Response to J.R. Miller

[WWTS Marketing]

I don’t know you and I’m not familiar with your publication, but before you start not recommending, I suggest you do your homework. Tell me what you can “get down” for at one of your English or Australian “big books” without getting the dreaded stall, phantom line change or approval by management routine. Last year when the pokers had a hot hand, didn’t the Australian outfit get handed their lunch booking baseball? Hell, they never kicked anyone out; they just decided to upgrade their site for the remainder of the season.

It doesn’t take balls to book a rich sheik for large amounts when they cut him up fifteen ways, but will they book the Asians for fifty large on a side, move it a nickel and let them hit it again?

All of the above is done on the net because no one can understand them. In short, when it comes to American sports I don’t think your recommended books could move the line if they were standing in it, just as I couldn’t by booking darts, snooker, cricket or all the other exciting English events. So you see, it’s not about government control but about companies comprised of honesty, integrity and balls – so recommend this!

No I’m not the head of public relations here at WWTS.

Roger

[J. R. Miller]

"Roger" is evidently upset by our posting concerning our exchange with Terry at Sportsbetting.com. Here is that exchange in its entirety, complete with our editorial which first sparked the controversy....

In response to our article at http://www.ProfessionalGambler.com/sportsbetting.html , Terry at Sportsbetting.com has rewritten the offending rule being discussed on this forum.
Here is the text of our article, along with the exchange between Terry and I:

It was brought to our attention on September 9th, 2000, that Sportsbetting.com (a sportbook licensed in Antigua) had a very interesting rule buried in their "terms of service" at http://www.sportsbetting.com/terms.html. Get a load of this:

"Professional sports gamblers (Wise Guys) are not allowed membership at SPORTSBETTING.COM. If a suspected professional sports gambler does open an account at SPORTSBETTING.COM, SPORTSBETTING.COM reserves the right to 1) cancel this account at any time without notice, and 2) refund any initial deposits made by the professional sports gambler into the SPORTSBETTING.COM account as SPORTSBETTING.COM's only liability towards any and all winnings the professional sports gambler may have achieved."

...A "suspected" professional? A "suspected" Wise Guy? This stipulation means, of course, that Sportsbetting.com does not have to pay anyone any winnings at all. It doesn't really matter whether or not you are a professional gambler. All they have to do is declare they "suspect" you are a professional gambler. Then they can keep whatever you won.

This kind of outrageous crap is one of the reasons we recommend you stay away from sportbooks in tiny Carribean countries. We recommend only sportbooks overseen by England or Australia or other established and stable governments.

If you were a crook who wanted to make a fast fortune and retire, how about opening a sportbook that's not well regulated by the local government, sneaking the above paragraph into your "terms and conditions" and then refusing to pay any winners at all...because you "suspect" anybody that wins is a professional gambler?

In a nutshell, do NOT open an account at Sportsbetting.com if you expect to win anything. - J. R. Miller

^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^vv^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

NOTE: We received this response two days later from "Terry" at Sportsbetting.com....

09/11/00: Someone recently told me about your editorial about our site. After reading your site he asked why he should open an account with us. Here is what I told him,
"First -- we have NEVER declined to pay 100% of players winnings.
Why you ask do we have this rule? Just as a NYSE listed casino companies ban players for different reasons, we reserve this right against professionals since our line is not made to weigh up against this type of person. We can't afford and don't want their action.
A "wise guy" or professional sports gambler is in no way to be confused with a winner or even a big winner. These two players are in no way related.
"Dodgy" is not a word which has any relevance to our rule.
Why should you join our sport book? Well you seem to be intelligent and well informed. We can offer you a great site, great promotions and great customer service. We'll pay you every time and do our best to make you happy.
Please let us know if we can help further."
I think your recommendations should be more thoroughly researched before you make blanket recommendations which are not based on fact. - Terry

Our Response (via email): We will post your letter on our "Letters" page and also at the bottom of the article.
I'm not here to make enemies of you or anyone else, and we want to be fair. Any response you have will be prominently displayed at our website. If your rule says something you did not intend, perhaps you should re-write it or edit it, to make it more clear. As your rule stands, I am sorry, but we feel it is in our subscribers' best interest to take their business elsewhere.
Have you considered betting limits to protect yourself from "chronic winners"? - J. R. Miller

v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

NOTE: We received this response from Terry at Sportsbetting.com the next morning...
09/12/00: JR: In response to your concerns I am sending the following. Please post the entire message on your site. - Terry

1) We have modified the rules so that there is no future misunderstanding as to the intentions of our restrictions. The new rule reads,
"Professional sports gamblers (Wise Guys) are not allowed access to the services provided by SPORTSBETTING.COM. If a suspected professional sports gambler does open an account at SPORTSBETTING.COM, SPORTSBETTING.COM reserves the right to cancel this account at any time without notice."
2) I would like to make everyone aware that we have NEVER refused (for any reason) to pay 100% of a player's winnings.
Just as all NYSE listed casino companies ban certain players for certain reasons, we reserve the right to restrict "professionals" from accessing our services. Our lines are not made to weigh up against "professionals" and we cannot afford their action.
We do not define a "professional" as a winner or even big winner, but rather as one of the VERY FEW people who have made true careers out of sports gambling."
Implying that we would use this clause to get out of paying our winners is unfair and baseless.
Our intentions from the beginning have been to provide you with great lines, great service and assurance that you will be paid.
If anyone would like to discuss this in more detail directly with us please send an email to: comments@sportsbetting.com
3) To answer your question about betting limits. Our betting maximim on a straight wager since the day we opened is a relatively low US $1,100.
We reiterate that we never intended to cancel an account simply because the player 'wins too much'. This rule is written in conjunction with our policy on betting limits to discourage professional gamblers from accessing the services of our site.
We hope this helps clear the air and remove anyone's doubts.

Our Response (via email): Terry: We have posted your message on our "Letters" page and added it to our article. Thank you for your quick response, which is in everyone's best interest. It is reassuring to see you have re-written the rule, although we are still bothered by what might be your terms of cancellation. We are assuming the best - which, in many cases can be a naive thing to do - by assuming you mean the "cancelled" bettor receives all the monies due him to date. If you could clear up that one point in the phraseology of your rule, we would be a whole lot more comfortable recommending your sportbook. - J. R. Miller

[WWTS Marketing]

If you’re going to quote in entirety then do so: Quote: - “ This kind of outrageous crap is one of the reasons we cannot recommend any Sportsbook licensed by the Antiguan Government. Check Sportsbetting.com, a built in excuse not to pay.” These are your words from that thread and not what you posted in this thread ! My question is how you cannot recommend Sportsbooks that are established and known for taking a hit and paying when they lose ? I guess WWTS, who by the way, does not run wise guys along with the other fine books on the Island will just have to grope our way through until you see fit to put us on your esteemed Recommended List.

I remain your most ardent fan and, as always, stand in awe of your vast knowledge of this maze we call off shore wagering.

Roger


[This message has been edited by WWTS Marketing (edited 09-12-2000).]

[intheknow]

Roger,

WWTS doesn't have to explain itself to anyone! I've been a fan of your operation for years.
THE PLACE WHERE YOU DO BUSINESS HAS NO BEARING ON HOW SOLID YOU ARE. AS WELL AS, NO LICENSE CAN INSURE YOU THAT A BOOK IS WELL RUN. I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF CRIS MOVED TO COLOMBIA, HIS PLAYERS WOULD STILL PLAY THERE. THIS BUSINESS IS BUILT ON TRUST AND HONESTY, AND WWTS AND BILLY SCOTT DESERVE AS MUCH RESPECT AS ANYONE IN THE BUSINESS!!!

[sportshobby]

LMAO, Roger is right on this one. I don't know of a single British or Australian sportsbook where I can bet even one single dime on a baseball game, for example; except possibly VC, which is setting up an office in Antigua.


[This message has been edited by sportshobby (edited 09-12-2000).]

[Fred]

sportshobby

Canbet and Darwin are Australian books who take wagers on US sports. They're solid (advertise here). Normal size limits i think. I'd be surprised if you couldn't bet several dimes MLB at either.

Cheers

[sportshobby]

Ooops, I forgot Canbet, who takes a 5 dime pop online. Sorry about that.

But I tried as late as today to bet a dime on a game at Darwin, but could only get a nickel down.

[AussieVamp2]

What is Megasports baseball limit, anyone know?

All the others have no real interest in Americans, at least not NA only sports like baseball.

[Fred]

AV2

Sides $2000
Totals $500

overnites less of course but not sure exactly what

[Sonny Palermo]

I thought my vermin and pest removal service got rid of this rat.
jr miller, liar, charlatan - you claimed in your post here that you did not give picks in the paper last year, ( where I was 36-18, 67%) want to tell the truth now and confess to folks here what your record was there mediocre-boy?
you ducked out without answering last time;
every time you stick your head in here looking to sell these people on your "professional" service I will be right here to expose your arrogant, pompous, self-righteous ass. And then some......

[This message has been edited by Sonny Palermo (edited 09-13-2000).]

[J. R. Miller]

In case anyone cares, I wrote the weekly "Feature Article" last year for Winner's Edge newspaper. My articles were "how-to" articles concerning sports betting, money management, etc. I do not remember giving any picks. Picks were given by the half-dozen or so other writers, such as Mr. Palermo.

I had never heard of Mr. Palermo until I saw his articles in Winner's Edge. I have never met the gentleman and no one I know has ever met him or heard of him, either, so far as I know.

I do not usually respond to such hysterical and strident attacks, but I thought onlookers might expect a response. I have no clue why this man hates me. Who I "am" and what I "do" is plainly displayed at our website, ProfessionalGambler.com. My credentials and references (from the finest people in the business) are listed for all to see at the page "Who The Hell Is J. R. Miller." All our picks are listed at our "Track Us Here" page as games begin, where anyone at all can monitor us.

[Sonny Palermo]

wow, that's a new one.
I've never seen a snake move backwards before.
Twice jr has stated here at BW he did NOT give picks there, twice I've called BS on him, now he's backpeddling with "I don't remember giving picks". Can you guys see where he's slithering with this?
Quit while you're behind mediocre-boy.
And stop with the "I was the featured article guy there" crap, you were nothing of the kind and people here who read it know that. Your contribution was so invaluable, I guess that's why you were canned, eh?
Hate you? You are barely worthy of my contempt, certainly not worth the time or waste of energy to be hated. I just despise phonies and liars and in an industry full of them you rank as one of the lowest.
As for who you are - they need not look to your site or references from your cronies. I will post once more here on this 'subject' and let YOU tell people in your own words just who you really are. Then they can decide, and be done with you.....

[sportshobby]

OK, as a general group, who loves their peers more - touts or bookmakers?

[J. R. Miller]

Sportshobby: LOLOL!...Ain't it the truth?! Whew! This guy has decided I am the anti-Christ.

Mr. Palermo: Just look above ANY of my articles in Winner's Edge last year. There is a big headline over each of them that says: "FEATURE ARTICLE by J. R. MILLER"

I notice Mr. Palermo chose not to enter the Ultimate Handicapper's Challenge. We entered. We're currently ranked 8th in "units won" against 81 of the best handicappers in the world. I presume, according to Mr. Palermo, we'd be ranked 9th if he had entered.

[SAMMY3]

j.r. miller... although i don't agree with this policy they have written in, at least it's there in black and white. how this should affect my decision to play at any of the TREMENDOUS island and costa rican outs is incomprehensible to me.
cheeers mate

p.s. give em hell roger!!