrockwells,

I address your questions, how about mine?? My recommendations haven't been put forth yet!! My personal recourse would be none of the above mentioned. The more points I make the stickman keeps yelling "down behind". You better get off the game.

[egg nog]

sportshobby. my educated guess says you'll likely not here from reno on this matter. at least not until he gets his money out.

[sportshobby]

Chestrockwells, this is not about the law, for there is unfortunately no law that governs this situation. It is about business ethics and doing the right thing.

Here's another reason that this "partial buyout" is a really bad idea for the players: We really don't know who are the owners of these offshore sportsbooks, for they hide their identity in order to protect themselves from prosecution (if they are American). Let's suppose one owner opens up two sportsbooks, then one goes bad. He rides in on his white horse with the other sportsbook and buys out the insolvent one, choosing not to honor funds posted up by the 10 biggest account holders. It could happen.

[Truth]

Bettorsworld. Why are they still on the list?