Regardless of anything else, if Bob was actually placing bets through Dwan while employed by the mavs he’s an absolute piece of **** who should never have a job in the nba again

Welching on personal debts is literally the one thing that will almost certainly ruin your reputation in the gambling world

I'm not saying Bob's behavior wasn't at all shady wrt to the sports books, but Tom's clearly is as well. That's my whole point. To think that he has no place whatsoever to make public mention of Tom's debt to him is absurd

But I guess I can't expect someone like you to understand that if you'd have such a bad take in the first place lol

With regard to Bob having to place bets through a runner, it should be noted that the books practice of banning winners is not okay at all. It is blatant admission that their only purpose is to take money from the general public. This refusal to lose should render the whole industry (meaning the companies operating in it) a pariah to anyone with a brain. Wagering on the NBA when you work in the NBA is likely a disaster waiting to happen, but Bob being banned as an adept gambler is just absurd.

Viffer was on a Twitter Spaces like a year ago arguing about a debt with Jungle.
He apparently cross booked, betting on Dwan, and hadn’t paid Jungle because the Durr Challenge “never completed”.

But it was argued that it was, Tom has been paying and paying penalties etc, saying it’s essentially over.
Yet Viffer wouldn’t accept that, and pay Jungle. I believe like 100% of the people “arbitrating” it told Viffer he owed.

Viffer was like “Meh, I’m probably not gonna pay”

I absolutely agree with this, but if Bob is betting directly or indirectly on the nba while an employee of the mavs, **** him, whatever fallout from that as it relates to his prospective nba career he did to himself

I don't understand this logic. How is it any different than declining to invite someone to a home game because they are a top NL player, but instead inviting a bad player, knowing that you're more likely to win their money? To me it seems completely reasonable in both scenarios. And the book doesn't necessarily know he's merely an "adept gambler" as opposed to someone cheating with insider info, so I don't see why they should be obligated to take that risk. You're acting like everyone is entitled to place bets wherever they want, as though that's a human right or something.

It's fine to ban a player from a home game, because you're not a business. The books/casinos are. It is already set up to be wildly predatory and the math/logistics involved makes 99% of players net losers. It's not okay for them to offer this service, and then refuse to incur any risk whatsoever. Banning winners from sportsbooks should be wholly illegal. They're offering a service but not offering the service. It's a "you can only lose" destination, which is a net loss for society.

The entire industry has no oversight and steals from the general public. The books reserve the right in their terms to not do business with people, and that's legal, but morally and logically it is not acceptable. You cannot run a business that offers gambling and refuses to lose. This is similar to casinos banning winning blackjack players. They're openly stating what their sole intent is, and that is to remove your money from your pocket. It is wild that you would be on their side.

Damn just heard the news

No, you are messing up the timeline. Bob started to work with mavericks like 6-7 years after his betting with Dwan.

That is just begging the question, you didn't explain why it would matter that one is a business. Also it's not clear if that would apply to pro players who are game selecting.

You can easily figure out the games are -EV with simple math, but people choose to play anyway. It's not a nanny state, so you are allowed to ignore math and make stupid decisions if you want to.

The casino runs the risk of going bankrupt just like many casinos have gone bankrupt.

Of course they are openly stating that. The casino is not a charity, it's well understood that they offer games specifically designed to be -EV for the player. The fact that you can abuse a design flaw by counting cards is irrelevant because it's prohibited in the rules. So counting cards is no different than sneaking in invisible ink and marking the cards. In both cases it's against the rules and you'll therefore be banned if you do it. If you don't want to be banned, then follow the rules.

There is nothing wild about it. You are essentially making the argument that the casino is somehow obligated to engage in -EV gambling against certain players. That is quite silly as nobody is forcing the players to be playing -EV games in the first place, they are choosing to pay the stupid tax, thus the casino reserves the right just like anyone else to decide not to pay the stupid tax.

In most US states and a lot of countries sports betting is illegal, to protect the general public from themselves, but let's assume that it's legal and ignore ethics.

If I'm a professional poker player, I am not going to play Phil Ivey heads up on the internet. I have the right not to play him.

Now if Phil Ivey plays on another account pretending to be somebody else he scammed me. This is what Voulgaris did. He pretended to be Dwan, who the sports books regard as a recreational fish, when it comes to sports betting.

Dan Cates also played on another account against Bill Perkins, to hide his identity, so again Dan Cates acting like Dwan is a scammer and he is a saint is laughable.

To be fair, everybody in pro sports betting does bet on behalf of other persons account. Sportsbooks are shady AF as they ban winning players and only accept degens bets. There's zero moral wrong doing to avoid bet limits.

Are you seriously thinking that misleading ordinary person is the same as misleading casino that only predators losing players? Weird ethics, i hope you were just virtue signaling.

New 45 minute interview...



Again, how is this any different than a poker pro bumhunter? They avoid good players and play bad players in order to maximize profits. You guys are asserting it's only okay to try to win money off degen gamblers in some circumstances but not others, with no explanation as to why. "because it's a business" isn't an argument in and of itself.

https://twitter.com/NickVertucciNV/s...78117754233275

Interview coming up on vertucci podcast.

Well, unless this is photoshop, at least Tom is working real hard to make some money and pay the debts off. Good for him.

Haralabob explicitly said Dwan was betting with an “outlaw book” aka some drug dealer that took a lot of action and had a lot of gamble, who then got cleaned out by another one of Haralabob’s beards.

People (including Mason) where speculating on who he could be. But how could anyone possibly know who he actually was without him telling? (Wich he didn't do)

Privateworld was Abe Mosseri's wife, can't be bothered to check if the discussion about this is still available on here, but it was 100% confirmed, came out at the time of Elezra's book iirc

Every winning sports bettor uses runners to place bets. Books limit anyone with a brain. If you look at spankys Twitter and see “partnerships” advertised with Chinese Mike, that’s what those partnerships are. The idea that it’s scummy to place bets through a beard is absurd and just shows you know nothing about sports betting

timestamp 2:05

Interviewer: Tom im gonna ask you a hardball question, do you owe Peter Jetten 225k?
Tom: rambles for 10 minutes about how he backed Jetten in high rollers and how Jetten is 1.6M in makeup and never even comes close to answering the question
Interviewer: Great answer Tom!

This couldn't be more wrong. Card counting is frowned upon by casinos but it's not cheating or against the rules. If you're caught marking cards you're going to jail.

I get that they're a business and don't want customers that will win money from them long term. The ironic thing is most people who work in casino management are only slightly more intelligent than the chairs they sit in. They kick out tons of people for card counting who can't win long term for every one who can. They do stupid **** like giving bad penetration or half shoeing counters in states like NJ where they can't kick you out costing themselves more money from other customers than they save from the counter.

Even these sportsbooks -most limit people way too early. Instead of using the info from actual known winners they limit or ban them. Those same people still get their bets in using beards. The casinos get no info from these beards and in the case of the legal sites often give the beards sign up bonuses on top of it. It's pretty comical actually.

38 states now have legal sports betting.

In the context of whether someone is banned or not banned, its the same in that it gets you banned. You cannot complain about being banned in either scenario, that's what I was saying. Whether or not you go to jail is beyond the scope of what I was saying.

By rules I also mean casino policy. There's no material difference between the two in the context of whether you are allowed to play or not.

Just discovered this scamming tool who paints his head blocked me

Sure there is. One is literally cheating and illegal and you can go to jail. The other is frowned upon.

Also generally speaking you won't be banned from the casino for card counting especially solo counting. You'll be told not to play bj anymore.

If I walk up and sucker punch someone in the back of the head I'll also be banned from the casino. It's hardly analogous to winning at sports betting or blackjack.

I actually agree with you casinos should have the right to not take your business. But they're often so unethical about it including violating gaming laws trying to weasel out of paying people on winning sports bets,refusing to cash out chips,lying to try and get people to to show them ID to database them etc.