Hypothetical question

[Justin7]

1 player opens 5 accounts at a single sportsbook, using IDs from friends and families. The sportsbook rules clearly disallow this.

The 5 accounts all make identical bets (to circumvent limits - a single account could only make 1 limit bet). After 3 months, each account:
Deposited $5000
Collected a $1000 bonus
Made $20,000 in winning bets
made $15,000 in losing bets
Ended with a balance of $11,000 (in each of the 5).

The sportsbook then discovers this with INCONTROVERTIBLE proof.

How should the accounts be settled?

Note that no disputes are ever this clear, but I wanted clear facts to see how the players would decide this.

[Santo]

Pay out (5000*4)+(11000*1) = $31,000.

Basically one account processed properly, all bets should stand, the others should be voided and deposit returned. $11,000 assumes rollover met.

[JoshW]

Personally, I would send back all deposit amounts and not payout any winnings or bonus.

[SBR_John]

Most SB Rules mirror Laker's reply. However, as these cases are difficult to prove, unless a a 2 bit moron is involved, the book will typically settle this as Santo explained.

[Dark Horse]

Same as Santo. 31,000 return for 25,000 deposited.

On second thought, I would make that 30,000 since the bonus policy was violated as well.

What do I win?

[TLD]

I’d say if two different people have two different accounts, it’s none of the book or anyone else’s business if they are coordinating their plays, if one customer is making all the decisions for both accounts, if one customer knows nothing about sportsbetting and basically opened his account solely so the other customer could bet through it, etc. They’re two different people, they have two different accounts, they can bet whatever they please.

A book that doesn’t want this kind of action is certainly within its rights to discourage it indirectly by limiting whom it allows to open accounts. For instance if virtually all the customers they get from a given country seem to be engaged in the practice of using coordinated betting and sharing of bonuses to put the sportsbook at a disadvantage, the book may choose not to accept any customers from that country.

Or if the practice is a lot more common when bets are made from the same computer or from people registered as living at the same address, the book may choose to have a rule of only one account allowed per i.p. address, or only one account allowed per physical address (and then require ID proving address for all customers).

It’s similar to if a store has an item on sale with a “one to a customer” provision. If I buy one, then go back in later wearing a fake mustache and buy another, that’s against the rules as I am one customer, not two. But if I buy one, and a friend also buys one and when we get back home he gives it to me and I give him the money it cost him, that’s none of the store’s business. As far as the transactions with them are concerned, two customers bought one item each. Anything that happens after that is irrelevant.

Again, they can try to reduce that sort of thing indirectly if they choose. For instance if it’s a mail order company, they can have a rule saying they will only ship one such item per address, regardless of how many different people at that address try to order it.

Remember, no one has a gun to the store’s head saying they have to have this item on sale at this price. If it’s disadvantageous to do what they’re doing because too many people will make arrangements with confederates to buy extra items, then they can discontinue the sale, change the sale price, add other conditions, etc.

Similarly, if a book feels coordinated betting or bonus whoring or whatever is putting them at a disadvantage, they’re free to lower their limits, reduce their bonuses, eliminate their bonuses, eliminate referral bonuses, limit how many referral bonuses each customer is entitled to, or do any of the other things I mentioned about requiring customers to have unique i.p. addresses or physical addresses (or phone numbers or e-mail addresses or anything else they put in their rules).

What they shouldn’t be allowed to do is tell a customer, after the fact, that that bet he won doesn’t count because he was putting the bet in for someone else who also has an account. His motive for betting what he bet is absolutely none of their business.

So my answer to the original question would depend on what specifically “the sportsbook rules clearly disallow this” means. If, for instance, the rules required that customers provide ID to prove residence that is unique from any other customer, and they produced something clearly fraudulent instead and further investigation proved they live at the same address as another customer, then I would say the first account is entitled to its full balance (minus any referral bonuses that came from those other accounts), and the other accounts are entitled to the lesser of their deposit or current balance.

If instead the only “violation” was in how they decided what to bet on and coordinated with each other, then all accounts are entitled to their full balance.

[MrX]

They should pay in full unless there is INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that all of these bets were being made from the same computer. So what if he has friends and they work on the handicapping together and make the same bets.

I'm not saying that's most likely what's going on, but how do we know otherwise unless all bets are coming from the same computer?

Needless to say, the book wouldn't be having to make this decision if they weren't asleep at the wheel for 3 months.

Edit: Somehow I didn't notice that TLD just said the same thing and said it better. Put me down for a big "ditto."

[Justin7]

Ok, let's change the scenario a bit.

Everyone agrees there are two accounts being used from a single computer in a single house. The players state each has his own account, and each bets his own. Many bets are duplicated, but not all (let's say 67%).

The book still has a rule. Pretend it says "A person may only have one account. If you have two, we will seize everything in both".

What should the book do with the two winning accounts?

[Dark Horse]

If the players can prove they are separate players, the book should pay both accounts.

Maybe in such a scenario the second player wouldn't be eligible for a signup bonus, and the first player wouldn't get a referral bonus. That would filter out the bonus hunters.

Are the bets on the same games going over the limit for a single player? If so, the players could be told to stop doing so, because such bets will no longer be honored.

I'm assuming that books, through their software, are able to identify immediately if accounts are operating from the same computer. They need to notify the players that there is a problem upfront, and not wait until after people start winning.

All bets should stand, unless in very extreme cases. It is the book's responsibility to balance its action; not the players.

[GJMike]

Maybe books should start attracting business by having competitive lines, fast payouts, and good customer support rather than having juicy bonuses.

Maybe books should start moving numbers on action instead of following the screen and steam.

Maybe books should start bookmaking and balance their action...

Maybe, but it probably wont happen. I can't believe players even take the bonuses anymore. I liken taking a bonus to dealing with the devil, they have so many stipulations that it isnt even worth it a majority of the time.

[TLD]

Ok, let's change the scenario a bit.

Everyone agrees there are two accounts being used from a single computer in a single house. The players state each has his own account, and each bets his own. Many bets are duplicated, but not all (let's say 67%).

The book still has a rule. Pretend it says "A person may only have one account. If you have two, we will seize everything in both".

What should the book do with the two winning accounts?

The rule you cite says one account per person. There are two people. Both should be paid in full.

If you meant a rule that says one account per computer, then they are in violation of that rule. Here I would judge it on a case-by-case basis. Is the rule stated clearly? Or better yet, when the second account was created, did the book see it was coming from the same I.P. address and contact the second account holder to alert him to this rule? Or was it buried somewhere in the fine print and never mentioned until there was an opportunity to confiscate a large balance?

Is there evidence that the players are savvy bonus whores who know all the ins and outs of creating multiple accounts and breaking or bending sportsbook rules to their benefit? Is there evidence instead that they are squares putting in square plays—e.g., college roommates betting on their school every week regardless of the line—and have no clue what advantage there could be in one person controlling multiple accounts?

Did the book knowingly take bets in violation of this rule as long as the accounts were even or losing, and only step in to enforce it when a large balance was built up in one or both accounts?

In general, if the players were savvy enough to be knowingly benefiting by violating this rule, I’d say even the harsh penalty of confiscating the full balances is probably justified. If they innocently stumbled into a violation of this rule, and/or if the book is taking a shot at them just as much as they’re taking a shot at it, then I would say some compromise settlement is in order.