Recreational vs. Professional?

[TLasVegas702]

BetWho (SBR rating C-) unjustly confiscates $1,700 of player’s winnings. Management tells SBR that their bonus is meant for recreational players only and that half of this ’sharp’ player’s winnings was taken because it derived from the $100 bonus (on $100 deposit). SBR to ask ownership to correct this error by paying the player $1,700 and a prorated portion of the $100 bonus.

when you lose 2000, you are consider a recreational player.

when you win 2000, you are professional and they don't want you.

Bottom line: **** you. Why would I risk my money for recreational purpose only? I put in 40hrs worked and I took the risk. Pay up and no more excuses.. Recreational my ass.

[bigboydan]

Your comments pretty much some it up. No books want a player that wins at any type of an above average clip.

Heres another thread on BetWho

[pags11]

I despise books that use this BS line as an excuse to steal player's money...

[Sam Odom]

I dont mind a book kicking a gambler out the door for winning too much BUT pay the guy in FULL 1st.

[SBR_John]

I despise books that use this BS line as an excuse to steal player's money...

Me too.

SBR in general will side with the book in bonus revocation cases so long as the rules allow it. However, the only fair way to take back a bonus is pro-rate the amount already earned. Its just plain common sense.

[TLasVegas702]

If I lose...

If I lose on a bet..I would say...

Damn fucking yankee

Damn fucking Notre Damn

Damn fucking Lakers..

Damn fucking Pittsburg...

I wouldn't steal players amount. so sportsbook...if you lose money on a game...say it...say..damn fucking carolina...damn fucking chicago bears...BUT don't take your fraustration out on players by stealing their money...

[SBR_John]

Royal has just introduced a rule that says they will decide after the bet if you are a pro and reduce your bet if they so choose.

At least its written so player beware.

This gives the book a chance to lower their exposure if a line moves against them. Do you think they will reduce ANY wager where the line moves in their favor??

Still, we will side with the book in the cases above because the rule basically, and clearly states they will screw you.

If you are the least bit sharp you need to play in the shops that welcome your business or you will eventually get a painful haircut.

[TLD]

Still, we will side with the book in the cases above because the rule basically, and clearly states they will screw you.

There are some things--like requiring a 20 time rollover for a 5% bonus--that aren't particularly player-friendly policies, but as long as the book makes a reasonable effort to inform the player of them, then those are the conditions both parties have agreed to and that's that.

There are other things--like arbitrarily stealing customers' money--that are wrong and remain wrong regardless of one party giving "fair warning" to the other that they regard themselves as having the right to engage in such behavior.

This "rule" in question seems to me to fall on the latter side of the line. I believe the analogous term for such a provision in contract law is "unconscionable." Unconscionable contract provisions are legally unenforceable, for good reason.

To put it another way, how about if a book tortured and killed customers they deemed professional? As long as they declare clearly in their rules that they have a right to do so will you side with the book? It's right there in the rules after all. People were forewarned.

[JoshW]

Good post TLD. I think you use an extreme to illustrate the point, but I have seen books T&C that says they will confiscate professional players balances, I view that as out of line. If they want to do that to players with proven multiple accounts fine, but very hard to say a player is really a pro based on bets and confiscation is the most extreme punishment in post up so I think it should be reserved for some type of fraud.

[Santo]

Can someone point me to this rule?

[pags11]

more bush league tactics from bet royal...