Luke M wrote to SBR, complaining that WagerWeb confiscated his balance:
The player and Wagerweb agree to most of the facts. The player deposited $5000, and collected a $1000 cash bonus, in addition to a $1500 free play bonus (which lost). The player placed a series of bets over a week, meeting his rollover and running his balance up to $11,793. The player asked for a withdrawal, and the book refused, claiming the player abused bonuses, and would have lost his entire deposit but for the bonus.
The first issue is: did the player "abuse" a bonus policy? Wagerweb provided convincing evidence that the player had already controlled an account that deposited $2000, and cashed out $4900. The evidence consisted of 4 separate IPs shared by the player and his prior account. Additionally, the player's story was inconsistent - he at first claimed he didn't know the other account holder, and later said it was a friend. Wagerweb caught the player when he attempted to open a 3rd account from a similar IP. In many instances, the player's 2 accounts logged on to the same IP within minutes of each other. The IP information was persuasive, and convinced me that these accounts were controlled by one person.
At the time the player signed up for the accounts, WagerWeb had rules in place for new accounts. Among them were "1 account per household" and "1 account per IP address". SBR concluded that the player attempted to defraud WagerWeb.
Note that this conclusion is different than the matter of "Players versus SportsInteraction.com". In that dispute, the players provided a credible explanation for sharing an IP address, and SIA did not have a rule against multiple accounts per IP.
Having concluded that this was a case of fraud, the next issue is: what can the book fairly do about it? In a clear case of fraud, we will give a book a wide latitude for resolving the problem. Wagerweb chose to cancel all bonuses, and methodically go through all wagers, canceling wagers (or parts of wagers) that he could not make if he did not collect the bonus.
In the player's case, he had bad luck. In his first day of betting, his last wager of the day was $2200 to win $2000, which won. However, his entire balance was already tied up. Without the bonus, he would only be able to risk $1200 to win $1090. The player's bad luck didn't end there - on the following day, he had a hot streak of second half basketball bets, again risking money that he didn't have. I spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing wagers and pestering WagerWeb for additional information, but I was able to conclude that without the initial bonus, the player's balance would have hit $0, and no other wagers would be permitted.
When a player attempts to defraud a sportsbook, the book can use ANY REASONABLE METHOD to adjust the balance. This could include canceling all wagers and refunding the deposits, or retroactively canceling the bonus and regrading all wagers based on the available balance, as was done here.
In summary, the player lost his entire balance without the bonus. WagerWeb fairly adjusted his balance based on canceled bonuses for player fraud.
The player and Wagerweb agree to most of the facts. The player deposited $5000, and collected a $1000 cash bonus, in addition to a $1500 free play bonus (which lost). The player placed a series of bets over a week, meeting his rollover and running his balance up to $11,793. The player asked for a withdrawal, and the book refused, claiming the player abused bonuses, and would have lost his entire deposit but for the bonus.
The first issue is: did the player "abuse" a bonus policy? Wagerweb provided convincing evidence that the player had already controlled an account that deposited $2000, and cashed out $4900. The evidence consisted of 4 separate IPs shared by the player and his prior account. Additionally, the player's story was inconsistent - he at first claimed he didn't know the other account holder, and later said it was a friend. Wagerweb caught the player when he attempted to open a 3rd account from a similar IP. In many instances, the player's 2 accounts logged on to the same IP within minutes of each other. The IP information was persuasive, and convinced me that these accounts were controlled by one person.
At the time the player signed up for the accounts, WagerWeb had rules in place for new accounts. Among them were "1 account per household" and "1 account per IP address". SBR concluded that the player attempted to defraud WagerWeb.
Note that this conclusion is different than the matter of "Players versus SportsInteraction.com". In that dispute, the players provided a credible explanation for sharing an IP address, and SIA did not have a rule against multiple accounts per IP.
Having concluded that this was a case of fraud, the next issue is: what can the book fairly do about it? In a clear case of fraud, we will give a book a wide latitude for resolving the problem. Wagerweb chose to cancel all bonuses, and methodically go through all wagers, canceling wagers (or parts of wagers) that he could not make if he did not collect the bonus.
In the player's case, he had bad luck. In his first day of betting, his last wager of the day was $2200 to win $2000, which won. However, his entire balance was already tied up. Without the bonus, he would only be able to risk $1200 to win $1090. The player's bad luck didn't end there - on the following day, he had a hot streak of second half basketball bets, again risking money that he didn't have. I spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing wagers and pestering WagerWeb for additional information, but I was able to conclude that without the initial bonus, the player's balance would have hit $0, and no other wagers would be permitted.
When a player attempts to defraud a sportsbook, the book can use ANY REASONABLE METHOD to adjust the balance. This could include canceling all wagers and refunding the deposits, or retroactively canceling the bonus and regrading all wagers based on the available balance, as was done here.
In summary, the player lost his entire balance without the bonus. WagerWeb fairly adjusted his balance based on canceled bonuses for player fraud.
