3 Players claim that Sports Interaction seized more than $25,000, citing “syndicate rule”. Three accounts were making bets from the same computer, usually on the same event. The aggregate of the three accounts often exceeded SIA’s limits for that event. SIA’s full explanation is below. Per the players, they are roommates at the same residence. SIA has refunded the deposits, and cancelled all the winnings on all 3 accounts.
At the time of the forfeiture, SIA did not have a rule clearly prohibiting multiple accounts in a single household (they have since clarified this rule at the request of SBR). SIA declined to share the findings of its fraud investigation with SBR. This, combined with the subjective definition of “syndicate” in its rules raises serious questions as to whether SIA will treat player balances fairly.
How should this dispute have been handled? In the first instance of “syndicate action”, SIA should have confronted the players before the event was played. At that point in time, it would be acceptable to cancel wagers in excess of their betting limits (in this case, 2 of 3 $200 wagers could fairly be cancelled before the event). If the “syndicate action” was not discovered until a later, all bets made up to that point stand. While any book can close any account for any (or no) reason, it is obligated to pay the players their balances in full.
<SIA>
Hello Justin;
This email is in response to your inquiry about the Sports Interaction account holder player1.
As we have indicated on our correspondence we sent to player1, we now considered this matter closed and his claim as null and void because he was in clear violation of our Terms and Conditions.
Based on our fraud prevention investigation findings, we have discovered that he was in breach of our Terms and Conditions by using several different accounts to place bets with us – over a period of time.
We have determined that player1 has been using multiple Sports Interaction accounts to circumvent our published betting limits. We have recorded bets made through multiple accounts, the time the bets were placed, the amounts, and the IP address from which these bets were placed.
All of the bets were placed for the Sports Interaction maximum amount allowable from the same computer minutes apart. And it is evident that the modus operandi was to use multiple accounts to circumvent our limits, which is a breach of our Terms and Conditions. Please feel free to review our Terms and Conditions including our Rules, which states:
Terms - Terms and conditions - Sports Interaction online sports betting
Rules – Rules - Sports Interaction online sportsbook
We also would like to emphasize the following which is found within our T&C:
Any bets placed in an attempt in any way to defraud Sports Interaction or to violate Sports Interaction's betting rules or limits shall be voided and the balances in such accounts held by Sports Interaction. Any bets made by or contracted by any bookmaker(s), gambling syndicates, and/or any person, persons, parties, organisation(s), friends or relatives acting on behalf of any bookmaker(s) or gambling syndicates shall be voided and the balances in such accounts held by Sports Interaction.
Below, you will find a sample of some of the transactions on the accounts operated by player1. You will notice the betting patterns that were clearly in violation of the terms that he agreed to abide by when he signed up at Sports Interaction. (The wager list was removed by SBR Staff. It shows 3 players making bets from the same IP, often within 60 seconds of each other on the same event).
For the three Sports Interaction accounts in the example above, ALL deposits made to Sports Interaction have been refunded via the original deposit methods.(Therefore, player1 is not “out” any money from his gaming attempt at Sports Interaction).
Player1 first withdrawal of $3000 was honored and will not be collected. His withdrawal request made AFTER our discovery of the breach in the Terms and Conditions has NOT been honored. All winnings on the three accounts in question have been voided.
We now consider this matter to be closed. We wish player1 success in his gaming elsewhere.
Justin, if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards;
Sports Interaction Management
In response to follow up correspondence, they further wrote
Hello Justin;
Thank you for following-up with me on the case of Sports Interaction player1.
Sports Interaction has had clearly defined rules in place regarding syndicate cooperation since our inception in 1997. After conducting a competitor review, we have found that our rules, and subsequent penalties for breaking these rules, are in line with other notable online Sportsbooks (VIPsports, Bodog). Sports Interaction is self admittedly a recreational sportsbook and it is no mystery that we have lower betting limits which reflect this. When syndicates band together to circumvent our betting limits it skews our ability to manage the lines and take in balanced action leaving us with disproportionate liabilities. More importantly, it moves these attractive lines off of where we would like them to be for the rest of our customers to bet on, thereby ruining the SIA betting experience for others.
Sports Interaction does not make the decision to withhold players account balances lightly. Every effort is made to give the player the benefit of the doubt, but these are not a group of friends independently making bets and pulling for the same teams by chance. Our investigation has concluded that this is with out a doubt a well coordinated effort to circumvent Sports Interaction’s betting limits, which is a direct breach of our rules. Sports Interaction will always take the time and effort necessary to have proof beyond a doubt before taking action against a fraudulent player. We would never want to falsely accuse a legitimate and valued customer.
As a knowledgeable body within the online gaming industry, I am confident that SBR is not blind to the fact that player fraud and rule violations do exist, and the books have justification for their actions as well. This case is no different. All players big and small have agreed to the same house rules before signing up with us.
Our decision to reimburse all deposits and void all winnings in this case continues to stand. We have amassed considerable evidence in this case using our existing fraud prevention tools along with newly acquired sophisticated fraud detection systems. Of course the evidence is confidential (as we do not wish to jeopardize our future fraud prevention efforts) and may only be shared directly with the player should he wish to contact us directly.
Sports Interaction will not tolerate fraudulent activity (related to betting, money laundering or other types of fraud) amongst our client base.
We truly believe that maintaining a fair a safe betting environment is necessary in our customer retention efforts.
If the player in question is not sure why their funds have been withheld, they are welcome to contact us for a more thorough explanation.
If you have any other concerns or questions, we would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.
Best regards
Sports Interaction Management
At the time of the forfeiture, SIA did not have a rule clearly prohibiting multiple accounts in a single household (they have since clarified this rule at the request of SBR). SIA declined to share the findings of its fraud investigation with SBR. This, combined with the subjective definition of “syndicate” in its rules raises serious questions as to whether SIA will treat player balances fairly.
How should this dispute have been handled? In the first instance of “syndicate action”, SIA should have confronted the players before the event was played. At that point in time, it would be acceptable to cancel wagers in excess of their betting limits (in this case, 2 of 3 $200 wagers could fairly be cancelled before the event). If the “syndicate action” was not discovered until a later, all bets made up to that point stand. While any book can close any account for any (or no) reason, it is obligated to pay the players their balances in full.
<SIA>
Hello Justin;
This email is in response to your inquiry about the Sports Interaction account holder player1.
As we have indicated on our correspondence we sent to player1, we now considered this matter closed and his claim as null and void because he was in clear violation of our Terms and Conditions.
Based on our fraud prevention investigation findings, we have discovered that he was in breach of our Terms and Conditions by using several different accounts to place bets with us – over a period of time.
We have determined that player1 has been using multiple Sports Interaction accounts to circumvent our published betting limits. We have recorded bets made through multiple accounts, the time the bets were placed, the amounts, and the IP address from which these bets were placed.
All of the bets were placed for the Sports Interaction maximum amount allowable from the same computer minutes apart. And it is evident that the modus operandi was to use multiple accounts to circumvent our limits, which is a breach of our Terms and Conditions. Please feel free to review our Terms and Conditions including our Rules, which states:
Terms - Terms and conditions - Sports Interaction online sports betting
Rules – Rules - Sports Interaction online sportsbook
We also would like to emphasize the following which is found within our T&C:
Any bets placed in an attempt in any way to defraud Sports Interaction or to violate Sports Interaction's betting rules or limits shall be voided and the balances in such accounts held by Sports Interaction. Any bets made by or contracted by any bookmaker(s), gambling syndicates, and/or any person, persons, parties, organisation(s), friends or relatives acting on behalf of any bookmaker(s) or gambling syndicates shall be voided and the balances in such accounts held by Sports Interaction.
Below, you will find a sample of some of the transactions on the accounts operated by player1. You will notice the betting patterns that were clearly in violation of the terms that he agreed to abide by when he signed up at Sports Interaction. (The wager list was removed by SBR Staff. It shows 3 players making bets from the same IP, often within 60 seconds of each other on the same event).
For the three Sports Interaction accounts in the example above, ALL deposits made to Sports Interaction have been refunded via the original deposit methods.(Therefore, player1 is not “out” any money from his gaming attempt at Sports Interaction).
Player1 first withdrawal of $3000 was honored and will not be collected. His withdrawal request made AFTER our discovery of the breach in the Terms and Conditions has NOT been honored. All winnings on the three accounts in question have been voided.
We now consider this matter to be closed. We wish player1 success in his gaming elsewhere.
Justin, if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards;
Sports Interaction Management
In response to follow up correspondence, they further wrote
Hello Justin;
Thank you for following-up with me on the case of Sports Interaction player1.
Sports Interaction has had clearly defined rules in place regarding syndicate cooperation since our inception in 1997. After conducting a competitor review, we have found that our rules, and subsequent penalties for breaking these rules, are in line with other notable online Sportsbooks (VIPsports, Bodog). Sports Interaction is self admittedly a recreational sportsbook and it is no mystery that we have lower betting limits which reflect this. When syndicates band together to circumvent our betting limits it skews our ability to manage the lines and take in balanced action leaving us with disproportionate liabilities. More importantly, it moves these attractive lines off of where we would like them to be for the rest of our customers to bet on, thereby ruining the SIA betting experience for others.
Sports Interaction does not make the decision to withhold players account balances lightly. Every effort is made to give the player the benefit of the doubt, but these are not a group of friends independently making bets and pulling for the same teams by chance. Our investigation has concluded that this is with out a doubt a well coordinated effort to circumvent Sports Interaction’s betting limits, which is a direct breach of our rules. Sports Interaction will always take the time and effort necessary to have proof beyond a doubt before taking action against a fraudulent player. We would never want to falsely accuse a legitimate and valued customer.
As a knowledgeable body within the online gaming industry, I am confident that SBR is not blind to the fact that player fraud and rule violations do exist, and the books have justification for their actions as well. This case is no different. All players big and small have agreed to the same house rules before signing up with us.
Our decision to reimburse all deposits and void all winnings in this case continues to stand. We have amassed considerable evidence in this case using our existing fraud prevention tools along with newly acquired sophisticated fraud detection systems. Of course the evidence is confidential (as we do not wish to jeopardize our future fraud prevention efforts) and may only be shared directly with the player should he wish to contact us directly.
Sports Interaction will not tolerate fraudulent activity (related to betting, money laundering or other types of fraud) amongst our client base.
We truly believe that maintaining a fair a safe betting environment is necessary in our customer retention efforts.
If the player in question is not sure why their funds have been withheld, they are welcome to contact us for a more thorough explanation.
If you have any other concerns or questions, we would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.
Best regards
Sports Interaction Management
