Pretty good article by SBR here. some definitions in writing
some great definitions and clarity there in writing.
Wonder if you can add some more definitions and keep this active and updated like a sportsbook rating.
you have "Online sportsbooks cannot confiscate winnings for no reason."
then you list some great reasons where a book can rightfully (per your definitions) steal back the winnings or balances of post up players. Good list starting! And some reasons where for sure a book cant at least without SBR attempting to get the funds for a player and reduce ratings steal back player funds.
some more to define...
what about confirmed and concluded wagers that happen to win playing soft lines? any justification for stealing the funds? (what defines a soft line?)
what about confirmed and concluded wagers that happen to win playing a same event parlay (termed correlated)? any justification for stealing the funds?
what about wagering on future PROP events where the result either by rumor (twitter) or that have been publicly announced (by the major news group) but still are on the board and bets confirmed (future type props here mostly) can those bets before the event be cancelled? what about after the event is final?? can winnings be stolen?
what about confirmed and concluded wagers that circumnavigate and go over a posted limit. like betting more, player risking more, on a game with an alternative lines, or using same side in parlays thus going over the straight bet wager limits?
what about ALL different accounts all betting a soft line that was posted out here public-ally on SBR or another forum (sort of a mini syndicate situation), no specific accounts over the limits but one poster perhaps putting the book in a much larger bad situation?
what about playing in a casino with some tool to play high accurate rapid play (some call it a bot) ? can winning funds be stolen? can a player ask for losing funds to be returned?
Probably lots more.
I think the more specific definitions at SBR watchbook for your current firm guidelines in being a player advocate and giving ratings adjustments this is helpful.
Also for books that have some problem or past problem and are looking rise in ratings they know the ground rules and can fix a problem with a customer knowing the SBR industry leader definitions without their good name being taken through the mud, they can fix or hold firm knowing the definitions. Also its the same for all books same rules apply, sponsors, past sponsors, wanna be sponsors, public legal British books and PPH shops..
OR I guess if they want to fall in the ratings they know what guideline rules to break!
When sports betting websites limit your wagers after a bonus
One of the more common complaints submitted by players involves how sports betting websites handle their accounts after restricting their wagering limits.
Players are often unhappy to find out that they can no longer place a bet for the amount they wish, and believe the practice of being limited to be unfair.
The reality is, online sportsbooks are free to do whatever they want to a player's account ... up until a certain point. There comes a time when the best course is simply for the sportsbook to cut the player loose and send him or her on their merry way. The problem is, many sportsbooks abuse this power and think that they have a license to steal balances, as well.
This is where the line gets drawn in the sand. Online sportsbooks cannot confiscate winnings for no reason.
A player being too sharp or sophisticated of a bettor is NOT cause for winnings to be confiscated. A risk manager being so baffled that a female actually can compute how to simply flip a coin and win some wagers is NOT cause for winnings to be confiscated. A player who can barely speak English not agreeing to be video Skyped and prodded like some sort of cattle on an operating table is NOT cause for winnings to be confiscated.
So, that begs the question - What is a situation where a player's winnings deserve to be erased? It's simple: Clear and undeniable fraud. A player opening 5 accounts in a row to redeem the starting bonus and thinking that he can get away with it by using some friends names is an example of this type of fraud.
A player making an insufficient deposit is another example of fraud where a player gambles on funds that for one reason or another the sports betting website hasn't received.
However, in the aforementioned scenarios, player still are entitled to their deposit. Sportsbooks cannot profit off of fraudsters or keep custody over possibly ill-gotten funds, so what reputable sportsbooks do when there are clear examples of fraud is refund the deposits and close the players' accounts. When a sportsbook simply wants to kick a player out
It's not always so grim. When sportsbooks legitimately decide accepting more bets from a player will harm their bottom line, they are certainly free to restrict the wagering size or cut a player loose. This begs the following question - What happens to the bonus?
The industry standard way of resolving the matter is to pay the player his rightfully earned winnings - every cent - and then to simply prorate a portion of the bonus.
For example, if a player has rolled over 50% of his $200 bonus and has accumulated $2,000 in winnings on a $1,000 deposit, the player should get the $2,000 in winnings and receive $100 of the bonus.
To confiscate the player's winnings and the bonus would suggest that the player only had a chance of losing and never winning, which is what is known in the industry as a freeroll, and is a practice typical of scam sportsbooks.
i have no idea but SBr agrees per this definition that is not a step a book can take to steal your winnings.
I assume he personally felt it was a set up by the book (or why would you be asked something as abnormal as a Sype interview just to get paid on legitimately won and confirmed wagers) Perhaps he felt it was a possible set up if he could not recall a fact exactly or recall his bet made three days ago last Tuesday. Thus any wrong answer would be data or "proof cited by the book" he was a beard and he did not want to risk a step in a situation where he is entitled to get paid 100% anyway? under interrogation or confusing questioning people can say off and incorrect things. just see witness testimony.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Pretty good article by SBR here. some definitions in writing
Reply With Quote
