Luke M vs. WagerWeb opinion

[increasedodds]

IncreasedOdds wrote "US contract law would never allow a company to take back money without monitoring IPs." Want to bet? I'll bet you 50k. We can agree to a hypothetical to test this in the courts. I'll win in ANY jurisdiction if there is clear fraud. You're kidding yourself pretending you know the law.



Taco_---

I did not ignore the above. There is no possible way to respond to it. There is no similar case that could be drawn up and presented in US court. Everything in the US that gives extra money - banks, brokerages, etc require social security numbers and thus don't have the sportsbook problem. Additionally I have said several times LUke may or may not be fraudulent. If WW knew, he was not.....


My final opinion on this is I don't know who is right. If WW knew they were friends, luke is right. If not, WW is right... I am not privy to the answer to that.

Sean

[luke m.]

This was a special email promotion that was only sent out to 3,000 people. Friend, account#1, recieved this email. Charlie had a list of the 3000 people. So, how could I recieve this promotion without having it being sent directly to me? Charlies name is on this email. Charlie opened my account #2 verbally. When I asked about the promotion that he emailed to friend #1, he asked for me to forward it to him because I was not on his list. He then asked me how much I was planning to sign up for and I asked him what was the limit? He then told me that there was no limit, and thats when I told him $5000. So I did, and he honored it. Bottom line to all of this is friend #1 had $2900 net winnings, and then I had $6,793 net winnings, and then another friend asked for the same promotion. Well friend #1 already recieved the check and deposited it into their bank account which already had cleared. Charlie cancelled all pending fed ex withdrawals from my account which had already been debited, and considered my account fraud. My account was put into suspended status at this point.

[increasedodds]

SBR, has Charlie stated he did not know these two were friends?

This seems to be the fundamental question.

-Sean

[Justin7]

Go back and read the initial opinion. The player originally denied he even KNEW the other 2 account holder (the successful one, and the 3rd account he tried to open). He had a chance to rebut this during the investigation, and did not.

[luke m.]

Thats false Justin! The only thing I said that I lied about was where we worked. Apparently we used four different IP's, so the one IP per account does not pertain to this because we used four. We both had different home addresses, so one address per player does not come into play either. Final, he honored this bonus for me. This was not an advertised bonus, so how would I have found out about it? He opened my account and honored it because the email was forwarded to me by friend #1.

[andywend]

Luke:

You were absolutely robbed by WagerWeb, plain and simple.

There is no justification whatsoever for them to confiscate your entire balance.

If you would have lost your entire balance and tried to deposit more money, they would have accepted it gladly.

WagerWeb belongs on SBR's black list and they will no doubt lose a great deal of business because of what they did to you.

I still don't get the "fair" and reasonable" part from Justin. I guess Wagerweb could have tried to clean out your savings account as well. I wonder if that would have been unreasonable, LOL.

[20Four7]

My thoughts on this

I think these kinds of disputes help no one. The don't help WW in the PR department and certainly the player(s) looks like he was taking a shot at the book.

What I don't understand is the whole IP issue. Moneybookers logs my IP in real time and some forum software out there logs your IP when you post in real time. Doesn't seem to be a complicated issue to me.

It really is too bad there isn't some independent resource that could be relied on by everyone to settle disputes. I'm not saying you guys don't do a great job but certainly your resolution in this case isn't making everyone feel safe at this book.

Being a Bonus Whore shouldn't automatically set you up for something later on. Obviously abusing the bonus system and yes having a "friend" open an account for you to bet on is abusing the bonus system. The books should do more work prior to issuing a bonus to ensure that this system isn't being abused. I'm sure most people could wait 24-48 hours till the bonus is credited.

[Dark Horse]

The irony.

The book confiscated all funds because the player defrauded the book for a second bonus, and, equally as important, because -technically- his account reached zero at one point in time if the bonus hadn't been added.

Ironically, the fact that his account would have reached zero would have qualified him for a reload bonus at quite a few books.

The only difference would be that the reload here took place before the account reached zero.

[mvan136]

Thats false Justin! The only thing I said that I lied about was where we worked. Apparently we used four different IP's, so the one IP per account does not pertain to this because we used four. We both had different home addresses, so one address per player does not come into play either. Final, he honored this bonus for me. This was not an advertised bonus, so how would I have found out about it? He opened my account and honored it because the email was forwarded to me by friend #1.

Luke so the only thing you have admitted to was lying about was your place of employment. Do you have intention of admitting to any of the other lies you have told.?

Could you do us all a favor and stop referring to the other accounts as my friend. You open one account then YOU opened another then YOU were going to open another account and WW got tired of this stunt.

I dont' agree WW should keep the money. They should give it away to charity. And you should stop doing this shit.

SBR could you check the IP's of Andywend and Luke?

[increasedodds]

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous this gets.

There are two players here with two real IDs. Stealing $12,000 over an IP address is crazy.

I will not return to wager web until this is resolved differently. Makes no difference as I have no money anywhere now...If you are going to eliminate the wagers made with the bonus, you should deduct the bonus before any wagers are made and then scale them all back by 20% or whatever the bonus was... The book does not have a right to make it work best for them.

In any case, I plan to email Charlie tonight. I know at least 10 players who keep significant balances at Wagerweb.

This is not right.

Sean

[JoshW]

When you start lying to SBR and the books, my radar goes off. I know this is the real world and people lie, but it is tough to give a player any benefit of the doubt on issues when they are lying.

[mvan136]

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous this gets.

There are two players here with two real IDs. Stealing $12,000 over an IP address is crazy.

I will not return to wager web until this is resolved differently. Makes no difference as I have no money anywhere now...If you are going to eliminate the wagers made with the bonus, you should deduct the bonus before any wagers are made and then scale them all back by 20% or whatever the bonus was... The book does not have a right to make it work best for them.

In any case, I plan to email Charlie tonight. I know at least 10 players who keep significant balances at Wagerweb.

This is not right.

Sean

Sean
I see you post at many different forums and unlike many I agree with you most of the tiime.

Please let me tell you this is not 2 different players. It is the same person.

Perfect solution is not to give bonuses but you might as well tell WW to close their doors.

The reason you don't see others with these disputes is because they just pay not to have a bunch of negative press.

Kudos to WW for taking a stand.

But again they shouldn't gain for this person being a fraud.

Give it to Charity and be done with it and don't make it seem like you benefit from this.

[Justin7]

Wagerweb has provided a telephone recording. They didn't need to, since everything Luke M brought up recently was not raised when he had a chance to present his case. That said, the voice recording confirms that
1. Luke M claimed he didn't know the other account holders (he is now claiming that the other account holders using his IP were his friends)
2. Luke M claims he got the promotional email from Wagerweb (on the forum, he says a friend gave it to him)
3. Luke M claims he does not own a computer, and placed all wagers at work. On the forums, he claimed that he also bet from his personal laptop.

I have heard the recording myself. I would like to post a link to the recording to let the players decide for themselves what was said... but I need to make sure things are legally in order before posting a link to this (and that our IT staff can handle it). If all goes well, the recording will be up in the next few days.

[Dark Horse]

When you start lying to SBR and the books, my radar goes off. I know this is the real world and people lie, but it is tough to give a player any benefit of the doubt on issues when they are lying.

True enough. On the other hand, doesn't this go back a number of years? Many people don't remember exact details that go back that far. On top of that, most people would be tempted to paint a picture favorable to them if they were suddenly presented with a book confiscating a five figure amount; a move that the player himself would perceive as dishonest.


This whole situation is exactly why, earlier in this or another WW thread, I advocated a practice that would allow a player one mistake, honest or not. Only with a second transgression would it be clear that the player was trying to scam the book. Until then it is wrong to hold him accountable for 100% of his deposit if the book was only at risk for 10% or 20% of that deposit. The offshore betting industry isn't exactly known for its moral fiber, and this holier-than-thou attitude by Wagerweb will do little to clean up that shady image.

[tacomax]

That said, the voice recording confirms that
1. Luke M claimed he didn't know the other account holders (he is now claiming that the other account holders using his IP were his friends)
2. Luke M claims he got the promotional email from Wagerweb (on the forum, he says a friend gave it to him)
3. Luke M claims he does not own a computer, and placed all wagers at work. On the forums, he claimed that he also bet from his personal laptop.

A bettor playing the forums in an inaccurate story shock! Who'd have believed it!

If all goes well, the recording will be up in the next few days.

Leave it. I've been around enough to know that if a player can't get resolution from such a player-friendly site as SBR then they've got no case at all. And you've got nothing to answer for.

[andywend]

mvan:

Just so you know, I have no connection whatsoever to this guy Luke. I decided to register to this forum and comment about what happened to him NOT because Wagerweb refused to process his withdrawal (as that seems to be happening more and more often these days) but because SBR thinks its fair and reasonable for them to do so.

Even if the guy did commit bonus abuse, I can't see how WagerWeb is justified stealing his original deposit in addition to all the profits he made.

There is no way a U.S. company would get away with that and its situations like this that might have played a part in the UIGEA being passed last year.

A couple of years ago, I deposited $1,000 with a sportsbook and accepted a $200 bonus and was able to turn the $1,200 into a little over $4,000 in about 2 months. I requested a $2,000 withdrawal and got an email back saying that because I requested a withdrawal before meeting the 10X rollover requirement, that they were going to process my withdrawal for my original $1,000 deposit and close my account.

I then called the customer service department and they told me I only wagered $10,800 and I needed to wager an additional $1,200 before requesting any withdrawals. I then said to please cancel my withdrawal request and they told me it was too late and I would only be getting my $1,000 deposit back. I was able to speak with a supervisor and he said he will cancel my withdrawal request on an exception basis.

I then wagered the additional $1,200 needed and requested a full withdrawal and closed my account with them shortly thereafter.

The point I am trying to make here is a sportsbook should never be defended for confiscating a players entire balance in any circumstance.

It probably wasnt too difficult for them to find out Luke was trying to abuse their bonus program and I find it really suspect that they did their investigation only after he requested a withdrawal.

After reading about what happened to him, Wagerweb is certainly NOT a book I would ever want to deal with.

By the way, at the very least, Wagerweb should take your suggestion and donate the $12,000 in question to some sort of charity as they shouldn't benefit from this.

[acw]

Go back and read the initial opinion. The player originally denied he even KNEW the other 2 account holder (the successful one, and the 3rd account he tried to open). He had a chance to rebut this during the investigation, and did not.

You should join the www.scaredmonkeys.com community on the Natalee Holloway case. Some of the accused had lied early on in the investigation, since then there has been no proof whatsoever against them, so most people are now kind of quiet, but these guys continue to be sure that they (the accused) are in the wrong, because they initially lied. It goes without saying that nobody managed to prosecute them for that and here on the SBR it is game, set and match! You could do a real good job overthere!

[isetcap]

These "guys" are scammers and they are trying to figure out which story is going to work best for them. If "their" action was genuine then there would be absolutely no value in lying. They've been unquestionably exposed and WagerWeb has gone too far in its decision to use the facts as they see fit.

[MrX]

Many of you seem to be forgetting that without the bonus, the player's account would have reached zero balance. Justin confirmed this, so if the bonus was obtained fraudulently, there is nothing wrong with WW keeping the whole balance.

[Justin7]

I talked to SBR's legal department. Due to privacy issues, we cannot post a link to the voice recording unless Luke M consents. If he's willing to have the link put up, I'm sure he'll post it.

[Bill Dozer]

Good job Justin. The player violated rules and got a crash course in how books detect multiple accounts and bonus theft. If he can't be truthful to those he is asking for help, there isn't anything else we can do for him.
I agree it has to be up to the player if he wants to share the call. Players can be confident we wouldn't share it without their request. Maybe we can do transcripts in the future.

[isetcap]

Many of you seem to be forgetting that without the bonus, the player's account would have reached zero balance. Justin confirmed this, so if the bonus was obtained fraudulently, there is nothing wrong with WW keeping the whole balance.

There is nothing wrong with them keeping the whole balance. It is certainly within their right based on the contract that was entered into by the player and book. The problem is that there is nothing right with the decision to steal the player's deposit and WagerWeb has essentially lowered its reputation by making such a bold move.

[Dark Horse]

I have a question about the account reaching zero, which seems to be at the heart of the SBR decision in favor of Wagerweb.

By exactly how much did the account go below zero? For instance, if the wager was for $2000, and that brought the account to exactly zero (if the bonus hadn't been added), shouldn't that wager have been good for $1999?!

If you're going to subtract the bonus in retrospect, fine, but shouldn't the player at least get the advantage of having the 'decisive' wager (that brought his balance to zero) be graded as if he had known that his bonus had been revoked?

[Dark Horse]

Wagerweb could be playing a very dumb PR game, especially if the other conflict, for much more money, clearly shows them in the right.

Because of the self-serving way they decided in this smaller dispute, they may be alienating a large number of bettors. I'm definitely among those.

[mvan136]

mvan:

Just so you know, I have no connection whatsoever to this guy Luke. I decided to register to this forum and comment about what happened to him NOT because Wagerweb refused to process his withdrawal (as that seems to be happening more and more often these days) but because SBR thinks its fair and reasonable for them to do so.

Even if the guy did commit bonus abuse, I can't see how WagerWeb is justified stealing his original deposit in addition to all the profits he made.

There is no way a U.S. company would get away with that and its situations like this that might have played a part in the UIGEA being passed last year.

A couple of years ago, I deposited $1,000 with a sportsbook and accepted a $200 bonus and was able to turn the $1,200 into a little over $4,000 in about 2 months. I requested a $2,000 withdrawal and got an email back saying that because I requested a withdrawal before meeting the 10X rollover requirement, that they were going to process my withdrawal for my original $1,000 deposit and close my account.

I then called the customer service department and they told me I only wagered $10,800 and I needed to wager an additional $1,200 before requesting any withdrawals. I then said to please cancel my withdrawal request and they told me it was too late and I would only be getting my $1,000 deposit back. I was able to speak with a supervisor and he said he will cancel my withdrawal request on an exception basis.

I then wagered the additional $1,200 needed and requested a full withdrawal and closed my account with them shortly thereafter.

The point I am trying to make here is a sportsbook should never be defended for confiscating a players entire balance in any circumstance.

It probably wasnt too difficult for them to find out Luke was trying to abuse their bonus program and I find it really suspect that they did their investigation only after he requested a withdrawal.

After reading about what happened to him, Wagerweb is certainly NOT a book I would ever want to deal with.

By the way, at the very least, Wagerweb should take your suggestion and donate the $12,000 in question to some sort of charity as they shouldn't benefit from this.

Very good post Andywend. I am sorry I put it that way. It was a knock to Luke not you. I only registered over this post also.


Only a coulple of things I disagree with. First you say even if he did commit did commit bonus abuse they shouldn't take his balance.

My suggestion is to give the money away to charity. If you just give the money back to Luke or what ever his real name is he is going to continue this shit.


Oh yea Luke/ whoever/ whatever why no respoonse to me??????

[andywend]

I am certain that Luke isn't the first player to try and commit bonus abuse with a sportsbook.

In other cases of bonus abuse that I have read in other blogs, the sportsbook gave the player back his original deposit and closed their account permanently. However, in most of those cases, it was found that the bonus abuser attempted to play both sides of the same game and things of that nature so as to take as little risk as possible to their original deposit.

It appears to me that Luke doesn't fit the "bonus abuser" profile as he went from $6,000 down to "all in" and up to $12,000 pretty quickly.

In this particular case, even returning Luke's original $5,000 deposit wouldn't have passed the "smell test" but at least Wagerweb would be able to defend their actions. However, confiscating his original $5,000 deposit in addition to the $7,000 in profits makes WagerWeb no different than the "black list" sportsbooks that gladly accept deposits but won't process withdrawals.

If a sportsbook is going to offer a bonus, then they should be taking the necessary steps to ensure that this bonus is not being abused by customers. Taking these steps only at the time of player withdrawals is worse than the players trying to take advantage of their bonus programs to begin with.

[pjesnik24]

so, his account reached zero, ok. Does it mean when a player was really screwed by some book that they should pay him all the money he would (probably) win from that bonus? Meaning that if the bonus was 20 % he should get the bonus and also 20 % more winnings?
How can they know that he would not redeposit or something (someone already mentioned that)?

There should be a fixed rule about this between books. Return the guy his original deposit (without fees) but the rule should not be "if anybody (maybe) tried to screw you, take all of his money and kill his family"

[TheMoneyShot]

This is a very interesting situation but nonetheless... there seems to be some trickery that came into play by the account holder. Right when it says "4 separate IP addresses shared by the player and his prior account." That's all the information I need to give a verdict out... and no question that the player represented fraud... to claim extra "bonuses." He's lucky that this book is even listening to him. As far as I'm concerned the player deserves to lose everything rightfully so. I show no compassion whatsoever because the player intentionally tried to defraud the book. Period.

[luke m.]

Account #1, the receptionist, is a woman, and account #3 is her boyfriend, so it would be pretty hard for me to open a bank account for a woman in which the $4,900 check cleared her account!

[luke m.]

Account #3, which was never funded, told his girlfriend who to bet on when she called in bets, and he placed them for her on the internet bets!