This dispute is very complicated, but I thought I'd share what I have learned so far.
13 Players played at Wagerweb since 2002 (or earlier), and received a special promotion from 2002 to the end of 2006. Only 9 were still active at the end of 2006. Each player would get a 5% rebate of his net win or net loss, each week. Not surprisingly, the players mostly played one $5k bet per week. Over a course of 4 years, those players collected $561,157 in rebates. During that same period, these players had a loss of $384,420 from wagering, but finished up $176,737 (561k - 384k) due to the rebates.
At the end of 2006, Wagerweb created a Fraud Investigation Department. The 9 accounts were suspended, at which point the account holders entered an agreement with Wagerweb to resolve the dispute. Without looking at the agreement or what happened afterward, I have been trying to determine one thing: did the 9 players defraud Wagerweb?
There are 2 "subgroups" of the 9 players. 4 played mainly on the internet, and 5 played mainly by telephone. The investigation on the telephone players is ongoing, but I have most of the facts on the internet players.
Wagerweb claims that the players were "abusing a bonus". Per their site, "Bonus programs are intended for recreational bettors only. Professional players or players considered to be abusing the bonus system by any means may have bonuses and money earned from wagering bonuses revoked at the discretion of Wagerweb." (this rule doesn't appear to have been on the site in 2002 when the players signed up).
Wagerweb claims that the players were working as a group. In support of this, they provided
1. IP logs. These showed the all 4 players sharing IPs. In response, the players provided proof that these IPs were proxy servers at AOL. Since the all used high-speed AOL at the office (they work at the same office), they should have the same IP.
2. Wagering pattern. In a 6-week sample, many of the players bet on the same games. In 8 weeks, there were 6 different instances of at least 5 players betting on the same game; in one instance, 8 players bet on one game. By betting both sides of a game with different accounts, the players could arbitrage the book with the rebate.
3. Wagering timing. Although the wagering occurred during different times of the day, the accounts always logged in with 1 hour of each other (and in some instances, within 60 seconds).
4. Password errors. During the 6-month period, there were 6 instances where 2 account holders typed in the password for another account (the two accounts transposed passwords).
Wager web concluded that these accounts were working together.
The players provided additional information. They are mostly stockbrokers, and all work together. The players never hid their affiliation. They frequently transferred money between the Wagerweb accounts to avoid deposit hassles. Some of the players were also under similar affiliated.
The players also question why this was allowed for 4 years before Wagerweb claimed bonus abuse.
My question for the forum: did these 4 players do anything that would warrant having a bonus revoked?
13 Players played at Wagerweb since 2002 (or earlier), and received a special promotion from 2002 to the end of 2006. Only 9 were still active at the end of 2006. Each player would get a 5% rebate of his net win or net loss, each week. Not surprisingly, the players mostly played one $5k bet per week. Over a course of 4 years, those players collected $561,157 in rebates. During that same period, these players had a loss of $384,420 from wagering, but finished up $176,737 (561k - 384k) due to the rebates.
At the end of 2006, Wagerweb created a Fraud Investigation Department. The 9 accounts were suspended, at which point the account holders entered an agreement with Wagerweb to resolve the dispute. Without looking at the agreement or what happened afterward, I have been trying to determine one thing: did the 9 players defraud Wagerweb?
There are 2 "subgroups" of the 9 players. 4 played mainly on the internet, and 5 played mainly by telephone. The investigation on the telephone players is ongoing, but I have most of the facts on the internet players.
Wagerweb claims that the players were "abusing a bonus". Per their site, "Bonus programs are intended for recreational bettors only. Professional players or players considered to be abusing the bonus system by any means may have bonuses and money earned from wagering bonuses revoked at the discretion of Wagerweb." (this rule doesn't appear to have been on the site in 2002 when the players signed up).
Wagerweb claims that the players were working as a group. In support of this, they provided
1. IP logs. These showed the all 4 players sharing IPs. In response, the players provided proof that these IPs were proxy servers at AOL. Since the all used high-speed AOL at the office (they work at the same office), they should have the same IP.
2. Wagering pattern. In a 6-week sample, many of the players bet on the same games. In 8 weeks, there were 6 different instances of at least 5 players betting on the same game; in one instance, 8 players bet on one game. By betting both sides of a game with different accounts, the players could arbitrage the book with the rebate.
3. Wagering timing. Although the wagering occurred during different times of the day, the accounts always logged in with 1 hour of each other (and in some instances, within 60 seconds).
4. Password errors. During the 6-month period, there were 6 instances where 2 account holders typed in the password for another account (the two accounts transposed passwords).
Wager web concluded that these accounts were working together.
The players provided additional information. They are mostly stockbrokers, and all work together. The players never hid their affiliation. They frequently transferred money between the Wagerweb accounts to avoid deposit hassles. Some of the players were also under similar affiliated.
The players also question why this was allowed for 4 years before Wagerweb claimed bonus abuse.
My question for the forum: did these 4 players do anything that would warrant having a bonus revoked?
.gif "Poker(1)")
