hypothetical question...

**michael777** · 02-12-09, 06:17 PM

no,that is what is bothering me about the betphoenix thing

**katstale** · 02-12-09, 06:17 PM

Of course it is logical that the book would consider/assume the player is "taking a free shot" at them. Got no problem with the book canceling him out and returning funds. Especially if the player is betting 500 on a 4 teamer.

Now, if your hypothetical had involved any "menage et trois" action with a minor who has a gambling habit/problem i would have sided with the player.

**tomcowley** · 02-12-09, 06:18 PM

It's a fairly messy case. I think the refund of the additional first deposit was a pretty close match for the equity gained in game, so I'm inclined to let them slide in this case. Given the evidence that they had, I certainly wouldn't take +400 that they were going to actually turn a profit if the player had lost.

**Sinister Cat** · 02-12-09, 06:18 PM

I think it's reasonable. I just have this idea that books are probably getting shots taken at them all the time, and they should be able to take some steps to protect themselves. And not to step out of the hypothetical, but particularly when the "active wagers" consist of, say, a 4-team parlay for the entire balance deposited, it has "taking a shot" written all over it.

On the other hand, if the book let the player play for weeks, run up a balance, and then decide to forfeit all their winnings because they found out they did some bad stuff, it starts to become unreasonable. Just my gut reaction as a player and not an expert in this stuff by any means.

**marcoforte** · 02-12-09, 07:01 PM

Off-shore outlets need a black book. If they focused more on lines and speedy payoffs and less on bonuses, we'd all be better off.

**trixtrix** · 02-12-09, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

It's a fairly messy case. I think the refund of the additional first deposit was a pretty close match for the equity gained in game, so I'm inclined to let them slide in this case. Given the evidence that they had, I certainly wouldn't take +400 that they were going to actually turn a profit if the player had lost.

-400

**tomcowley** · 02-12-09, 10:09 PM

+400. I think it was just about a guaranteed freeroll attempt.

**DukeJohn** · 02-13-09, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

Assume a player is known to do bad things (like charge backs).

If I owned a company and discovered this player, then yes immediately I would cancel any wagers he had open and refund his money... I don't even care if the game started already. If he stole from a friend of mine you better believe I would not want his action. Now I wouldn't cancel any wagers that settled already won or lost. I would refund his money and let him know he can deposit in any other form except cc and I would flag his account to make sure he could not deposit in the form of cc...

Now, if you are referring to the Bet Phoenix situation, then I would not even take the players deposits in any form... I would refund his money and tell him to go elsewhere and flag him with any other of my "book" friends to let them know of the risk this player is. This guy contacted an attorney, so he says, after his adopted son lost his money, so he claims. Why the hell should I be responsible for his stupidity, screw that! And then he goes and gets a lawyer, I mean wtf!

lol... okay, calming down... it is just hypothectial... lol...

**Peep** · 02-13-09, 01:50 AM

I think a ********** in one book is a reason to be denied credit (which using a credit card that can be charged back essentially is) at another unrelated book.

If the player wants to fund via ** or moneygram, fine, let him play.

**reno cool** · 02-13-09, 03:21 AM

no. don't take the bets. don't let em use cc or kick him out if you like, but once the bet is in it can't be lawfully canceled. Suppose it was part of a hedge or whatever. Now the player is in a position to loose more than he can afford to risk, for example.
I'm sure the books have a ton of unjust rules that are standard procedure, but if we're trying to see whats right that would be it.

**poker_dummy101** · 02-13-09, 05:20 AM

I agree with the others. This is the complete opposite of the BetEd problem imo.

**themajormt** · 02-13-09, 11:24 AM

I think if there is a consistent pattern that the person has done it numerous times and there is no valid reason for it then yes it is fair to cancel, or make the player match it with a **/** deposit.

I deposited with betmaker.com years ago and they backed out on a bonus offer, I disputed and charged it back immediately. I then won some money on ultimatebet and they tried to say they were taking the money due to the charge back. I gave documentation as to why I did what I did and they sided with me. This was probably 5 years ago... Books cannot assume that a player is trying to scam them without proper documentation on the chargebacks. There is NO communication betweent he processors and books on this from what I have encountered. Its very cut and dry, they either charged back or they didnt... No facts with it.