- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Because of the nature of this question I am moving this thread to the Private Industry area for discussion.
We checked with BetUS and things are proceeding as normal there. Gateway was only one of the many payment processors they work with.
While BetUS was named as one of the clients working with that processor they were NOT indicted. The charges are leveled at the payment processor not their clients or customers who used the service.
I personally would like to hear more from BetUs directly, as the press release from DoJ clearly states that BetUs is being indicted… Not to mention that it seems long time advertisers are steering away – for example, gambling911 stopped using your odds the same day in their articles.
This is a very dangerous situtaion as if all this is actually going on, and it’s not just DoJ blowing smoke, BetUs could trun into BetOnSports x 10.
And if the goverment want to recover the money, there is a chance that those customers would have to pay the banks back the money they have deposited at BetUs.
I understand that BetUs is sponsoring some CAP stuff, but, again, this is very serious situation and I am surprised that BetUS have not publicly and openly addressed the situation, either via a press release, or through a post on this and other forums.
If DoJ are actually after BetUs as they state, and BetUs turns into another BetOnSports – I think 80% of the USA betting market will be lost overnight.
Where have Gambling911 stopped using our odds? You can see our advertising all over their website.
As for the clear statement of indictment, it clearly states that
The 34-count indictment alleges BETUS used Hill Financial Services and Gateway Technologies…
It does not say we were indicted, there has not been a “true bill” returned on this.
Stupid:
http://www.gambling911.com/total-odds.html
They are still using BetUS odds at Gambling911. Who told you they removed them?
See todays odds on NBA via Gambling911 at the url above.
I am not all that interested in duscussing Gambling 911, and I think Carlos is not either.
What I am concerned about is, that the indictment states that BETUS has been charged, and yet, they do not seem to admit that, via:
While BetUS was named as one of the clients working with that processor they were NOT indicted. The charges are leveled at the payment processor not their clients or customers who used the service
The information you have Professor is false, and that’s more concerning…
GPWA has posted the actual indictment here: http://www.gpwa.net/news/US_v_Lombardo.pdf
Quote:I am not all that interested in duscussing Gambling 911Why did you state this then?
Quote:for example, gambling911 stopped using your odds the same day in their articles.If you are going to say Gambling911.com stopped using thier odds wouldnt it make sense to at least go over there and check before you make that statement?
Quote:The information you have Professor is false, and that’s more concerning…I relayed what I was told. Do you have a copy of the actual indictment so I can review it for accuracy? I have not seen the actual court doc. I understand that payment processors were charged in the indictment I didnt know they were filing formal charges against anyone who utilized their services.
I just saw the link to the indictment and I am heading over to read it. Up until now all I saw was a news report and I indicated what I was told.
I relayed what I was told.
And all I said was that you were told wrong.
Do you have a copy of the actual indictment so I can review it for accuracy? I have not seen the actual court doc.
Yes, the link is above.
If you are going to say Gambling911.com stopped using thier odds wouldnt it make sense to at least go over there and check before you make that statement?
http://www.gambling911.com/Blake-Lewis-American-Idol-051407.html
http://www.gambling911.com/Spider-Man-3-Box-Office-051307.htmlAnd there are a few others, not yet changed. Gambling911 can advertise Cpays for what I care, but when a long time advertiser starts changing their primary odds provider, is usually for a reason. I do have the Gambling911 original article about the indictment, which later own was replaced by one not mentioning BETUS at all. And that’s why I said what I said. There are a few other portals which wrote about the indictment, but conviniently omitted the BETUS from their articles. Unlike others, I do not speak using she-said-he-said information and I do check before I post, especially when millions of people’s money, including mine, are at stake.
Ok it does appear BetUS is listed in the actual indictment. No individuals, but the company name along with a number of other companies. I am going to read the entire doc and try to ascertain what this means.
Stupid wrote:And all I said was that you were told wrong.Yes, the link is above.
http://www.gambling911.com/Blake-Lewis-American-Idol-051407.html
http://www.gambling911.com/Spider-Man-3-Box-Office-051307.htmlAnd there are a few others, not yet changed. Gambling911 can advertise Cpays for what I care, but when a long time advertiser starts changing their primary odds provider, is usually for a reason. I do have the Gambling911 original article about the indictment, which later own was replaced by one not mentioning BETUS at all. And that’s why I said what I said. There are a few other portals which wrote about the indictment, but conviniently omitted the BETUS from their articles. Unlike others, I do not speak using she-said-he-said information and I do check before I post, especially when millions of people’s money, including mine, are at stake.
Guys, we don’t have odds on these events! That’s the reason why.
Forget about the odds, man. As I said, it struck me as odd, that’s it. Of course they will continue to run your ads, they have never hidden the fact that they are on advertising deals.
What you should be telling us is why you/your company has told the Professor that you are not indicted…
Stupid wrote:What you should be telling us is why you/your company has told the Professor that you are not indicted…I’m sorry, at what point did we inform Prof that we weren’t indicted? all I can see is this:
Professor wrote:We checked with BetUS and things are proceeding as normal there. Gateway was only one of the many payment processors they work with.As far as I can see, Professor was most likely told that it was business as usual – as it is. I hope that clears that up, you seem to be making assumptions that we have incorrectly informed Prof and CAP.
is this strictly sports betting related? I saw mention of odds which made me think of sports.
