[austin]

there must be consequences for multiaccounting - he is lucky to get at least something

[chunk]

Am I the only one who thinks all wagers should stand and all balances should be paid out (minus fraudulent bonuses earned and any transaction cost reimbursements)? Any other scenario allows the book to free roll. The book would simply allow multi-accounts to exist until the player is up x dollars, at which time it voids all winnings. The opposite (player free rolling book) is not an option. The player cannot open five accounts, wait until he loses all his funds, and then say, "Oh, hey. Those five accounts are all me. So can you void all my action?" Book would rightly say, "Tough sheet."

The bottom line is that if you allow books to void past wagers as far back as they wish, there is zero incentive not to wait until it is advantageous for them to "discover" the multiple accounts before they do so. If it's not advantageous, they can just turn a blind eye for as long as they want. The only real fraud here was with regard to bonus collecting. The wagers themselves were legit and should stand.

Well said and correct.

[chunk]

Justin7, in my opinion, opening up multiple accounts at the same book to try and circumvent betting limits is not quite as shady as doing it to abuse bonuses.

In my opinion, if the multiple accounts were opened without claiming bonuses (to circumvent max limits), then the bettor should receive the deposits back on all 5 accounts and told never to open up an account at their site again (with the penalty being forfeiture of funds in the future).

However, since the multiple accounts were opened solely to abuse bonuses, he definitely should NOT get his deposit back on the 5th account and he's lucky to be getting back the deposits he made on the other 4 accounts.

While I am not a huge fan of account bonuses (I would rather books that offer them to cease doing it and instead offer tighter spreads to their loyal, active customers), people who open up multiple accounts to abuse these bonuses are real scum and should be treated as such.

I'd say that the information originally given by the op was insufficient to make a valid judgment, but you are certainly making some unsubstantiated leaps here.

[Santo]

The problem with letting it all stand is it means books have no way to set limits to action. $10k limit, want to bet $50k? Open 5 accounts...

[wrongturn]

Opening second account for wife/girlfriend, even for bonus, I will think it is reasonable. Beyond that, the player should have no argument. Having account at multiple skins is a different matter, technically they are different accounts and I am sure SBR and all posters here agree that should be okay. But books may not like that. It is one of the reasons sportsbook.com family books are D-.

[Thremp]

A book using its security department to defraud players? Never!

[djefferis]

I buy a handgun with the intent to rob people. I rob 4 people then I try to rob you and get caught. Police can't prove the first 4 so charges are dropped, but #5 I am found guilty of.

Do the police owe me the cost of the gun taken from me and held as evidence? Not in my opin.

[ElLoco23]

I buy a handgun with the intent to rob people. I rob 4 people then I try to rob you and get caught. Police can't prove the first 4 so charges are dropped, but #5 I am found guilty of.

Do the police owe me the cost of the gun taken from me and held as evidence? Not in my opin.

I think you should put it that he robs or attempts to rob the SAME PERSON 5 times as it was the same book. No charges were dropped, they closed his accounts and refunded his deposits on his 1st 4 accounts. Also the player openly admits his guilt on all five which is his basis for trying to get his deposit back on the 5th account.

[scott235]

there must be consequences for multiaccounting - he is lucky to get at least something

Yeah, book is being more than fair.....he should take what he can get and feel lucky

[acarmelo1]

No, if he had won he would had kept his mouth shut.

[lukahh]

No, if he had won he would had kept his mouth shut.

and maybe he did, on 6th account.

nevertheless, i think book discovered 5th account but deliberately played dumb. nobody can downgrade for it...

[ucbearcats1027]

nope because one account is all you can have

[wrongturn]

If book returns deposit for his 5th account, what if he says, oops, there is 6th, 7th... When is it going to stop?

[boatboatboat]

Sounds like the person with numerous accounts is a scammer.

Screw him.

Scammers get what they have coming to them.

[increasedodds]

I'd have no problem with the book confiscating all five accounts. Surely he shouldn't get a refund.

[neverstoppers23]

Hell naw, the player deserves what he got. He is trying to **** over the sports book, but complains when they catch him and don't want to refund him his money. HA!

[McFly86]

If the player was scamming bonuses, the following should apply,

1. All extra accounts closed
2. All bonus forfeited
3. If the player has used the accounts to exceed the maximum bets, all bets in excess of the maximum should be voided


I don't understand why the bets would otherwise be voided?

[mtneer1212]

Nope. As far as I am concerned, he gets nothing. He cheated. He is lucky to get anything back. If you refund him completely, he got a free shot at the book. Call it a penalty.

[goombah]

Nope. As far as I am concerned, he gets nothing. He cheated. He is lucky to get anything back. If you refund him completely, he got a free shot at the book. Call it a penalty.

Maybe the book is also taking a shot on the player. If 4 of the accounts are up and 1 is down book confiscates 4 accounts and pretends not to know of the 5th.

[goombah]

Are the first 4 accounts up or down? Is the fifth up or down? How did they catch 4 but not the 5th.

[goombah]

Book the bets pay the money imo. Take away the bonus money.

[tachi]

Am I the only one who thinks all wagers should stand and all balances should be paid out (minus fraudulent bonuses earned and any transaction cost reimbursements)? Any other scenario allows the book to free roll. The book would simply allow multi-accounts to exist until the player is up x dollars, at which time it voids all winnings. The opposite (player free rolling book) is not an option. The player cannot open five accounts, wait until he loses all his funds, and then say, "Oh, hey. Those five accounts are all me. So can you void all my action?" Book would rightly say, "Tough sheet."

The bottom line is that if you allow books to void past wagers as far back as they wish, there is zero incentive not to wait until it is advantageous for them to "discover" the multiple accounts before they do so. If it's not advantageous, they can just turn a blind eye for as long as they want. The only real fraud here was with regard to bonus collecting. The wagers themselves were legit and should stand.

the book should have the right to void bets and free roll the player in this case.
Cause if the player is not caught,he may win and withdraw (plus bonuses and higher wins from bonuses)and therefore only he would have an advantage.

[lt56]

how likely is it the book really didn't find out about the 5th account, or just chose to ignore it as it was the only(?) losing one.

Exactly what I was thinking. I think he deserves the money back on the losing 5th account. Or whatever the books rule would be if the book had found the 5th account

[suicidekings]

Once identified as a scammer, I see no reason the book should play ball with him anymore. If you cheat the system and are stupid enough to get caught, you deserve what you get.

[Ruifgalmeida]

Like must poster said I agree that the books as the right to close is account , 5accounts is as asking for trouble.

[evo34]

the book should have the right to void bets and free roll the player in this case.
Cause if the player is not caught,he may win and withdraw (plus bonuses and higher wins from bonuses)and therefore only he would have an advantage.

There needs to be some incentive for books to actually prevent players from multi-accounting and to catch them as soon as possible when they do. Under your scenario, the book's best interest would be to allow and ignore multi-accounts until they are up a substantial amount and then suddenly "find" them and take all the money. Not good.

I think in cases like the one here, all bets should get paid out, minus bonuses, and the player should be placed on a blacklist so no other books have to deal with him. [Obvious difficulty with recognizing such players accurately whne they apply for an acct., but this should be the theoretical goal].

By contrast, as it currently stands, this scamming player is actually a desirable profit source to books. As a book, I would gladly welcome someone to try to multi-account if I knew I could keep an "all bets void" card in my back pocket, ready to use in case the guy actually beats me.

[in play, run(s)]

I think it's shady behavior to not recognize the only losing account, it's pretty obvious they did it on purpose. But on the other hand I think the player shouldn't complain at all, some other books confiscate everything when they catch you.

[Justin7]

I think it's shady behavior to not recognize the only losing account, it's pretty obvious they did it on purpose. But on the other hand I think the player shouldn't complain at all, some other books confiscate everything when they catch you.

I don't think it was on purpose... But it doesn't really matter either. If the book becomes aware of the fifth account, they need to handle it fairly.

I'm a little torn. On one hand, I'd like to see the book refund the fifth account. On the other hand, I get about 2000 complaints per year. I didn't want to spend too much energy on this one, so I let you all make all the arguments for and against

[tachi]

There needs to be some incentive for books to actually prevent players from multi-accounting

there is such incentive-the book free rolls the player.I think this incentive works.
if all bets stand,like you propose,then the player has nothing to lose if caught.But if not
caught,he will profit from never ending bonuses.
How a book will accept that?

For me an entire refund of the 5th account deposit is not OK,neither a full confiscation.
Probably some %.