Input on a dispute

[Bullajami]

It depends entirely on whether the behaviour is specifically forbidden by the book's rules. Otherwise I see no reason why other members of his family cannot authorize him to operate accounts on their behalf.

Ditto. If he is not breaking a specific book rule, then he should be paid.

If he is in violation of a book rule, then he let the book take a shot at him. A sharp bettor knew that risk existed before he broke the rules.

[Justin7]

The book only allows one account per person. I'd consider opening accounts in other peoples' names and controlling them a violation of the "one account per person" rule, even if the other people actually existed.

[JoshW]

I agree with JC. Players just can't keep taking shots like this. It makes the book suspicous of all players and is a clear violation of the rules.

I think books should start putting a rule that all player funds will be kept if a clear violation of multiple accounts per person is violated. Has to be more risk to these players to keep them from doing these multiple accounts.

[tomcowley]

I think books should start putting a rule that all player funds will be kept if a clear violation of multiple accounts per person is violated. Has to be more risk to these players to keep them from doing these multiple accounts.

That's pretty ridiculous. The player certainly deserves winnings from his first account. The player is already freerolling himself since his multi-account bets can only lose. There should be no justification, ever, for a legitimately placed and settled bet (not past posted, deposit not charged back, etc) to be retroactively confiscated. Ever. There should also be no justification for confiscating a deposit, ever (minus fees). It doesn't matter how many times the player has been banned and warned, the book still doesn't have the right to confiscate a deposit on a winning account. Ever.

[Nicky Santoro]

this is funny as hell. i bet all the ones here coming in saying the book should keep the money are working for the books. I guess it's ok then to take a free shot at the player and if he keeps losing, why mention it.. you definitely aren't going to tell him he bet with 3 accts and won 8k last night, so sir, we are returning your 8k.. sure..

but if the bettor loses 6 straight games with 3 accts, i bet all you bookmakers will keep your mouth shut.. This ain't right.. it's a win win situation for the book and gives them the right for a free shot..

You booked it, you pay it.. case closed.. then you toss him. because if he lost, you take the money, 100000%... and if he wins, you can't cry foul and say, hey you cheated, so we are not paying you.. booohooohoooo

[pico]

[Halifax]

Justin:

1. Any bonuses involved, or is it strictly a case of bearding ?

2. Did any of the 4 accounts use the same physical address and/or IP address ?

[Justin7]

Justin:

1. Any bonuses involved, or is it strictly a case of bearding ?

2. Did any of the 4 accounts use the same physical address and/or IP address ?

The bonus wasn't the issue. All accounts were from the same address and IP.

[Dark Horse]

Fair or foul: Can a player use a family member's identity to circumvent reduced limits?

The key is 'to circumvent reduced limits'. Just pointing this out so we don't confuse it with the very different matter of multiple accounts for bonus purposes.

If the purpose is merely to circumvent reduced limits, I don't see why a player couldn't use a family member's identity. He's not cheating. He's still risking his money. And it is the book that took the, in many eyes, questionable action of severely lowering his limits.

Would you think betting at Pinnacle through a European contact is wrong? If not, then this isn't wrong either. It is, however, asking for trouble, because the book has already shown its true nature.

[Nicky Santoro]

it's not like a player is stealing money by the way of a bad line, OR past posting..

when he bets 8k instead of 2k, he is actually still risking 8k.. and he can lose. this is by no means stealing.. pay the man his money and toss him. This book took a free shot at him and had a licence to steal his money.


i think you owe us to tell us who this book is Justin. it's only fair for the gamblers. we want to avoid this place like the plague. This is a book that no one should be betting at.. It's a complete joke and should be off limits for all gamblers here.

It wouldn't surprise me if it's SBG GLOBAL.. they are always trying ways with excuses not to pay a customer.. just like they did to me.

[bigloser]

The book only allows one account per person. I'd consider opening accounts in other peoples' names and controlling them a violation of the "one account per person" rule, even if the other people actually existed.

It appears the book does not have a rule reagrding IPs, addresess etc.

The player did not break the rules so has to be paid.

I dont agree with Justins comments above

[Canuck4ever]

If a person bets a team at -150, another at -160, one at -170, and one at -180 is this not 4 bets? just a ?

[Nicky Santoro]

If a person bets a team at -150, another at -160, one at -170, and one at -180 is this not 4 bets? just a ?

that's all they had to do was after the 1st bet at -150, move it to -155, and i assure this bettor would NOT have placed the other 3 bets.. but guess what the book probably did? they kept it at -150 for all the bets and were careless and probably wanted to see this guy take a shot because they knew what he was up to and decided, hey, lets take a free shot at him.. if he loses this bet, we shut up.. if he wins, we block his acct and tell him he's cheating and not pay him..

i've seen this type of shit alot in my offshore years. books will do anything to take your money..

[Canuck4ever]

i agree with you sir, to me if i bet you at a certain number and we agree then that should be honoured. if we change the number it is a differnt bet.

[Canuck4ever]

i agree with you sir, also this book should pay on the first bet as the bet was made under their parameters.

[Dark Horse]

What was so important about this book that the person couldn't switch to another book?

[Halifax]

that's all they had to do was after the 1st bet at -150, move it to -155, and i assure this bettor would NOT have placed the other 3 bets.. but guess what the book probably did? they kept it at -150 for all the bets and were careless and probably wanted to see this guy take a shot because they knew what he was up to and decided, hey, lets take a free shot at him.. if he loses this bet, we shut up.. if he wins, we block his acct and tell him he's cheating and not pay him..

I think you're getting the wrong impression of what happened.

I don't think the guy had 3 or 4 accounts open at the same time, betting the same game 3 or 4 times in the various accounts. It sounds like he was only betting out of one account at any particular point in time.

I think the guy opened Account A, bet for awhile, had his limits cut to next to nothing on Account A .... then, because of the low limits in Account A, he opened Account B and started betting out of Account B, until limits on Account B were lowered ... then he moved on to Account C, etc.

[Canuck4ever]

What was so important about this book that the person couldn't switch to another book?

maybe? because this book has his/her winnings and money

[tomcowley]

Without a rule, the book has to pay in full. If they wanted to enforce this non-rule, they should enforce it on signup/deposit, not on cashout. If they don't want more than one account per household, they should have written a rule to that effect.

[Bet Shooter]

Nicky, I think the book never even looks at what the player did before the game starts. I think it only gets a red flag after a large sum is won. I don't think they would know going in that they are ripping this guy off. As an example similar to yours, the guy goes south for 5K a day for 10 days and then kills them with a 40K day. That's the day that makes them start looking. Then after that they robbing him, but I don't think they know going in. BUT:

I am from the old school....you book the bet....it tips off....UFO ( U ****in own it!)
These guys set up the system the way it is and then ask us to police it for them? Pay out all the cash and come up with a better system to match IP addresses before you take the wager. Or Suck it up and pay. Or get out of the business.

My 2 cents

[Nicky Santoro]

betty,

you'd be surprised.. books know where their action is and what they have on each game.. especially the small shops.. Maybe this book is a small shop and saw this big volume coming in and saw a free shot and they took it and now they don't want to pay it because the guy won.. but i assure you had he never won a game, they'd still be booking his action and we wouldn't be here today talking about this.

[Bet Shooter]

betty,

you'd be surprised.. books know where their action is and what they have on each game.. especially the small shops.. Maybe this book is a small shop and saw this big volume coming in and saw a free shot and they took it and now they don't want to pay it because the guy won.. but i assure you had he never won a game, they'd still be booking his action and we wouldn't be here today talking about this.

True, but that would have to be a really small shop. Another reason to stay away from anything not A rated.

[Thremp]

There is no question player should be paid. If he does not violate the rules, everything is fine. If he violated the rules, he should have all winnings confiscated and his original deposits shipped back to him.

This is very simple.

[betbetter]

True, but that would have to be a really small shop. Another reason to stay away from anything not A rated.

There are "D" books here that are 5x the size of some "A" books.

[betbetter]

Step outside this industry for a minute.

Attempt to commit fraud at any other place of business.

There is risk involved there too. Is fraudulent activity and the gains made from it kept? Even though there was risk involved?
Even if the fraudster does'nt gain he is still charged and arrested.

Some players (and books as well) should be thankful this industry is not regulated.

The actions here in a regulated environment would be heavily punitive to the player so far as to say criminal depending on the parameters.

Opening numerous accts to circumvent a books established (or personal) limits is fraud.

[Frank]

Step outside this industry for a minute.

Attempt to commit fraud at any other place of business.

There is risk involved there too. Is fraudulent activity and the gains made from it kept? Even though there was risk involved?
Even if the fraudster does'nt gain he is still charged and arrested.

Some players (and books as well) should be thankful this industry is not regulated.

The actions here in a regulated environment would be heavily punitive to the player so far as to say criminal depending on the parameters.





Opening numerous accts to circumvent a books established (or personal) limits is fraud.

Yea step outside this business and lets say Best Buy has laptops on sale for $200.

Limit 1 per customer.

You go and buy one and your wife goes and buys one.

When you register the laptops and they are registered from the same address.

Does Best Buy come and confiscate your ****ing computer???

[Frank]

If you are banned from a restaurant, for whatever reason, that has the best wings in town, and you send your daughter to grab some takeout, do they grab her in the parking lot and confiscate her chicken?

All this does is remind me of Sienfeld and the soup nazi.

No soup for you!!!!!!

[betbetter]

If you are banned from a restaurant, for whatever reason, that has the best wings in town, and you send your daughter to grab some takeout, do they grab her in the parking lot and confiscate her chicken?

All this does is remind me of Sienfeld and the soup nazi.

No soup for you!!!!!!

Elaine: It shrinks?
Jerry: Like a frightened turtle.
Elaine: Why does it shrink?
George: It just does.
Elaine: I don't know how you guys walk around with those things.

[Justin7]

If a player misrepresents himself and benefits from it, that is fraud. In this case, the player incorporated the identity of a family member, and represented that he was that family member while making bets. The purpose of that fraud was to circumvent the book's risk management decision of lowering his limits.

When books deal smaller markets, players can destroy them. A book is allowed to accept or refuse whatever action it wants. But when it specifically limits a player, and that player fraudulently circumvents the limits, that is a foul.

There are other issues I am looking at. How does a book handle wagers it would not have taken, but for a fraud? Absent something more specific in its T&C, canceling all bets (both winning and losing) that the book would have refused absent the fraud from the second account is reasonable (although it still owes on the first account, which was never in dispute).

[betbetter]

Yea step outside this business and lets say Best Buy has laptops on sale for $200.

Limit 1 per customer.

You go and buy one and your wife goes and buys one.

When you register the laptops and they are registered from the same address.

Does Best Buy come and confiscate your ****ing computer???

from best buys' site TandC's;

"We reserve the right to limit quantities available for sale or sold, and the right at any time to reject, correct cancel or terminate any order for any reason whatsoever.

We rely on the information you provide through the Web Site, including registration information (name and email address), payment information (credit card numbers and expiration dates), and transaction-related information, which must be true, accurate, current and complete."

so, ya, legally they can come and confiscate your ****ing computer.

[Thremp]

If a player misrepresents himself and benefits from it, that is fraud. In this case, the player incorporated the identity of a family member, and represented that he was that family member while making bets. The purpose of that fraud was to circumvent the book's risk management decision of lowering his limits.

TIA

[betbetter]

There are other issues I am looking at. How does a book handle wagers it would not have taken, but for a fraud? Absent something more specific in its T&C, canceling all bets (both winning and losing) that the book would have refused absent the fraud from the second account is reasonable (although it still owes on the first account, which was never in dispute).

If you go to an ATM and WD 200$ and the machine spews 2000$, what happens if you keep it?

[bigloser]

If a player misrepresents himself and benefits from it, that is fraud. In this case, the player incorporated the identity of a family member, and represented that he was that family member while making bets..

Do you know this is what happened or are you just guessing?

If the player has admitted it was him then Ok maybe there is a an argument.
If he hasnt then he has to be paid.

That is why more professional/organised books have rules against using the same IP and address etc, it takes out the guesswork.

[betbetter]

Do you know this is what happened or are you just guessing?

If the player has admitted it was him then Ok maybe there is a an argument.
If he hasnt then he has to be paid.

That is why more professional/organised books have rules against using the same IP and address etc, it takes out the guesswork.

i

give

up.

[purecarnagge]

Whats your argument against, they booked the bet, they took his money, if he lost would they give it back due to fraud?

Book the bet, pay the bet. You don't like who your dealing with make them call it in then. Remove the internet from the equation. You can get lines on the internet price out your wagers/bets but not actually book them until you call. Thats how you could limit a sharp from circumventing these rules to some degree.

With the internet there bookings all these bets then looking to not pay someone. If this person lost money would they refund the deposits? There is your answer right there Justin.