If I were still moderating as Justin7 and handling this dispute, here's how I would have handled it:
Player vs Youwager/77k confiscation
Per the player’s complaint, he opened an account at Youwager in 2016. The player made many wagers and increased his balance to $77,721. In May and June of 2018, the player placed 72 bets for $1 or $3. In June through October, he resumed his normal bets with at least $100,000 more in volume.
Youwager accused the player of using a robot and claimed the 72 small wagers was proof, and that keeping a large balance there was also proof of robot usage. It also claimed that the players’ $1 bets occurred within seconds of line movements as further proof that the player was using a robot (this proof may or may not exist, but it has not been posted publicly.)
In Youwagers’ General Rules, there is prohibition against robots. Rule 13 says “Robot or automated wager is not allowed at FF. If your account is flagged as Bot or automated use, winnings will be reversed and account closed”. The rules also state in rule 9: “Nevada Gaming Commission rules and regulations, payoffs and wager types always apply.”
Issue: Is confiscating a players’ prior balance for subsequent robot play a reasonable remedy?
Assuming Youwager can show robot play, is it reasonable to seize the players’ balance? There are some rules that are reasonable which allow a Sportsbook to seize a balance. If a player uses someone else’s credit card, it is normal to void all wagers due to costs of credit card fraud. If a minor player submits an incorrect age that makes him appear to be a legal adult, that is another case where undoing all transactions is fair. In both those cases, there are huge costs or penalties to the sportsbook if those wagers are allowed to stand (in terms of losing a license or dealing with a claim of credit card fraud.)
Another case where it can be reasonable to revoke a bonus, and winnings based on that bonus occurs when a player that already has an account fraudulently opens up another account with a fake I.D. In this case, the player is making an overt action to defraud the sportsbook, and the transactions related to that fraud can reasonable be voided.
There are also ridiculous rules that sportsbooks have tried to use to fabricate a reason to refuse payment. SBR has dealt with many of these Sportsbooks in the past that use rules as a pretext to seize a player’s balance. Oddsmaker (Rated F) had a free-play promotion with some nasty fine-print: if you placed a single parlay, all your winnings were voided. This rule was unreasonable and contributed to Oddsmaker being demoted to an “F” rating.
Another example of a ridiculous rule was WagerHub (Rated D- at the time), which had a rule banning “non-recreational play”. When WagerHub seized $8200 from a player using this rule, SBR noted that it considered that action theft.
If a rule prevents a harm, and the penalty is related to that harm, the rule is probably reasonable. If a rule is just a ploy to grab a player’s balance, and is either unexpected, or the amount seized unrelated to what occurred, the rule is unreasonable.
If the player used a robot to place 72 micro-wagers, at most the book could do is void those wagers. His winnings from non-robot wagers were fair, and unrelated to the 72 micro-wagers. The player is owed his balance.
What is the remedy for a sportsbook when a player uses a robot or scraper? The reasonable remedy, if the sportsbook does not want that, is to close the account. Indeed, most sportsbooks will close your account or block your IP if you scrape it too often. However, when a Sportsbook uses this as a ploy to seize $77k, that is unacceptable. That is behavior similar to how D- and F books behave. Youwager should pay the player, or be treated as other books that use “gotcha” rules to steal balances and deserve a rating similar to WagerHub or Oddsmaker.
We don’t need to determine if the player actually used a robot, as it has no effect on the correct outcome.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Originally Posted by Optional
Reply With Quote
it's soon.
Optional gave MonkeyF0cker 2 Betpoint(s) for this post.
