2 Bet Online Casino

Odds to win the 2009 British Open have been updated as of Sunday night with many changes taking place and online sportsbook lines varying across the board.   At the time of publication, a large majority of betting shops were still not offering odds on the 2009 British Open or had taken them down temporarily. 

Tiger Woods – Now would pay US$240 for every US$100 bet at Sportingbet.com.  They do not accept U.S. gamblers at this time however. Sportsbook.com had Woods paying $200 for every $100 bet. Padgraig Harrington -  Would pay out US$3000 for every US$100 bet at Sportsbook.com Sergio Garcia – Both Sportsbook.com and Sportingbet.com pay US$2000 for every US$100 bet.

Jim Furyk – Sportsbook.com price is +3000 for a US$3000 payout on a US$100 bet. Paul Casey –  Pays $2500. Rory McIlroy –  Pays $2500 at Sportingbet.

Ian Poulter –  Pays $3500 for every $100 bet at BetUS.com

Lee Westwood – Pays $3000 at Sportsbook.com

Martin Kaymer – Has become one of the top 10 favorites at Sportingbet but would pay a whopping US$6000 for every US$100 bet at Sportsbook.com. Anthony Kim – Pays $3300 at Sportingbet. Ernie Els – Pays $4000 for every $100 bet at Sportsbook.com. Henrik Stenson – Pays $3300 at Sportingbet.  Pays $2500 at both Sportsbook.com and BetUS.com. Hunter Mahan – Pays $3500 at Sportsbook.com.

Kenny Perry –  Pays $4000 for every $100 bet at BetUS.com

Steve Stricker – Pays $5000 for every $100 bet at BetUS.com Geoff Ogilvy – Pays $4000 at BetUS.com Retief Goosen – Sportingbet.com would pay out US$4000 for every US$100 bet with a Goosen win. Ross Fisher – Ross Fisher pays $4000 at both Sportingbet and Sportsbook.com.  He’s a "field" option at BetuS.com.

Adam Scott – Pays $6000 for every $100 bet at Sportsbook.com. Camilo Villagas – Pays $5000 at both Sportingbet and Sportsbook.com Vijay Singh – Pays US$5000 for every US$100 bet at Sportingbet.com Angel Cabrera – Pays US$6600 at Sportingbet.  Much lower odds at the U.S. facing online sportsbooks. 

Also note that odds to win the 2009 British Open feature ‘field’ options that pay US$600 for every US$100 bet at BetUS.com and a few of the golfers listed above are included under this option.  The good thing about it is you could get paid if any number of golfers win (Rory McIlroy being among them, at least at press time). 

Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com Publisher        

A payment processor whose funds had been seized as part of a US Attorney Southern District of New York action has now filed a Motion for Return of Property, Gambling911.com can report exclusively.

Account Services Corporation, through counsel, respectfully moves this

Court to order the return of funds seized from Wells Fargo Bank ("Wells Fargo"),  account number 7986104185, and from Union Bank, N.A. ("Union Bank"), in  accounts numbered 353000248 and 353000256, pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(g). 

Alternatively, counsel requests that this Court conduct an Evidentiary Hearing on  the issues raised by this Motion. 

As part of the background, Account Services Corp states the following:

Internet poker is a popular and widespread leisure activity in the United

States.  At least 10,000,000 Americans play internet poker, and some estimates set  that figure substantially higher.  Operators of online poker websites (collectively,  "operators") offer internet poker players the option of either playing with "play  money" (online credits) or "real money" (legal currency).  If a player chooses to  engage in wagering with real money, the player must deposit his or her funds into  an account with an operator or an operator-designated third-party processor.  At all  times, the money on deposit is owned and controlled by the player.  The funds are

merely held in trust for the benefit of the player and released upon the player’s  request.  See, e.g., PokerStars End User License Agreement.

The complaint also states the following:  

Here, continued retention of the funds from ASC’s Wells Fargo and Union

Bank accounts would be patently unreasonable and this Court must therefore order that the funds be returned.  As discussed above, the seizure violated ASC’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights: in the case of the Union Bank accounts, the funds were simply seized without a warrant or notice.

The filing was delayed a day.

Copies of the Filing have been obtained by Gambling911.com.  You can read by clicking on the links below:

Read Part 1 of the Motion Here

Read Part 2 of the Motion Here

Follow News on Gambling911.com’s Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Documents 

Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com Publisher