another interesting dispute

[Justin7]

Player wins a fair amount of money. Book produces irrefutable evidence that this player is a winning player from earlier who was kicked out of the book. The player established at least one of the accounts with fake ID. All the winning bets were "fair" - at market.

What happens to the winnings from the second account, established after he was kicked out?

[durito]

Take the winnings, refund the deposit. He took a shot and got caught, he shouldn't get to keep the money.

[The General]

From your post, Justin, I agree with durito.

[bigboydan]

I agree with Durito and the General as well.

[tomcowley]

If a casino trespasses you and then catches you playing table games, what happens to your chips?

[Justin7]

Take the winnings, refund the deposit. He took a shot and got caught, he shouldn't get to keep the money.

This is the difference between an "A" book and a "B" book.

Is it reasonable to keep the winnings and pay only the deposit in a clear fraud case? Yes. A-rated books will pay the winnings, even when they are in the right. Do I hold A-rated books to a "higher than fair" standard? Yes.

[trixtrix]

If a casino trespasses you and then catches you playing table games, what happens to your chips?

i agree w/ t.c, it's books responsibility to pre-audit your acct, not afterwards.

books has free shot at player in this case, if player lose keep the funds, if player win never payout..

[durito]

This is the difference between an "A" book and a "B" book.

Is it reasonable to keep the winnings and pay only the deposit in a clear fraud case? Yes. A-rated books will pay the winnings, even when they are in the right. Do I hold A-rated books to a "higher than fair" standard? Yes.

So, does this mean I am free to make new accounts at A rated books in order to circumvent current limits that my original account has? If they are still expected to pay, what's my incentive not too?, other than perhaps a guilty conscience.

[Justin7]

A couple thoughts...

An "A" book will err on the side of fairness, even when it's pretty clear the "A" book is getting screwed.

There has to be a deterrent to fraud. If you play at a casino where you are trespassed, you go to jail. What is the deterrent if you open up another account at a sportsbook, knowing you'll get paid?

Counterpoint - we don't want to have books profit from "tolerating fraud" and catching the player (and confiscating his winnings) later.

Just out of curiosity, what would you all think of this solution:
For any account that is clearly fraudulent, the deposit is refunded and the winnings given to a charity?

[themajormt]

I think that it should be the Books responsibility to clear, scrutinize, check into, what ever, BEFORE they accept a deposit or within an acceptable period of time thereafter. I do not think it is fair for the Book to accept the deposit, take the action, and then AFTER they win say it is fraud.

The Book is not at any risk of taking a hit, only the player is. That is not right IMO

[durito]

The Book is not at any risk of taking a hit, only the player is. That is not right IMO

Most players that are creating fake accounts are doing it because the book offers something that is easily beatable. That's the reason they were stopped from playing whatever it was in the first place. The only risk the player is taking is that they are going to get caught. They know they are going to win.

[bigloser]

Most players that are creating fake accounts are doing it because the book offers something that is easily beatable. That's the reason they were stopped from playing whatever it was in the first place. The only risk the player is taking is that they are going to get caught. They know they are going to win.

This doesnt appear to be the case here as Justin reports all wagers were at fairmarket value.

At the moment I dont understand why a second account was required just to wager at market.

[durito]

This doesnt appear to be the case here as Justin reports all wagers were at fairmarket value.

At the moment I dont understand why a second account was required just to wager at market.

I assumed by this he means the player wasn't betting bad lines. That doesn't mean he wasn't betting into something that he had a solid edge on.

If I'm betting into the prop openers at the greek, I'm going to win. There's no question about it. I'd love to be able to open 12 new accounts and max bet each 12 times.

[themajormt]

Durito...

So youre saying that the only reason a person would open a second account would be to pound a game that he has inside info on or something like that?

I took Justins questions as say someone is kicked out for betting steam or something like that. The player then opens another account but only bets games that are at market price. I dont see how the player is guaranteed to win? I still think the book needs to have measures in place on the receiving end of the deposit to ensure this does not take place. Once action is taken over and over again, the book should not confiscate winnings.

[durito]

Perhaps I didn't read Justin's post thoroughly. If he's betting stuff that's widely available somewhere else I wonder why go through the trouble of defrauding them? I just assumed that he was taking advantage of something special that they offered.

[Justin7]

Durito...

So youre saying that the only reason a person would open a second account would be to pound a game that he has inside info on or something like that?

I took Justins questions as say someone is kicked out for betting steam or something like that. The player then opens another account but only bets games that are at market price. I dont see how the player is guaranteed to win? I still think the book needs to have measures in place on the receiving end of the deposit to ensure this does not take place. Once action is taken over and over again, the book should not confiscate winnings.

Sharp players are guaranteed to win if you let them play long enough. They hit 55% in hoops... It's only a matter of time before you lose, booking 55% winners at -110.

[tomcowley]

There has to be a deterrent to fraud. If you play at a casino where you are trespassed, you go to jail. What is the deterrent if you open up another account at a sportsbook, knowing you'll get paid?

It's the law's job to create a deterrent to criminal activity. If Vegas decided to treat every casino trespass offense as the equivalent of a $10 parking ticket that never escalated, would that suddenly give casinos the right to steal chips? The difficulty/rarity in prosecuting minor international fraud doesn't make vigilante justice the right answer. Plus, in the vast majority of cases, the multiaccounting could be caught before any bets were made, and the book's shoddy business practices/willful ignorance isn't an excuse for a freeroll. It's unethical for a book to take a wager and to intend to keep the money if the bet loses without a commitment to pay if it wins. If the book doesn't have its head up its ass, you get your deposit back, minus transaction fees each way, so you're pissing money away taking the shot. That's the practical deterrent.

[Justin7]

It's the law's job to create a deterrent to criminal activity. If Vegas decided to treat every casino trespass offense as the equivalent of a $10 parking ticket that never escalated, would that suddenly give casinos the right to steal chips? The difficulty/rarity in prosecuting minor international fraud doesn't make vigilante justice the right answer. Plus, in the vast majority of cases, the multiaccounting could be caught before any bets were made, and the book's shoddy business practices/willful ignorance isn't an excuse for a freeroll. It's unethical for a book to take a wager and to intend to keep the money if the bet loses without a commitment to pay if it wins. If the book doesn't have its head up its ass, you get your deposit back, minus transaction fees each way, so you're pissing money away taking the shot. That's the deterrent.

Sportsbooks are "extra-legal". SBR's rulings are the closest thing to the law there is. The only sanction available is a penalty against the player's balance... So I'll ask again:

If you were setting a law for all Sportsbooks (which SBR basically does), what would you make the law regarding fraudulent accounts where no criminal sanction is available? I don't think it's reasonable to say "take as many shots as you want, AND expect to get paid on all of them).

What if 1 person were very clever, and opened up 100 fraudulent accounts after getting thrown out? Should he expect to get paid the full winnings on all of them, if all 100 won? This is not just a hypothetical... but the well organized fraudsters rarely get caught.

[durito]

There is some guys at EOG who claims to have had 100 SIA accounts a few years ago and won 20-30k on each without getting caught. I'd imagine a lot more of this goes on than people realize??

[tomcowley]

If the fraud is caught at signup, refund deposit minus transaction fees. If the fraud SHOULD be caught at that point, pay out in full minus transaction fees. It's the book's fault they took the bets when they shouldn't have. If the fraud somehow isn't catchable until later, then you have a more interesting case.

[St.Aquinas]

This is the difference between an "A" book and a "B" book.

Is it reasonable to keep the winnings and pay only the deposit in a clear fraud case? Yes. A-rated books will pay the winnings, even when they are in the right. Do I hold A-rated books to a "higher than fair" standard? Yes.

Why is this logical Justin? What's relevant in this dispute is the fact the player lied. Why should an A rated book or an F rated book pay his winnings? The ruling is easy, but you like to add a certain spin on things which should have no bearing on your decision. An A rated book's rating has nothing to do with paying a cheater. Look up your standards. "higher then fair" does not justify cheating... Durito, General, and BBD are right because they based a decision on facts.
Something you should spend more time doing.

[themajormt]

A blanket policy would be tough... I think if it caught at initial deposit a transaction fee penalty AND a 10-25% "shot-taking" penalty could be enforced as long as it is STATED on the website. This way if the player reads the conditions and still decides to try it then it is solely their fault.

If it is not caught at deposit, and it is caught after action has been taken AND the player has won, they need to cancel all pending wagers, impose the penalty and refund the difference.

I am brainstorming as I am typing and cannot come up with a great answer. The only thing my brain is agreeing on is that the book should put something in writing so that if the player goes ahead with the scheme then it is the players fault for taking the risk!

[tomcowley]

Putting BS T&C on a website doesn't change anything. If they had a rule that if you risked $110 on a tuesday, you lost your balance, it couldn't be enforced.

[St.Aquinas]

Don't sportsbooks already have rules in place that govern us?

Did Justin just insinuate that SBR was a legal entity?

Agreed Red

[redvegas]

Confiscate the winnings and charge the cheater a fine equal to their deposit for wasting the fraud departments time. Case closed.

[Justin7]

Why is this logical Justin? What's relevant in this dispute is the fact the player lied. Why should an A rated book or an F rated book pay his winnings? The ruling is easy, but you like to add a certain spin on things which should have no bearing on your decision. An A rated book's rating has nothing to do with paying a cheater. Look up your standards. "higher then fair" does not justify cheating... Durito, General, and BBD are right because they based a decision on facts.
Something you should spend more time doing.

This is the first time I've ever been accused of making a decision not based on facts.

There are two different concepts at conflict here:
1. If a player has money at risk and wins, he win wins.
2. A book has a right to exlude whomever it wishes.

Giving a book carte blanch authority to seize anything from a fraudster means the player could lose, but not win. Perhaps we want to allow that... But I want people to think carefully before concluding that.

My point is that "A+" rated books are more worried about doing the right thing and upholding their reputation. They will pay a player that has won, honoring premise #1, even if they could arguably confiscate funds due to #2 and player fraud.

I'm not trying to justify cheating - I would just like a standard. This is especially important with "first time offenders", because I have seen numerous "borderline" complaints that may or may not be fraud... Like two brothers both playing from same IP, but no other indications of fraud.

I think the more obvious that it is fraud, the harsher the sanction should be. Where should you draw the line, and what is permissible? With "A" books, call it what you will, but they are either more tolerant of cheaters, or less willing to scoop innocents in their net.

[Justin7]

Don't sportsbooks already have rules in place that govern us?

Did Justin just insinuate that SBR was a legal entity?

Agreed Red

We are not a law enforcement entity. We are a "quasi-legal" source of law though.

[tomcowley]

I'm not trying to justify cheating - I would just like a standard. This is especially important with "first time offenders", because I have seen numerous "borderline" complaints that may or may not be fraud... Like two brothers both playing from same IP, but no other indications of fraud.

In situations like this, if the books took any responsibility at all up front, there wouldn't be problems. If you catch a multiaccounter because he slips up after "legitimately" getting away with it for awhile, then you have an interesting case. I have no sympathy for a book that doesn't detect a duplicate IP-duplicate address (or duplicate name) account that has been that way since signup, regardless of what T&C say and regardless of whether or not the player is 100% scamming. Books have to try before cashout.

[St.Aquinas]

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you Justin because your here to protect us from books trying to do us wrong. However, you and I know there is no "quasi-legal". SBR does not govern sportsbooks and its "laws" are not enforced by any legal entities nor are they enforceabke. As such, it does not litigate on behalf of any person, persons or organizations. Nothing makes you "quasi legal".

Some of us may get lucky due to your intervention and hard work, but others will continue to fill out complaint forms thinking SBR can get money back.

I think this argument is a waste of everyone's time. The player violated the rules of the sportsbook and should be punished for his actions. Bottom line. REGARDLESS OF RATING!

I would hope a sportsbook that has language stating rule violations would also have language regarding my ability to win and receive my payout that I won fair and square. A+, B+, C+, or even D+.

[tomcowley]

Putting rules on a website doesn't change anything. If they had a rule that you weren't allowed to risk $110 on a tuesday, and you did and they your balance/winnings, it couldn't reasonably be enforced, even though you VIOLATED the rules of the sportsbook. Your line of reasoning is so LOL, but people keep trying it for some reason.

[Justin7]

Putting rules on a website doesn't change anything. If they had a rule that you weren't allowed to risk $110 on a tuesday, and you did and they your balance/winnings, it couldn't reasonably be enforced, even though you VIOLATED the rules of the sportsbook. Your line of reasoning is so LOL, but people keep trying it for some reason.

There are many more ways to ID fraud than just IP checks. Are you suggesting that every book should have a dedicated staff to search for fraudulent sign ups from the start? I don't think this is a reasonable burden to put on a book, when it will cost 2% as much to do during cashouts.

[JC]

The player is the bad guy here, not the book that didn't catch things soon enough. If not for the player knowingly doing something misleading, there would be nothing to discuss.

I think the book should take the winnings, plus an amount equal to the winnings. There needs to be some penalty, otherwise the deceptive player is getting a free shot.

There are different ways these things are detected. It's not always apparent at sign up. I also don't think players would tolerate delays of several days after a deposit while an account is "cleared."

By only taking back his winnings it puts out a welcome mat to the dishonest player and his friends to come back anytime, that there is no downside.

[AK]

The player is the bad guy here, not the book that didn't catch things soon enough. If not for the player knowingly doing something misleading, there would be nothing to discuss.

I think the book should take the winnings, plus an amount equal to the winnings. There needs to be some penalty, otherwise the deceptive player is getting a free shot.

There are different ways these things are detected. It's not always apparent at sign up. I also don't think players would tolerate delays of several days after a deposit while an account is "cleared."

By only taking back his winnings it puts out a welcome mat to the dishonest player and his friends to come back anytime, that there is no downside.

Agreed

[Arilou]

JC, I don't think you have the incentives right. If I can confiscate your winnings at any time should I discover what you have done, and have a substantial probability of doing so were you to request payment or even randomly over time, that is a serious problem for you. Even if you value your time at zero, you could easily have lost. Confiscating winnings is sufficient even if the probability of them doing so on a withdrawl request is substantially less than 1, and this goes double because you don't know if the book has already caught you and is on a freeroll.

The book certainly can choose to keep the money won, they have proof, but we will respect them less for that choice. They can pay the money, and we will respect them more for that choice. I think you choose what standard you want to hold yourself to, and at the highest standard they would get their money back.

[jtuck]

Book keeps winnings and refunds deposit. Lots of gray area here, interested to see how it turns out.