Strange email sent out by BetWHO.com regarding SBR

BAUS · 12-09-06, 03:47 AM

I find it amusing that they are calling attention to the fact that they were downgraded.

BAUS

gummo · 12-09-06, 08:07 AM

I guess the good thing here is that they actually are concerned about having a good rating.

jjgold · 12-09-06, 08:35 AM

SBR ratings are very accurate and many players use them

SBR_John · 12-09-06, 10:00 AM

This manager for BetWho, Bill, is welcome to come in here and explain "pyramiding". As far as I see see it he publishes a betting line and the player picks a side and puts his money at risk. I think its actually called "gambling".

Bill Dozer · 12-09-06, 11:03 AM

I probably spent a few hours talking to Bill and the owner about this... one of the oddest screw jobs I've seen in a while with the book thinking it all makes perfect sense from their POV. Let me grab this file and find the "rule".

BetWho has a page addressing the SBR rating. betwho.com/rating On this page it asks players to send them suggestions and comments. Hopefully players will send their comments on this player dispute.

ronald · 12-09-06, 11:50 AM

I think it's safe to say that the public school system has failed Bill Richards. That's some of the worst spelling I've ever seen.

RickySteve · 12-09-06, 01:34 PM

So does SBR consider a no-pyramiding policy to be bad bookmaking?

Bill Dozer · 12-09-06, 01:57 PM

The player received a bonus and let his funds ride multiple times. The book told him that they do not allow players to risk their entire balances multiple times after receiving a bonus. They referenced, what they call, a bonus pyramiding rule, which is listed on the bottom of this page. In the book's words, this was a warning and no action was taken against the account holder at this time.

The player stops wagering in this pattern and proceeds to bet and win. The book labels the subsequent action as sharp play and decides to go back and punish him for his previous offense, confiscating the bonus and the winnings from the bonus. They said they didn't realize until later he was sharp.

This is wrong for multiple reasons.

1) Book retroactively punishes him as they see fit. The "issue" was dealt with and did not come up again but after he continues to play, they decide to take winnings.

2) They took winnings. Confiscating a bonus after the player invests in it can be a complaint in itself. Taking winnings from bets the player could have placed elsewhere is theft. Obviously the book should not have the ability not to pay the player after deciding if the player was giving the type of action the book desired.

3) The rule referenced above and pasted below is not a rule. It gives an example of a betting style but does not define it. If the rule was redefined to make sense and then used, it cheats the player.

Bonus Pyramiding
Taking deposited funds plus bonus and wagering the entire amount on a single event. Upon winning, taking your entire balance and wagering on a single event. This being repeated until meeting rollover requirements and withdrawing the money. Upon withdrawal, you will receive your deposited money and winnings on the deposited money.
Example:

Deposit: $500

Bonus:
$100

Total Balance:
$600

1st wager
$600 to win $600

2nd wager
$1,200 to win $1,200

3rd wager
$2,400 to win $2,400

New balance
$4,800

The breakdown of this balance is $4,000 from the deposit and $800 from the bonus.
Withdrawal amount will be $4,000 and forfeit of the $800

If 10 guys from this forum go to the book and each let their bonus money ride, we all lose. Anyone who loses on bets 1-3 busts and those who manage to win bet 4 or 5 (or whatever arbitrary number they choose) have their funds confiscated.

Bill Dozer · 12-09-06, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by RickySteve

So does SBR consider a no-pyramiding policy to be bad bookmaking?

I haven't heard of this until this complaint. BetWho claims it is in other book's rules. My guess is it is a deterrent for bonus scalpers who would make more with less roll-overs. However, no one evokes its version of the rule and of course they don't debit players.

LGBoots · 12-09-06, 03:25 PM

Is this book really bankrolled by 'The Who' rock group, or is this just an Urban Myth

RickySteve · 12-09-06, 03:27 PM

Wagerweb has the exact same policy. It looks like BetWho stole the text directly from their site.

Mudcat · 12-09-06, 03:41 PM

This is all news to me. Pyramiding.

I have used Wager Web for a long time - and probably even done some pyramiding or at least some near-pyramiding there (without knowing that's the term for what I was doing).

Never had a problem so far but this is good to know.

As for betWHO, I would like to know the answer to LGBoots' question.

RickySteve · 12-10-06, 01:22 AM

It is false. Pete Townshend only uses his venture capital on Dutch family porn sites.

chano · 12-10-06, 08:41 AM

Bonus Whores ****** up the industry.

JoshW · 12-10-06, 11:15 AM

Never heard of pyramiding either. If you offer $100 for $100 you ought to be able to put in any rule you want, but you certainly can't change the rules midstream to fit situations as happen in this case.

Bill Dozer · 01-08-07, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by RickySteve

Wagerweb has the exact same policy. It looks like BetWho stole the text directly from their site.

Good eye Ricky.

WagerWeb (SBR rating B-) confiscates $2038 from account holder.
The sportsbook deducted winnings from a $750 free-play bonus as well as winnings subsequently accumulated using those funds. A cash bonus of $500 and winnings accumulated using those funds were also confiscated.
WagerWeb gave the player a 50% sign-up ’bonus package’ ($500 cash and $750 free-play) with the stipulation of a 10x roll-over (wagering the bonus and deposit ten times). The book’s Fraud Manager informed the player that his wagers equated to what the book classifies as "Bonus Pyramiding". This rule allows the bookmaker to review the account history of a winning customer to see if the betting style shows the user risked his/her balance + bonus repeatedly until the roll-over was met. The player’s account history shows that he did not wager his entire balance until the roll-over was met. SBR will address this issue with management tomorrow.

JC · 01-08-07, 10:01 PM

Unbelievable!

Just when you thought you've heard everything. Pyramiding!

Please tell me English is not their first language.

Justin7 · 01-08-07, 10:02 PM

"Bonus pyramiding" is ambiguous. A better way for books to address "pyramiding" would be to add the following restriction to rollover:
When computing rollover for a wager, we will use the least of
1. The risked amount;
2. The "To-win" amount; or
3. 1/4 of the deposited amount used to compute the bonus.

So if a player deposited $1000 and collected a 20% free-play with x3 rollover, he can't risk the entire balance. Well he can, but it won't be better than risking $250. The only players this type rule would hurt are the professional bonus players.

bigloser · 01-08-07, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

"Bonus pyramiding" is ambiguous. A better way for books to address "pyramiding" would be to add the following restriction to rollover:
When computing rollover for a wager, we will use the least of
1. The risked amount;
2. The "To-win" amount; or
3. 1/4 of the deposited amount used to compute the bonus.

So if a player deposited $1000 and collected a 20% free-play with x3 rollover, he can't risk the entire balance. Well he can, but it won't be better than risking $250. The only players this type rule would hurt are the professional bonus players.

Really ? It would certainly hurt me. If I want to make a $1000 play and make this amount my 1st deposit it would not count to my rollover.
How can this not be hurting me.
If this condition was listed by a book most posters here would condemn it.

Of course I might just be corrected !

Justin7 · 01-08-07, 10:45 PM

Bigloser -

When a player risks his entire balance on one play, he avoids the remainder of rollover 1/2 the time. This is why bonus chasers bury books (and books have such fits with bonuses).

Yoshi · 01-08-07, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Bigloser -

When a player risks his entire balance on one play, he avoids the remainder of rollover 1/2 the time. This is why bonus chasers bury books (and books have such fits with bonuses).

Bonus chasers cant bury good books, only shit books that give big bonuses/have slow moving lines/low juice, and are (of course) not ready for this business model.

So stop blaming the player who looks for a nice bonus Justin, you are looking bad here.

Computer · 01-08-07, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

"Bonus pyramiding" is ambiguous. A better way for books to address "pyramiding" would be to add the following restriction to rollover:
When computing rollover for a wager, we will use the least of
1. The risked amount;
2. The "To-win" amount; or
3. 1/4 of the deposited amount used to compute the bonus.

So if a player deposited $1000 and collected a 20% free-play with x3 rollover, he can't risk the entire balance. Well he can, but it won't be better than risking $250. The only players this type rule would hurt are the professional bonus players.

A systhem that could be used is the "5dimes systhem" with the additon of the "sportingbet family systhem" ...

Player deposit 1K, get $100 bonus with a 3 times roll, the $100bonus is putted IN A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT ( Bonus account ) and become available to wager after the player have made at least 3K in total wagers.

Addition that could be made ( sportingbet family actually use it... ). The Bonus ( part of it ) become available "proportionally", example ...

You start and wager 1K, you have "earned" $33,33 Bonus that is automatically putted in your account balance ( $66.66 still on the "Bonus account" ), then you wager another $500, now you have $50 on your account balance and $50 still on the Bonus balance.

You are FREE to withdraw all your money when you want, at this point you can withdraw your balance plus the $50 Bonus that you have "earned" ( you cannot withdraw the $50 that are in the Bonus balance, you could it after you will have wagered another $1500 etc. ).

pags11 · 01-09-07, 04:54 AM

what a bunch of pussies to send this email out...trying to defend their scamming ways is just useless...

Justin7 · 01-09-07, 11:41 AM

I agree it is a scam. Yoshi, I am not blaming the player - otherwise I would blame myself as well. I've been know to do the "bonus hustle" myself. There's nothing like a book that gives you a big freeplay everytime you bust out i one bet.

5Dimes... Theirs is a very intelligent way to do it, although it aggravates a lot of recreational players.

Bill Dozer · 01-09-07, 12:35 PM

Free-play type bonuses get books more for their buck. It also helps them profile players. But, if you are going to offer free-plays you give up ownership of any bonus after the player makes a winning bet. Going after a winning free-play takes a handicapped play away from the player that potentially would have been placed with actual deposited funds.

GamblingPrincessXOXO · 01-09-07, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

Free-play type bonuses get books more for their buck. It also helps them profile players. But, if you are going to offer free-plays you give up ownership of any bonus after the player makes a winning bet. Going after a winning free-play takes a handicapped play away from the player that potentially would have been placed with actual deposited funds.

How do free-plays help book profile players differently then they could with a normal bonus?