Credit Wagering Sportsbook Scam
Credit Wagering shut their doors several years ago, but the story of the sportsbook is one that bettors should take note of, especially for US markets. The online bookmaker, who opened their doors in 2008, marketed themselves as credit shop rather than a post-up sportsbook. The vast majority of sites we go over at SBS are post-up sportsbooks, meaning that players will have to deposit funds before they can wager.
May 2019 Safest Betting Sites
Credit Wagering And Its Predatory Operation
A credit shop is a sportsbook that allows bettors to wager without depositing first, giving them a balance, but requiring them to pay the sportsbook after a given period if they incur losses. Traditionally, this is how local bookies operate. Credit Wagering adopted this offline model, except with a few added, predatory caveats. The model itself relied on bettors to pay once they lost, despite not depositing any money. Of course, bettors also had to trust in the fact Credit Wagering would payout as well. As you’ll see, the experiment fails on both ends.
Initial Sportsbook Review Rating
Sportsbook Review initiated their coverage of Credit Wagering after players discussed the sportsbook in the SBR Forum. They advised, rightfully, for bettors to use caution with the then anonymous, “play-now, pay-later” bookmaker. SBR reported a slow-play complaint about the sportsbook just over two years after they added the sportsbook to their database:
“I have a balance of $5,059.85 at Credit Wagering. I requested a check payout for $3k on January 19th, 2010. I have not received any payment since then. They have blamed it on processor problems and promised me a free MG payout for around $800. But that has not materialized. I have always paid them on time. I have received several payments from them in the past on debit cards or MG. This near three months delay has been the longest. Thank you very much for your help.”
Credit Wagering Issues Kept Piling Up
Credit Wagering’s issues didn’t stop with just one complaint. More and more slow-play complaints came into SBR, and while they did make good on some smaller payout requests, the amount owed began to rise. Their slow-pays just reported to SBR alone, totaled over $10,500 before the site unceremoniously shut their doors in June 2010. Though they organized payment plans for the players owed, these were also delayed multiple times.
After promising to pay players in full in August, their total debt owed continued to swell as players with account balances unwisely continued to bet, hoping that the now offline sportsbook would make good on their promises. SBR downgraded Credit Wagering to an F rating in January 2011 with the amount being owed to players at more than $22,000. Once again, this only takes into account those who reported their slow-pays to SBR. The full amount owed to players was unknown and may have been considerably larger.
Rollover Issues – Wager Requirements On Credit Wagering
The credit line situation aside, Credit Wagering’s terms offer a relatively significant edge in terms of their rollover requirements. Remember, the $1,000 offered to players wasn’t a bonus, but instead, money to wager before players had to settle up. Their original terms stated that players would have rollover the original $1,000 five times (5x) before they could cash out any profits. A 5x rollover is standard for sportsbook bonuses, but remember this usually comes with a significant portion of free-play or cash bonus dollars as well.
In the case of Credit Wagering, the rollover was attached to $1,000 line of credit, but no bonuses or free-plays were available. This increases the sportsbook’s edge quite a bit and is basically the equivalent of a local bookmaker forces players to wager $4,000 or more before they can get paid.
I.D. Scandal – The Credit Wagering Stiffs
Credit Wagering’s model is one that absolutely will result in them not being paid in many cases. Offering a credit line, with the only requirement being that players must send in photo identification is a recipe for disaster. Of course, many players tried to “freeroll” them by betting with their credit line looking to run up a balance but then decided to not pay them after they busted their accounts. We know that Credit Wagering wasn’t paying players who won, so they weren’t holding up their end of the bargain either.
It’s important to remember that many sportsbooks, including highly reputable ones require some form of ID and/or utility bill before players can withdraw. This protects both the player and the sites from fraud and identity theft. However, what Credit Wagering did with player IDs was bordering on criminal. While their site was still active, they produced a list of “Stiffs”, which contained players who decided not to settle up when they lost.
Credit Wagering Violation Of Privacy
Listing the names of players who didn’t pay is bad enough, but Credit Wagering went even further by posting the IDs of players on their site opening them up to all kinds of harassment and potential identity theft. To make matters even worse, they got the names wrong of many that stiffed them and ended up posting the photos of random gamblers (some who have not been paid or those who paid when they lost) to their “Hall of Shame” portion of their site.
Credit Wagering Sold? – A Move To Avoid Paying Players
In January 2011, Credit Wagering was allegedly sold. An email was sent to customers that they would work on getting everyone paid, and the new owners would be working “on getting the site back to the way it used to be.” Of course, this is something that SBR and the rest of the community took with a heavy grain of salt. An offline, insolvent sportsbook which offers a credit shop business model is suddenly bought up from an undisclosed buyer – something is not right here. SBR suspected as much and made the point that they are likely going through the motions to possibly flip their domain, which may still offer value to other shops:
“Scam sportsbooks that feel their domains still have value will often attempt to deflect responsibility for player accounts due to being under ‘new ownership’. SBR will again attempt to speak with CW regarding delinquent player accounts and the alleged sale.”
Credit Wagering Resurfaces As WagerOnCredit.com
In 2013, a new site at the domain, WagerOnCredit.com appeared online. The sportsbook is extremely similar to credit wagering in both appearances and business model. They offer players a credit line, but some players did report that they also got a small bonus if they opted to post-up before wagering.
A Covers.com Forum post that appeared in 2014 discusses the comparisons and the “buyout” that took place in 2011. One user alleges that “Josh” from Credit Wagering is running the operation at Wager On Credit. Judging from the similarities between the two sites before Credit Wagering went offline and their supposed “sale” in 2011 – this isn’t much of a leap to make.
In Conclusion – Credit Wagering Sportsbook Scam
What can bettors learn from the Credit Wagering/Wager On Credit fiasco? Well, other than that these guys are scammers and should be avoided, it’s that if it looks too good in the offshore industry, it probably is. On its face, a $1,000 credit line looks appetizing, but the fine print and the assurances of being paid were simply not there for bettors. They are still in operation but are suffering from the same payout complaints that plagued their previous “sportsbook.” There are some forum posters that report being paid, but they are few and far between, and could very well likely be shills posting in forums in an attempt to entice more players to deposit.
There’s no denying that the only way to know this types of actions is to read about it. Sadly no one talks openly about it and new players may fall to the marketing attempts on several other scamming sites. We believe our job is also to inform players of such pending financial danger, for this reason if you are still looking for information about sportsbook scams visit our main review page about scam sportsbooks sites, where you’ll find the similarities between the sites and the tactics they all seem to use.