Opinion wanted on possible a bonus dispute

[prop]

Here's another dispute I'm pondering:

A winning player has his limits reduced. He opens up another account at the same book to get around the reduced limits (this is undisputed). The book catches him, and confiscates the second account. The book has rules that clearly permit this. The player is making a claim against the book.

If he is up money he should be refunded his deposit on 2nd account. If he is down money he should be cashed out his remaining balance.

All winning on second account should be confiscated as this sportsbook is with in their rights to say they did not want his action or only wanted his action at the reduced limits.

[HedgeHog]

I don't know what country you live in, but we are talking about an activity that is iillegal being done with an organization that is illegal. (At least according to the laws of the United States which is where i live). Good luck getting your case heard if you want to fight the T&Cs because they are "unreasonable".

If you want to play with them you have to agree to their rules, if you don't like their rules, then don't play with them. Simple as that.

Santo is from England if you bothered to look, but this matter has nothing to do with country of origin. It has to do with how to resolve a matter fairly between Book and client.

No wonder why everyone hates Americans; we assume the universe revolves around "US".

[atakdog]

Sportsbooks' terms and conditions are contracts of adhesion, meaning essentially "take it or leave it." Also, they tend to be at least moderately complicated and difficult to understand. By conventional US/UK legal principals, this means that all disputes about interpretation of those terms should be resolved in favor of the player.

(There's also a school of thought, not a majority view but significant, that even when the terms are clear, if they are clearly different from what the player reasonably should have expected [and also that the player did in fact expect reasonable terms, which can be trickier to prove], then the player can win even if the terms actually favor the book. In other words, if books are going to screw a player with unfair terms, they need to make very certain that the player knows he's being screwed.)

By this logic (without even using the more liberal minority principal, just the generally agreed one that the one who wrote the contract doesn't get ambiguity resolved in his favor, and certainly doesn't get to win when the terms are clearly against him), in Justin's second case the player absolutely gets his money back. All them money, not just the deposit. They don't get to keep his money if he doesn't break any of their rules.

[atakdog]

I don't know what country you live in, but we are talking about an activity that is iillegal being done with an organization that is illegal. (At least according to the laws of the United States which is where i live). Good luck getting your case heard if you want to fight the T&Cs because they are "unreasonable".

If you want to play with them you have to agree to their rules, if you don't like their rules, then don't play with them. Simple as that.

In fact, (even assuming we were talking about a US player) I think there's a reasonable argument that online gambling is subject only to federal law (because the federal statutes preempt state laws), at that federal law prohibits numerous activities related to online gambling, but does not prohibit players from using books' services. I know there have been courts that have said otherwise, but it hasn't been (as far as I know) resolved by the Supreme Court, and there is a colorable argument that the activity is legal. What is clearly prohibited are banking transactions in furtherance of Internet gambling, but we're not talking about those here.

[marke4]

Sportsbooks need a rating guide for their players

SPR (Sportsbook Player Review) Initiates jackass663 with a D rating after he recently opened 30 accounts at the same sportsbook to take advantage of their sign up bonus offers. Jackass663 is a friend of dumbshmuck (SPR rating F) who is a cash out only player with a long history chargebacks.

Note: Please don't confuse him with jackazz663 (SPR Rating A-) who is a stand up player that bets the Yankees 162 games per year and only cashes out on rare occasions when winning streaks add up.

Prop that is one of the funniest posts i have read in a while, I'm almost in tears. It was so well written it is almost believeable. lol thanks, this kind of stuff makes my day.