Originally posted on 09/19/2012:

If you're going to void winnings, deposits shouldn't be in question. All those deposits were made with no opportunity to win and it would not be fair to keep them.

There's a strong debate what happens if a player sneaks back in. I don't know the answer here, nor do we have a confession this actually happened (is strong evidence to suggest it though). I might be wrong but suspect best policy is to pay the winnings when a player does sneak back in. Why? Because if someone sneaks back in loses $30,000 then reveals themselves then player shouldn't be refunded. That would be giving the player a freeroll against the book. Current policy works fine: They can close the account when player is down any amount for any reason and pay whatever his current balance is (this is the way it works now ). The reason for closing could be they suspect he's a beard and don't welcome the action (not even required to say why though). Giving them a complete freeroll doesn't make sense, unless we also give the player a freeroll too. Best policy imo at the moment is you don't get back your deposits for revealing you were playing while banned, restricted or anything else. If you do get back in and win you get paid. Seems fair, and should be on the site to police and take care of before the win is hit. I can probably be convinced otherwise, but my current thoughts are money was at risk (was down a lot of money at one point) seems Heritage should probably pay up and keep a closer watch.