Is this normal operating procedure, or should I press the issue? (sportbet.com)

[wageringblog]

I recently opened an account at sportbet, but have not placed any wagers, no activity at all. I have decided to instead use a different book with baseball season looming, so I requested a full withdrawal, obviously agreeing to relinquish the bonus. So, essentially, it's just a full refund of my deposit that I seek.

This is the response I got from them:

"Actually, before we can process your payout, you need to have at least a $50 wager in your account. This is simply for security reasons and to avoid money laundrying in our accounts. As soon as you make that single wager or play in the casino, we will be more than happy to process your payout as soon as possible."

Is this normal, or am I getting the run around here?

Thanks in advance.

[bigboydan]

i will admit that is fair.

alot of books out there would make you pay they fees to send the money back to you.

[RickySteve]

I think this is very fair. They pay a lot of fees to move money and they deserve some action. Some books make you rollover the entire deposit before making a cashout.

[nikosgr]

Other books might ask you to play all the amount.I think they are generous.

[marc]

Only requiring $50 in action really is generous. Giving back the bonus is a good idea, because it's obvious you don't plan to give them enough action to complete the rollover. But I think if you give sportbet a try, you will find that you won't have any trouble finding some good lines there.

[isetcap]

You're stealing from them if you withdraw the same amount you deposited and give them zero action.

[Ganchrow]

You're stealing from them if you withdraw the same amount you deposited and give them zero action.

I'm going have to agree with isetcap's sarcasm on this one.

Surely sportbet can set any restrictions regarding deposits that it deems appropriate. But what it can't (or rather shouldn't) do is entice a customer to make a deposit, and then only after the customer chooses to request a withdraw inform him of further "restrictions".

I looked over sportbet's website and their policy seems clear. If you receive a bonus and don't meet the rollover, then you forfeit the bonus and any winnings derived therefrom.

Failure to complete the rollover or 30 day OF ACTIVITY hold will result in the forfeiture of the bonus, as well as any winnings won from the bonus in question.

Nowhere can I find anything about refusing to release a customer any of his or her own money before he wagers some arbitrary amount. I'm not that surprised either. Such a statement might easily scare away potential customers.

I don't care if this is "just how things are done". It's just plain wrong for a company to shield potential customers from knowledge of its (or even the industry as a whole's) more onerous terms and conditions and then reveal their existence when when it would serve to restrict the customer's actions in favor of the sportsbook.

Anyway, just my 2c.

[Ganchrow]

All this said it's really just the principle.

Princiles are certainly important, but betting $50 at -110 odds should only cost you on average a fraction of a penny more than $2.27. Taken in a vacuum that hardly seems a dollar amount over which to cause a major fuss.

Nevertheless, it does seem to me that sportbet is wrong on this one.

[jumper]

the rollover for 10% cash is only 3x,take advantage of the best bet of the week where they give you an extra 15% if you win.good luck,its always fun to beat the bookie

[natrass]

I'm going have to agree with isetcap's sarcasm on this one.

Surely sportbet can set any restrictions regarding deposits that it deems appropriate. But what it can't (or rather shouldn't) do is entice a customer to make a deposit, and then only after the customer chooses to request a withdraw inform him of further "restrictions".

I looked over sportbet's website and their policy seems clear. If you receive a bonus and don't meet the rollover, then you forfeit the bonus and any winnings derived therefrom. Nowhere can I find anything about refusing to release a customer any of his or her own money before he wagers some arbitrary amount. I'm not that surprised either. Such a statement might easily scare away potential customers.

I don't care if this is "just how things are done". It's just plain wrong for a company to shield potential customers from knowledge of its (or even the industry as a whole's) more onerous terms and conditions and then reveal their existence when when it would serve to restrict the customer's actions in favor of the sportsbook.

Anyway, just my 2c.

Totally agree. Along with ID checks only when you want to withdraw, i think there has become an accepted principle by everyone that if you give bookies your money then they can dictate and lord it over you somehow.

Its not. Its your money. Where did you agree to pay bank charges or minimum rollover just for depositing? Its not in their t & c's.

Generous????

[pags11]

I think one should be able to deposit at a sportsbook and withdraw while not having any bets as long as they are willing to forfeit their bonus or pay any withdrawal fee...to me it's things like this that separate the good sportsbooks from the scams...

[Winston Smith]

I agree with the contention that in order to have a policy like this, it should be readily available to those that take the time to read the Terms & Conditions.

I heartily disagree that a sportsbook should be forced to act as a bank or financial intermediary. They are in the business of making money, as long as they are up front about their policies, I see nothing wrong with forcing what is essentially (here) a pittance of action.

[Jake]

Thanks for the feedback...

Gentlemen,

I would like to thank you all for your feedback. On a side note, this policy is clearly stated in our Casino Rules and Regulations, rule #8.

We ask for $50 in action. It can be 10 bets at $5. It can be one bet of $50, it can be $50 in the casino. It simply has to be $50 in action.

We ask this for a variety of reasons, most of which have been covered. On a side note, I would like to thank all those who made a deposit and got our 50% bonus over the past few weeks. The feedback was very positive. Thanks again.

Jake Slater
General Manager
SportBet.com

[SBR_John]

VERY reasonable from Sportbet. We have a lot of complaints where players ponied up $1000 to get a $200 bonus and then found out they were not eligible, maybe a bait-n-switch or maybe the player miss read the fine print. The pissed player then tries to withdraw his money and is told he needs to complete a 1x rollover. Very common complaint. But thats not the case here.

[natrass]

Yep, if it was in the t & c's and it is a reasonable clause then I will do a quick U-turn and say, probably fair enough.

However, surely the guy can withdraw even if he stumps up a (reasonable) processing charge? What if he had (for very personal reasons) decided to turn his back on gambling for good. He now has to get back in the saddle?

[Jake]

Wageringblog,

There are exceptions to every rule, and every situation is different. Please give me a call at 800-430-5896 ext. 2003 and allow me a moment to find out why we were not the book that you thought we might be. If you can do that for me, I will issue your payment without asking for any action (as well as try and convince you to stick around...ehhehe). Thanks for your time.

Jake

[isetcap]

I have absolutely NO problem with the way Sportbet has handled this situation. Thanks for being available to comment, Jake.

[natrass]

Yep, its good to see a minor problem being dealt with speedily and fairly.

[anypunter]

I love SportBet - the lines are great, wagers are settled quickly and CS is superb. Here's hoping for 10c lines for bases

[Santo]

Maybe they could charge a $50 processing charge natrass, then he doesn't have to bet ;-)

[Ganchrow]

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to be quite so generous.

Jake's correct about one thing. The $50 minimum wager rule is certainly clearly stated in their Casino Online Rules. But that's neglecting the fact that the customer never intended to play at the casino. Sure the casino rules do reference the sportsbook but is it reasonable to require a customer, intending only to play at the sportsbook, to hunt around through the casino rules section to find rules also applicable to the sportsbook? I'd firmly argue no. This is especially true because there are three sections that are directly related to sportsbook deposits and withdrawals. These sections are very clearly marked on the site as Banking Center, Sportsbetting Help, and Terms & Conditions. But guess what? Not one of those three sections makes even the slightest reference to the $50 minimum wager rule.

What if sportbet also ran a poker room? And what if they decided to include essential sportsbook rules in their poker section? Would that be acceptable? What if instead of a poker room it was an online pharmacy? Would necessitating a customer slog through the online pharmacy section in order to learn about sportsbook restriction be acceptable practice? Where do you draw the line?

To me there's only one clear line. If a sportsbook wants to require a player to bet $50 before making a withdrawal, then that's fine. But tell the player that in T&C's or in the sportsbook or deposit rules. Not in some unrelated back alley. If you had wanted to make a deposit at a sportsbook and read through all their sportsbook rules would YOU have ever thought you needed to read through their online casino rules, too? I know I sure as hell wouldn't have.

[isetcap]

To me there's only one clear line. If a sportsbook wants to require a player to bet $50 before making a withdrawal, then that's fine. But tell the player that in T&C's or in the sportsbook or deposit rules. Not in some unrelated back alley. If you had wanted to make a deposit at a sportsbook and read through all their sportsbook rules would YOU have ever thought you needed to read through their online casino rules, too? I know I sure as hell wouldn't have.

I think it's quite clear as listed in the T&C linked to on their homepage...

The following Rules & Regulations form an agreement between Sportbet.com and its members. By registering and wagering in the casino and/or sportsbook, you indicate your full acceptance and understanding of the rules. All rules, regulations and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by Management, without prior written notice to the member.

1) Sportbet.com is fully licensed and authorized to operate in Costa Rica. To ensure complete legality, all transactions and wagers will be considered originating from and governed by the laws of Costa Rica.

2) Members winnings will not be reported to any government agencies. This is the sole responsibility of each member.

3) All members of SportBet.com must be at least 18 years old.

4) Personal identity and details of all members; including name, address, phone number, email address and wagering history; will remain completely confidential, and never given, reported or sold to any third party.

5) Members are solely responsible for their account transactions and should keep all account information confidential. The member is solely responsible for any unauthorized use of the member's account.

6) Sportbet.com welcomes any and all clients throughout the world with the exception of those residing in Costa Rica. Sportbet.com will not honor any wagers taken from clients within the borders of Costa Rica. Any client found wagering from within Costa Rica will risk forfeiture of any and all winnings, and the original deposit amount will be refunded.

7) Should funds be credited to a client's account in error, it is the customer's responsibility to notify Sportbet.com of the error without delay. Any winnings subsequent to the error, and prior to the notification of Sportbet.com, whether related to the error or not, shall be considered invalid and returned to Sportbet.com

8) Clients making a deposit will be asked to wager in our sportsbook or casino a minimum amount of $50 before being able to request a redemption on the aforementioned deposit.

9) Management reserves the right to refuse or limit any wager.

10) Management reserves the right to void any wagers placed on an "obviously" bad line.

11) All Internet wagers are final once accepted by Sportbet.com and verified by the member.

12) See Banking Center for deposit, withdrawal and other banking rules.

13) See Sportsbook Info for the wager types and limits on sporting events.

14) Clients who refer 2 or more clients, or are involved in a referral lineage of 2 or more clients, will be requested to submit identification before any redemptions will be issued to any of the affected accounts.

15) Customers found using multiple browsers or found attempting to manipulate or ascertain information concerning the casino software code, will forfeit all winnings and be deactivated as a Sportbet.com member.

Beyond that, upon registration you are affirming that you...

accept SportBet.com's terms, conditions and rules as published on this site

[Ganchrow]

I think it's quite clear as listed in the T&C linked to on their homepage...

You mean the "CASINO RULES AND REGULATIONS" not the T&C ...

[isetcap]

You mean the "CASINO RULES AND REGULATIONS" not the T&C ...

Show me any other T&C on their site or linked to their homepage.

[Ganchrow]

Bottom of the page: Terms and Conditions
And the help sections on the left side of the page: Banking Center
And the help section section beneath that: Sportsbetting Help

Online Casino Rules only appears beneath that.

With those three sections readily available how could a sportsbook player reasonably be expected to also dig through Online Casino Rules?

[isetcap]

Bottom of the page: Terms and Conditions
And the help sections on the left side of the page: Banking Center
And the help section section beneath that: Sportsbetting Help

Online Casino Rules only appears beneath that.

With those three sections readily available how could a sportsbook player reasonably be expected to also dig through Online Casino Rules?

You are correct. There should not be multiple sets of T&C that apply to the Sportsbook. That is a more disturbing technical issue than the request for $50 action.

[Santo]

Lots of sites refer to the whole site (sportsbook/poker/casino games) as the "casino".. it's not unique to sportbet.

[Ganchrow]

Lots of sites refer to the whole site (sportsbook/poker/casino games) as the "casino".. it's not unique to sportbet.

Fair enough. But just because other books within the industry (but oddly, not the Pinnacle's, CRIS's, Greek's, Bet Jamaica's, etc.) are similarly imprecise, how could a new player, seeing distinct sportsbook, banking, terms & conditions, and casino sections, be expected to understand that while "sportsbook" just means "sportsbook", "Terms & Conditions", just means "Terms & Conditions", "banking" just means "banking", somehow "Casino" means "Everything"?

If you were just looking to play at a sportsbook, then after reading through the sportsbook, banking, and terms & conditions sections, would you have really thought that you also needed to read through the casino section? Now you're an experienced player, even if you could honestly answer "maybe", do you reallky think a new player should be expected to do that?

[isetcap]

If you were just looking to play at a sportsbook, then after reading through the sportsbook, banking, and terms & conditions sections, would you have really thought that you also needed to read through the casino section? Now you're an experienced player, even if you could honestly answer "maybe", do you reallky think a new player should be expected to do that?

No. Sportbet has some T&C cleanup work ahead of them. I think if blog really wants his deposit back, Jake should make the exception and then make sure the appropriate T&C changes are made to avoid confusion in the future.

From a personal standpoint, I would feel ethically obligated to put in the action that has been requested, knowing that significant deposit and withdrawal fees are being absorbed by Sportbet. Blog nor anyone else for that matter need make it a policy to subscribe to my ethical obligations.

[natrass]

Well, if I can make another U turn, just to say ganchrow is 100% correct.

The player has done nothing wrong.

Worringly, Jake has come on and either not undertsood his own companys t & c's (in which case how could he expect a player) or has been econimcal with the truth.

Either way, given how sportsbooks will quote their t & c's like the koran then such an "oversight" is not on. They didnt "oversight" enforcing it.

[isetcap]

Natrass, you're going to develop vertigo if you keep this up.

[natrass]

isetcap, true I know ... but thats the joy of forum courtroom dramas .. but, hey, I am always influenced by the truth (mainly).

[Ganchrow]

I think it's pretty simple.

When a sportsbook signs you up they should ask, "Do you agree to our Terms & Condition?"

Not "Do you to agree to everything you have found by following every link on our site?"

[Ganchrow]

Well, if I can make another U turn, just to say ganchrow is 100% correct.

What happened to the good old days when we used to disagree about everything?

[isetcap]

I think it's pretty simple.

When a sportsbook signs you up they should ask, "Do you agree to our Terms & Condition?"

Not "Do you to agree to everything you have found by following every link on our site?"

Exactly.