[Justin7]

12.22.2006 (02:36 AM CST)

SportsInteraction (SBR rating C-) confiscates over $5,000 in player winnings. The sportsbook states that the account was the 2nd from the same household and the first account holder had already been removed from book due to sharp play. SBR Justin investigated the player’s dispute and found that the sportsbook did not list any rules prohibiting multiple users from the same household. SportsInteraction has taken steps to avoid similar disputes in the future by adding the following rule:
Only one Sports Interaction account per household or computer environment is permitted. A ’computer environment’ is one where multiple computers are located in one building. If fraudulent accounts are found in one household or computer environment, the other accounts in that household or computer environment will be held liable for any returned funds and the account balances will reflect this.

Due to the fact that this rule did not exist prior to winnings confiscation and that family members have played at SIA in the past, SBR has argued that winnings should be honored. Current SIA players should take note of the book’s newly defined stance on more than one user per residence.

(edit) to clarify, SIA states that one person was operating both accounts.

[Justin7]

One clarification. SIA management pointed out that this player's account was confiscated for violating its "alias account" rule. They claim this account was being used by the player's brother, whom they had thrown out several months earlier.

In no instance did this player ever bet beyond SIA's limits alone or in conjunction with others. He denies it is an "alias account".

[bigloser]

One clarification. SIA management pointed out that this player's account was confiscated for violating its "alias account" rule. They claim this account was being used by the player's brother, whom they had thrown out several months earlier.

In no instance did this player ever bet beyond SIA's limits alone or in conjunction with others. He denies it is an "alias account".

How do they know ?

[pags11]

these guys are getting worse daily...

[imgv94]

Will never mess with them again.. Goodbye SIA

[AribaAriba]

I mean these are some examples that was complaint about but what are the end results? I would like to know if filing sbr complaint helped players, any update? I just hope that when something is complaint on a book the results should also be public such as "the players received his balance and was shown out the door type of thing"




Case #2.

SIA reverses $1700 winnings confiscation. On October 21st, a player wrote SBR stating that his account was closed and winnings confiscated. SIA demonstrated that in one instance, two accounts made the same wager from the same IP address. The second account was opened at the friend's house, and had no other IP addresses associated with it. SIA noted that while the players were in violation of SIA's terms and conditions by operating two accounts from the same IP, they decided to give the player's the benefit of the doubt in the action not being maliciously taken to circumvent house rules.

Case #3

SIA confiscates €639 citing identity fraud. On August 10th, a player wrote SBR indicating account closure and funds confiscation. SIA proved that the passport submitted was forged. The player did not dispute the finding. SBR agreed with SPORTSINTERACTION's decision to confiscate winnings.

Case #4

SIA confiscates $9000 from player, citing multiple accounts and chargebacks. On November 5th, a player wrote SBR stating that his account was closed and winnings confiscated. Both player and sportsbook agreed on the facts: the account was opened on March 3rd 2009, deposited $750 via ***************; and the account's balance was lost in bets. The player's deposits bounced, resulting in a negative sportsbook balance. In November of 2009, the player proceeded to open an additional account with SIA using his middle name as a last name, and using a different street address. The player won several parlays and increased his balance to roughly $10,000. SBR agreed with SIA's decision to confiscate winnings. SIA's terms and conditions disallow a person from opening multiple accounts. In this instance, the player circumvented the negative figure on his account from his first **********, and was a high risk to ********** a second time should his parlays have lost.

Case #5

SIA reverses $5784 winnings confiscation. On October 27th, a player wrote SBR indicating his account was closed with his funds confiscated. SIA originally stated that the player's documents were forged and suspected that the account was being controlled by a previously restricted player. The player produced a barrage of identification documents and cleared his account.

Case #6

SIA confiscates $1167 citing identity fraud. On June 25th, a player wrote SBR stating his account was closed and winnings removed. SIA documented that the person making the deposit was a former player that had outstanding chargebacks with another account. The bank card used to make the deposit was not authorized for use by the account holder. The player submitted a forged bank card image to circumvent this. SBR agreed with SIA's decision to confiscate winnings.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/sbr/sportsinteraction/

[AribaAriba]

whats the update on this?
6/29/2010 01:04 PM
SportsInteraction cancels tennis wager on stale line after match conclusion
SportsInteraction (SBR rating B-) canceled a player's wager on the Wimbledon doubles match Mahut/Clement vs Fleming/Skupski. The winning wager, which he staked €110 on, was voided after the completion of the match. SportsInteraction's position is that there was a clear odds error. At the time of the player's wager, 5 DIMES (SBR rating A+) had odds of 1.64 (or -156) on the match. The player's ticket was for 1.83 (or -120).

However, the odds on the match opened at approximately -120, which is what the player wagered. The day before the doubles match, Nicolas Mahut played a marathon match with John Isner which ended up being decided 70-68 in the 5th set. Oddsmakers felt Nicolas' physical endurance after the record-breaking match would be a questionmark that should effect the price of the doubles match, so the market was updated. SportsInteraction failed to react to this odds change.

This is commonly referred to as a 'stale line'. A stale line is a result of a Linesmaker failing to update the odds of a particular event, as opposed to a 'bad line' which is a clear and obvious clerical error, such as a reversed pointspread or moneyline. In this case, SportsInteraction cited a bad line rule and voided the winning wager after the match ended. SportsInteraction has canceled bets after the events began before, as was done in this December 06 sportsbook dispute. As the odds the player accepted were in-line with the market at one point, SBR has suggested that SportsInteraction pay all wagers on the stale line. SBR will update this report pending SportsInteraction's decision.

[AribaAriba]

did the player get his winnings on this????????

[Justin7]

did the player get his winnings on this????????

SIA honored the tennis bet, and paid the player his winnings on that tennis match.

[Miz]

For the record, SIA accused me of having a shared comp environment because I simply logged into my account from a friends house, that also had an SIA account. My "friend" was accused of doing a deposit, losing, cancelling the deposit w his bank. They held my account responsible. I can understand their side, to a degree, but it sucked.

Moral of the story: don't every use anyone else's IP address to log in to your accounts EVER.

The shared computer environment is the biggest copout for not paying out. Most books have similar rules. They are gray rules and can be applied however they see fit.

[Justin7]

Miz,

Did you file a complaint? I can't guarantee anything, but if you are truly a different person, and you only used his computer once, you probably shouldn't be mugged. Click on the complaint link at the bottom of this message.

[rain_e]

For the record, SIA accused me of having a shared comp environment because I simply logged into my account from a friends house, that also had an SIA account. My "friend" was accused of doing a deposit, losing, cancelling the deposit w his bank. They held my account responsible. I can understand their side, to a degree, but it sucked. Moral of the story: don't every use anyone else's IP address to log in to your accounts EVER. The shared computer environment is the biggest copout for not paying out. Most books have similar rules. They are gray rules and can be applied however they see fit.

Your 'friend' seems like a classy guy.

[Miz]

It was a while ago. And yes, this friend was a real class act.

My complaint resulted in - SIA was within its rights to keep my money. Fortunately it wasn't much money, $250.

I learned to never let anyone use my IP to place bets, and I now never use theirs. I take so far, as to not place bets over the internet when I travel.

F it. Sometimes you have to learn things the hard way. Although I think it was a shitty thing for SIA to do, considering i had an account there for over 4 years, and the other guy had one for like 3 months.

[AribaAriba]

wow that was pretty bs, thank god with for sbr huh. It sucks if you would have won thousands of dollars and you;ll find out that you cant cash out your winnings by telling you that you violate the terms and condition but if you lose the money you cant get it back. Its pretty prevalent that these tactics are used by many books.