WagerWeb Considers Beating Them Theft – SBR Assists in their Scam

Posted by admin on 18 January 2013 in Betting Sites News

WagerWeb has long been rated D- at Sports Betting Sites for good reason. This company has a history of voiding winning bets, confiscating bonuses and sometimes coercing winners to accept less than full payment. This is all well documented in our WagerWeb review. Of the many complaints addressed in that article, one involves a player known as TrixTrix. In this report I discuss his dispute in great detail from its beginning 3.5 years ago to happenings as recent as today. I also discuss their unearned upgrades at SportsBookReview (SBR). This entire article should provide additional reason to avoid depositing money with this site, they are not a company that easily pays net winners.

WagerWeb vs. TrixTrix History

In August 2009 a player known on multiple betting forums by the user name TrixTrix began betting correlated parlays at WagerWeb. It is important to note that in many cases the software blocked parlays he attempted to place, leading him to believe the ones accepted were ones they were willing to book. Despite having an edge, this is still gambling, and his parlays were not guaranteed to win. His account history properly reflects this as by October 17, 2009 he was down $11,000 from betting these. After many reload deposits he did rebound. His lucky break came October 24, 2009 when his balance grew to net $3752 positive. It was not until this point he was ahead from betting correlated parlays and his total winnings from this form of wagering were net $4300.

If you read our WagerWeb review you might notice a common trend in their past disputes. It appears it is only when large balances are accumulated that WagerWeb looks for a reason to void the action. This company had no problem with Trix’s wagers while he was losing and down $11,000. In fact, they continued to solicit reload deposits wanting more.

Details of the Theft

After TrixTrix was ahead $4300 from correlated parlay bets, WagerWeb lowered his betting limits to the point he had no interest in continuing to bet. 2 months later, while still working on cashing out, his balance sat at $11,278. This is when in December 2009 they removed $9K+ from his account claiming they were taking back his winnings from parlay wagers won months earlier. This retro regrading in and of itself is/was theft. However later auditing of his account showed his actual winning from correlated parlays were only $4300 so they stole well over the amount won from this form of wagering (but, again – the entire confiscation is in SBS strong opinion theft).

What happened from here is WagerWeb refused to deal with SBR who TrixTrix had taken the complaint to. SBR did however investigate and rule that WagerWeb owed the full balance. As the story told by SBR is now changing (and I’ll discuss this later in this article) it is important to note SBR did multiple times refer to this as theft. Here are screen shots from their WagerWeb news wire.

WagerWeb NewsWire on SBR


Perhaps as punishment for bringing WagerWeb bad press, TrixTrix’s account was then locked and the remaining balance of around $2,000 was confiscated. A reason why was never given. This brings the total amount they stole to $11,278. This was over 3-years ago and it is SBS strong opinion that they still owe this amount in full.

WagerWeb did however provide the player one potential option for recourse. They claimed they were only interested in dealing with OSGA. This is an affiliate website that heavily promotes WagerWeb. While OSGA claims to be a watchdog SBR and other similar sites of that era were long critical of them. Much of the industry believes OSGA is a scam or at the very least has a heavy bias towards sponsors. Still, with no other option TrixTrix agreed to let OSGA provide a recommendation when then SBR moderator Justin7 gave the following advice:

I have no idea how best to use OSGA. You’ve been screwed though, and I would do anything you can to recover whatever you can. If you have to sign something saying “this resolves all claims”, do it and get your money. It won’t close the SBR claim if you signed under duress.


Well OSGA who marketed WagerWeb (perhaps based on WagerWeb’s wishes) did rule partially for TrixTrix. They ruled a partial payment was owed based on their calculations of financial gain obtained from the parlays. Well due perhaps to TrixTrix continuing to talk about WagerWeb robbing him, they reneged on their commitment to follow OSGA’s recommendation. Initially, TrixTrix claims in June 2010 WagerWeb manager Dan Richards acknowledge the slow pay was intentional and they would now follow the OSGA ruling. He was asked to send his ID and banking info which he did straight away. Despite this, now over 2.5 years later they still have not paid.

Sportsbook Review Upgrades WagerWeb to D+

As the result of stiffing several players and a long history of confiscating balances WagerWeb spent years rated D- by the once and then respected watchdog site SportsBookReview (SBR) who also had them blacklisted. Then out of the blue, at the start of the 2012-2013 football season, SBR upgraded WagerWeb on their sportsbook ratings guide from D- to D+. To explain the reason why they published this odd report.

WagerWeb Rating

There are two things immediately alarming about this report. The most obvious is SBR upgrading a known scam site they had blacklisted simply on their word they are going to revisit old complaints. The second is the claim of new owner Dan. They are referencing Dan Richards who was the head of marketing in 1990’s and has been one of the main guys behind WagerWeb since way back when they were known as Casablanca and used the BetCBS.com domain. SBR dealt with him in 2002 over the Sports Betting Arena (BetSBA) stiff job. They dealt with them in 2003 over retrograding bets and on many other occasions over the years. New management and new owner sells are a common tactic scam sportsbooks use when attempting to cleanup their image. Seeing SBR take the word of a known scam site and then help them sell the new ownership line was shocking.

It later became apparent the SBR report included other fabrications. There were no recent attempts to resolve these disputes. TrixTrix was quick to forums to report this. Also notice in the other dispute WagerWeb now decided the player was a beard. If you search forums for WagerWeb complaints, you might notice a trend. When all else fails in justifying a theft, it seems their standard M.O. is to claim beard. But even more disturbing is this report says: “SBR has attempted to connect the player with WagerWeb to resolve the situation through his bank; the player has been uncooperative.” This led the player to hit forums and make the following post:

Smoke_O SBR WagerWeb Dispute

The rest of this thread turned so odd you have to read for yourself to believe it. You can read the live thread here, or in case it is edited in the future SBS has archived screen shot of it (read: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3). After odd claims that someone else was pretending to be the player, attempts to insinuate the player was already paid, and constant reminders – 2-months after the ratings upgrade Smoke_O asked for an update. Justin7 replied “This issue is still open. It’s bullshit that you haven’t been paid yet.” Another month later and not without a ton of bad press and constant reminders the player was finally paid. This was more than 17 months after he first complained to forums that the payout was not received.

WagerWeb and SBR in Cahoots?

In the thread I just linked, post #36 is important. A WagerWeb affiliate manager in an attempt to recruit large affiliates began pointing to the upgrade to D+ on SBR. They claimed they would be paying TrixTrix soon and that another SBR upgrade is also coming soon. Was this a lie? I brought this news to SBR and offered to provide proof if they would like to see it. How is it a WagerWeb affiliate manager knew they would be upgraded again soon?

Well from here the thread gets odd for yet another reason. The founder of SBR John Walker begins to post in a much different tone than he had in the past regarding what SBR for years stated was a theft. He even referenced OSGA as if they were reputable after for years alleging they were not. Also, back when Sportsbook.com correlated parlay thefts occurred in 2007, over three early posts in the SBR thread on the topic John asked how anyone could possibly side with the book, called it a dark day in the industry, and said Google needs to be made aware Sportsbook has turned scam. In his 2012 posts he muddies the waters regarding it a lot and his CEO Bill Dozer takes a similar line and is still taking that line in January 2013 posts.

Well…WagerWeb did get that second upgrade they referred to. SBR sneaked it in on December 18, 2012 which is the same date that BetIslands failed. This is a was a book that over 80% of active accounts were SBR referred. It was heavily touted on their forum and remained B rated right until failing while owing 458 SBR referred players $1,539,391 in what was the largest forum assisted stiff job in the history of online betting. Of course everyone was distracted at this time, SBR’s credibility was at an all time low and the fact they upgraded WagerWeb to C- on the same day was barely noticed.

What Did WagerWeb Do to Deserve Upgrade to C-?

They paid one player over 17-months late after making seemingly every attempt not to! That is all! This was only after much bad press and was 3 months after making the claim they would pay it. WagerWeb didn’t pay TrixTrix. In fact, days after the upgrade to C- SBR simply banned TrixTrix permanently from ever posting on their forum again. There’s more to this story too. This is a post from now former SBR moderator Justin7 made regarding their original upgrade to D+.

Justin7 TrixTrix

Remember as I said earlier the standard WagerWeb M.O. appears to be when all else fails in justifying a theft claim the player is a beard. They did that with Smoke_O and have done so in complaints dating back to 2002. In fact, I can’t think of anytime they were failing to gain public support and had ran out of justification attempts that they didn’t default to the beard claim.

But is there any possibility TrixTrix was in fact Justin7’s beard? Sure by some remote chance this might be possible. However, Sports Betting Sites has reviewed the bulk of the email logs involving this dispute’s discussion. There are many between TrixTrix and Justin including personal advise that are not written at all as if they are highly familiar with each other. These came out months and years after the fact. The chance this is true is extremely remote, and this is far more likely WagerWeb defaulting to their standard “they are a beard” claim.

So is it coincidence WagerWeb was bragging that an additional SBR upgrade was coming soon and got one? If WagerWeb was making this up why did SBR have no interest in seeing the proof that WagerWeb is making this claim? Why would they later upgrade a book who was falsely telling others in days following their first upgrade that another was coming soon. Does this make anyone else question how SBR ratings actually work? Are these just sold, or do they tell how safe a sportbook is?

Furthermore: how is it that they were upgraded twice without paying back what SBR themselves clearly referred to multiple times as theft? How does SBR upgrade this book after they made claims TrixTrix was a beard for their most respected moderator? Does any of this story really add up?

Finally, understand SBR was in such a position that they could have continued to put pressure on WagerWeb to pay in full. Perhaps that would take $11,278 out of WagerWeb’s marketing budget leaving less for SBR affiliate payments? Who knows if this is why they gave a pass and now defend WagerWeb or not, but rather than forcing the book to pay they changed the story, banned trixtrix, tossed their most respected moderator under the bus and upgraded WagerWeb twice. Talk about things make you go hmmm…

Lattest Developments

SBR CEO Bill Dozer is now pushing the sell that TrixTrix exploited a glitch in WagerWeb’s software. Justin7 addressed this again only months ago when still working for SBR.

WagerWeb Glitch

SBR staff is also now claiming WagerWeb warned TrixTrix. This was addressed 3 years ago in the original SBR news wires (scroll up to earlier in this post). Also, it was also addressed again by Justin7 months ago:

WagerWeb Warning

It is SBS opinion nothing has changed here. The same company that has a long history of voiding winning bets, confiscating bonuses and sometimes coercing winners to accept less than full payment is up to their old tricks. They have been dishonest countless times in the past and now they have SBR helping muddy the waters and opening a new generation of posters to the idea maybe it was the player that is to blame.

The most recent development is of course WagerWeb is now trying to spin the story and get the player to accept less than full payment. Their manager Marty Davis has more or less called him a crook in email and blew up that TrixTrix would not settle for anything less than full payment inferring it was unfair and (LOL) an extortion attempt. Justin7, while no longer working in the industry, did add a response to the email discussion:

Justin7 Email Regarding WagerWeb

WagerWeb owes TrixTrix $11,278. Justin7 that has handled more sportsbook complaints than anyone in the industry agrees. SportsBettingSites.org agrees. Most every long term forum poster agrees. The forums and watchdogs of that era agree. They are rated D- here at SBS and they are a member of the BookmakersReview.com warning (orange) list. WagerWeb disagrees, and their new partners in crime SportsBookReview / SBRForum (SBR) appears they couldn’t possibly care less either way. So ask yourself, how many others are there in this spot that under duress accepted less than full payment from WagerWeb? Do you honestly believe this is the first time? Everyone rules against them, even their own sponsored site partially so, and over 3-years later they still haven’t paid? It is best to consider this before considering WagerWeb who remains SBS Rated D-.