[shari91]

BetAtHome benefiting from fraud attempts

BetAtHome (SBR rating C-) has confiscated a €460 balance (€300 deposit+winnings) from an admitted bonus-abuser. A BetAtHome player confessed to operating multiple accounts to scam the sportsbook out of giving him several first deposit bonuses. The player tells SBR that he created an additional "5 or 6 accounts" to take advantage of a 100% signup bonus that paid up to €33 on each deposit. All extra accounts were eventually emptied - no withdrawals were made on these accounts. While the player is unsure of specific numbers, he claims to be definite that he has been a losing BetAtHome customer overall.

Sportsbooks that offer signup bonuses must protect themselves against customer fraud. Bonus abuse and multi-accounting are prevalent in the industry, forcing sportsbooks to spend a great deal of resources on fraud management, in some cases even choosing to not offer bonuses to certain regions or specific deposit methods. In this dispute, though the player was in clear violation of BetAtHome's rules, he did not profit from his attempts to scam the sportsbook - thus, the sportsbook would have no right to confiscate his deposit. The argument could be made that the punishment fit the crime if this player had withdrawn more than he deposited as a result of his multi-accounting scam, but such was not the case in this sportsbook dispute. | BetAtHome recent news

On 9/23, SBR reported that BetAtHome shut down an alleged bonus abuser. A player told SBR that she maintained an account with BetAtHome for two years and had deposited €400 to play in both the sportsbook and casino. The player requested a withdrawal of €3,000 in August of 2011 and had her account locked. BetAtHome alleged that a total of three related accounts were registered from her computer, all redeeming bonuses. The player's response to this was that her mobile internet connection may have been intercepted by fellow neighbours. SBR has concluded that the player was guilty of bonus abuse.

On 9/17, SBR reported that a BetAtHome player's account was closed down for alleged poker chip-dumping. The player's balance was €600. The account was created in the beginning of 2011, and had activity in both the BetAtHome sportsbook and poker room. The player made two deposits for €100 before increasing his balance up to €600; BetAtHome accused the player of engaging in a chip-dump with one other account holder, a charge the player denied. The dispute remains open.

BetAtHome is a Malta-based sportsbook that operates as part of the BetClic Everest Group. Many sportsbook operators choose Malta to headquarter their brands for the country's lax gaming enforcements and enforcement. Malta has housed notorious scam sportsbooks Stryyke (SBR rating F), BetOnBet (SBR rating F), and BetAfterBet (SBR rating F).

BetAtHome players in need of sportsbook assistance are asked to fill out a sportsbook complaint form.

[tommygun]

BetAtHome, why, why!

[pjesnik24]

who says that he has revealed all of his accounts and not only the losing ones? Bet-At-Home is a very good bookie and very respectful in Europe sponsoring many big events in handball or basketball

[DoctorGonzo]

In this dispute, though the player was in clear violation of BetAtHome's rules, he did not profit from his attempts to scam the sportsbook....

Why, because he bust out of most of the accounts he created? He was probably happy to do so, with the funds being transferred to his Betfair account. So whilst he may not have profited on the BAH side of the bet, he almost certainly profited from the 'losing' accounts by laying the bets off.

It's always tricky to justify confiscating a deposit though... perhaps in this case it would have been fairer to total up all the bonuses that the player had fraudulently claimed, then deduct this total from the deposited funds and return the balance.

Situations like this are just a cost of doing business if you are a multi-accounting scumbag, and crying about it when you get caught just makes you look even more pathetic. I think SBR should side with the book in these cases.

[brankica023]

How can you open multiple accounts???
They dont check who is depositing money or what?

[shari91]

Why, because he bust out of most of the accounts he created? He was probably happy to do so, with the funds being transferred to his Betfair account. So whilst he may not have profited on the BAH side of the bet, he almost certainly profited from the 'losing' accounts by laying the bets off.

It's always tricky to justify confiscating a deposit though... perhaps in this case it would have been fairer to total up all the bonuses that the player had fraudulently claimed, then deduct this total from the deposited funds and return the balance.

Situations like this are just a cost of doing business if you are a multi-accounting scumbag, and crying about it when you get caught just makes you look even more pathetic. I think SBR should side with the book in these cases.

Before I came to SBR, and definitely before I started working here, in the case of the first player mentioned in the article I would've been adamant that the person should 100% lose their deposit. I tend to have little sympathy when multi-accounters are caught. But after spending so much time in the S&I forum, it seems the industry standard (if you can even use that word in an unregulated environment for the most part) is that the player's winnings are confiscated and the initial deposit is returned to prevent any suggestion that the person was being free-rolled. I understand that side of it now although a small part of me still thinks if someone is silly/lax enough to get caught, then they should cop whatever punishment comes their way. Overall though, I think having a set standard to apply to sportsbooks definitely benefits us all in the long run.

[nenad]

i dont play at bet at home

[BranchDavidian]

i dont play at bet at home

Now there is a truly insightful addition to this thread - thanks alot for this invaluable information. You are aware, are you not, that SBR members get points daily without making useless posts now?

[meckis]

Bet at home should return deposit to him in my opinion.

[FourLengthsClear]

I have zero sympathy for the 'player'.

Acknowledging that you have 4 or 5 losing accounts is ll well and good but what if there are 2 or 3 winning ones that have not been revealed?
It is true that books should not be able to freeroll cheats but likewise taking the word of an admitted cheat that he is "sure" that he lost overall is not something I would do.

[Justin7]

It is a tough case. I initially considered that a 300 Euro confiscation might be reasonable for fraud... but that creates all sorts of other problems. Dozer and I discussed this one at length. What if the player's main account was up 50k, and the player opens a second one to circumvent limits? No one would argue that seizing the 50k is fair.

[FourLengthsClear]

It is a tough case. I initially considered that a 300 Euro confiscation might be reasonable for fraud... but that creates all sorts of other problems. Dozer and I discussed this one at length. What if the player's main account was up 50k, and the player opens a second one to circumvent limits? No one would argue that seizing the 50k is fair.

Agree but this is not an apples for apples comparison.

[rodneytrotter]

It is a tough case. I initiallly considered that a 300 Euro confiscation might be reasonable for fraud... but that creates all sorts of other problems. Dozer and I discussed this one at length. What if the player's main account was up 50k, and the player opens a second one to circumvent limits? No one would argue that seizing the 50k is fair.

What if a player made a deposit on a second account, got credited with a bonus, and ran up a large balance. How you break down winnings from the players cash and bonus winnings?

Casinos just take the whole lot, even though it might been seen to be equitable to recalculate the position had a bonus not been credited or if the player had been betting the limits on the first account - but that's a lot of work.