Your opinion on recurring fraud issue

[topgame85]

The consensus seems "fair", given the facts I have given (for this hypothetical, assume players and book accept my facts as true).

What if 3/4ths of these multi-accounters will "blow out" losing their entire balance before running it up long enough to get caught? The book is in effect getting a free-roll. It isn't going to refund the deposits of the cheaters that lost.

I have mixed emotions on this issue. By the simple rules of the book, and basic contract law, the book wins. Is it wrong for a book to freeroll fraudsters? Is it wrong to cancel bets because of who placed the bet, and not because the line was wrong?

I lean strongly towards the book under these facts... But it's certainly worth getting more opinions.

This is what i am referring to and something tells me this is not just a "hypothetical" or it would not have been worthy of Jutin's time as he is a very busy guy

[noyb]

and books would be overwhelmed.

or would, god forbid, actually need to do some decent line management.

[HedgeHog]

Foul-unless there is truly 100% proof that this is the same person. If the new account has a separate IP address with a different verifiable person (ID and street address match), then it has to be treated as separate account even though a repeat cheater is suspected. Ban this account, but pay the name listed on the account

[noyb]

This is what i am referring to and something tells me this is not just a "hypothetical" or it would not have been worthy of Jutin's time as he is a very busy guy

ah right, another hypothetical. ok, if the player confesses to controlling himself (in other words: literally placing the bets himself, being the active user of that account which is not in his name) multiple accounts, that's a clear violation of T&C and the book has the right to void. the book might get a freeroll, but the player created this situation in the first place, not the book. But again, this confession is such a big "If" and would be so enormously naive on the part of the player, it's very difficult to imagine this "hypothesis" being "reality".

[topgame85]

Guys why are you all so up in arms here he asked a very specific question not is there a way to have 100% proof but rather if they DID have 100% proof answer the question asked, this is being dug into wayyyyyyy too deep, I don't think the player is naive but rather manipulative, he probably called his buddy said hey I can make some money I'll give you 10% of whatever I win if you let me sign up with your name and send them a copy of your ID if they ask and you cash the checks in your name..... it's called a beard and very common for gamblers whom are sharp and banned at certain books

[noyb]

we're up in arms, because if somehow the impression is given books are able to mysteriously be 100% certain a user is multi-accounting while there's no mention of any evidence of this and this practice is somehow acceptable, any book can start making wild accusations and confiscate winnings if they have some sort of a hunch about a player they never liked in the first place.

and you're right, the player might be rather manipulative. not exactly the kind of player who goes to confession first chance, as this will get him nowhere. the ev+ strategy in a situation like this is obviously, regardless of whether we approve or not, deny, deny deny. that's what i meant when i called this hypothetical player and his hypothetical confession naive.

[katstale]

Since we are being hypothetical.

What if..... they guy who was originally kicked out because he was so good, starts a forum and sells/shares his picks to hand selected insiders. Maybe they get alerts thru-out the day when a number or game is hot.

Like maybe you are Dr. Bob or something. In any event, the guy has done nothing wrong and his friends/clients have done nothing wrong. Yes, there would be overlap on wagering patterns, but all parties would be legitimate players and could prove who they are via ID, utility etc.

Book has a right to give someone their balance and tell them "your play is too strong", but has no right taking free shots based on conjecture.

Justin, i could probably make a good guess at the book Dorito was referring to. This type of tactic they used on him is fairly common now from books. Throw out accusations and see if any stick or see if they can "get away" with the confiscation. Let's be real about this. The book sits in position of Tony, I mean god.

They have all the money and force a player to try and prove a negative. Top notch players are not sitting in a room in a vacuum. They have lots of available technology to help them make selections.

Reminds me of when on-line casino's would say that "accounts were linked" because they have a bonus hit in the same style by 20-30 people. HELLO, the bonus and strategy to hit it were put out in a forum. people were reading and then attacking.

Book has the right to tell me to leave. Pay me. BUT, many/most times the "linked accounts" excuse is used, its just code like "syndicate play" "wise guy" etc. for trying to justify a rip off of the player.

Having said that, if they can prove via IP, etc beyond shadow of a doubt a player keeps popping up who has been banned, a class place warns him his next appearance will involve confiscation of deposit and any winnings. Warn before confiscation.

Ok, just my opinion from having travelled around the block and across the globe to play.

[robertg]

given the facts stated, its FAIR, but it would take a confession for a book to be 100% positive and I don't like the thought of books confiscating winnings. It sets a dangerous precedent.

[tomcowley]

The natural order of things is for books that can't manage risk to go broke.

1) Condoning books confiscating money won from bets (on good lines, etc) has huge drawbacks. You've seen the excuses books have come up with- he multiaccounted, he had accounts on sister sites (even though we told him it was ok), he's part of a syndicate, he shared an IP (from a dynamic range, like dialup from a particular town), he's a steam player, he used the Money Method. It's all bullshit. It's terrible for the industry when people hear about balances getting stolen, even when it's "justified", and it's blindingly obvious that books confiscate when they shouldn't. It's really easy to draw a bright line- if a book steals a player balance, ever, its max rating is D- until it's returned.

The tool simply shouldn't exist- and the only reason it even does exist is because of the cost of moving money. With frictionless money flow, people would "deposit" exactly what was necessary to make any given bet (automatically upon confirming the bet), and winnings would be sent back once the bet was graded, or maybe after a little extra time to allow for correcting grading errors. There wouldn't even BE such a thing as player balances. Confiscating balances is an archaic tool, and it's not viable at all in a future with clearly legal gambling.

2) The ability to confiscate balances gives books a huge incentive to defraud players. sportsbook.com tells people that skins are independent books, and says it's ok to sign up at multiple skins, and then steals the money, citing bonus abuse, circumvented limits, and all other manner of nonsense. Oddsmaker lets you bet, then jacks your balance if you bet a parlay. BP lets you bet a freeplay, then reduces a 5-teamer to a 2-teamer payout if you're lucky enough to win. Betway knows where you signed up from, lets you deposit, and steals your money if you have any left to cash out. And that's just the stuff that's completely obvious.

When a book detects a player it can steal from, it has absolutely zero incentive to stop him from playing. Even if the book catches somebody multiaccounting at signup, it has no reason to say anything. If the player loses (and winners can and do lose multiple deposits at even the softest of books, simply by betting "too much" relative to the deposit), the book wins. If the player wins, the book just steals the money. Allowing books to steal balances creates perverse incentives- the book is strongly rewarded for doing nothing to detect "fraudulent" signups.

3) The book suffers no actual harm from multiaccounters betting that it doesn't suffer from perfectly legal activity. And no, I'm not on crack. Let's take the standard example of signing up my brother for an account. I sign him up, I make all the bets, etc. Book screams fraud, and the muppets here all agree that this is some terrible crime that has defrauded the book, and that it's fine to steal the balance. Let's change things just a bit.

I am a tout service, and like a well-known tout around here, I steer my clients to sign up with a particular book (only I don't get a referral bonus and a % of losses, heh). My client has some financial agreement with me- this is none of the book's business. My client bets only my picks. Again, no foul. My client thinks this tout is awesome and sets up a script to bet anything I release (people actually do this for real touts). Again, no foul. I am computer savvy and provide this script to my clients. Again, no foul. So what we have here is a perfectly legal way for my client to bet every single thing I would bet. And then he pays me a bunch of money when he cashes out big.

Or I could just hate the book and want them to go broke and give away what I would play there for nothing. Then I'd have a nice army of people pounding all their soft lines, and although it would be at my impetus, I wouldn't even be profiting at all, much less defrauding them, and neither would anybody else, even if I write the book a letter telling them exactly what I'm doing and who's getting my plays.

Using the confiscation tool, books have no defense against these activities- well, they make up defenses, such as "syndicate play", "exceeding limits", and all kinds of other BS, but what it comes down to is that they have to make up infinite stupid rules- like not being able to play a tout's plays- without getting your balance stolen. It's complete BS. It's obviously complete BS. And books do stuff like that anyway.

4) So what's a poor book to do? Easy- STOP ****ING SUCKING AT BOOKMAKING. If books spent a tenth of the energy on player profiling that they do on investigating cashouts, they wouldn't be getting gnomed to death. And that's the ultimate answer- the only sustainable long-term solution is for books to make it not worth the time/effort to multi-account them.. and not by randomly stealing balances, which is just terrible, because it creates an expensive arms race with gnomers, and it's not one they're going to win in the end. Even if gnomers literally have to resort to calling up their friend and having him physically place all bets, it's still worth the time, and the book will lose- or have to confiscate on absolute BS grounds.

If a book like SIA wants to hang inflated numbers, a retarded chimp could identify a sharp account there in no time, quite possibly in less than a day, and close it out. Does SIA do that? Of course not. It's too logical. Who's really going to bother creating large numbers of identities on large numbers of IPs (catch shared name/address/IP on signup, obviously), sending and collecting all the money, etc, if accounts get booted in 1-2 days every time? Nobody. It doesn't matter how beatable their numbers are if they take the basic steps to make sure no account beats them for a lot. They don't "need" to steal balances if they just pay attention to the action they're getting.

If a rec book has soft/slow numbers, again, a retarded chimp could identify a sharp account in no time flat. Sadly, the euro books like Bet3.65 have the right idea here. Identify a sharp fast, limit to nothing, rinse, repeat. With basic risk management via profiling and checking for duplicate signups, the books would do fine, they wouldn't need to resort to stealing balances to manage risk, and the world would be a much better place.

Of course, that all makes far too much sense. SBR has been more than willing to subsidize shitty bookmaking/risk management by allowing balance confiscations. Maybe they'll see the light- maybe the books will see the light- and see that it's an unnecessary practice, an unsustainable practice, and that they'll eventually have to adapt because they won't have that tool anymore, but I doubt it.

[durito]

kats-

it was greek (and they didn't threaten or attempt to take any money, only to cut limits, which wally gave me back after i insisted that i wasn't cheating--- of course they cut them across the board, but thats another story)

and issue comes up because they can't price props very well, and they post what props they are going to offer on nfl early in the week and then release them sat mornings game by game. well, obviously I am not the only person that can in fact price these properly and was ready to bet them when they came out.

[patswin]

Fair

[noyb]

tomcowley, excellent post. one of the best i've ever read on this forum.

[big joe 1212]

The book is only freerolling when they find out that is the same person. If they continue to take wagers past that point, then they should honor all the bets.

If the person would have lost before the book found out, some may call that freerolling, but the book is unaware that they are "freerolling" so how can you blame the book for confiscating the winnings? The book should just return the deposit even though they don't have to (just for reputation).

The player knew the chance he was taking when he opened the second account. He has no right to cry about it.

[Dark Horse]

A player plays at a recreational shop. He wins a lot, and is thrown out. He comes back in under a friend's name. He's good with IP addresses, and isn't caught for awhile.

Some time later, the book figures out that "account B" is being played by the same person that controlled "account A" and was thrown out for being too sharp.

Assume there are no bonus issues. You know with 100% certainty that A&B are controlled by the same person. The book has rules against this. The book voids all winnings from account "B".

Fair or foul? Why?

This has come up before. See also SexyGamblerChick, with similar, not identical, problem.

This is just a risk that comes with the territory for books. They can write whatever they want in their rules, but anybody can call a friend to place a bet for him.

If an account is under another person's name, and no bonus issues are involved, that's legal. It is not up to the book to decide if the source of the bets is to its satisfaction. Perhaps the friend places bets as well, perhaps he gets his plays from a number of touts, and so on. There is just no way for a book to determine, with certainty, where the bets come from. Nor should a book be overly concerned with that.

If a book does insist on going there, the burden of proof is not with the player, but with the book. So if a book does have this clearly in its rules, and can prove it with absolute certainty, then, I suppose, they are within their rules. But that could only happen if the player made an obvious mistake. I could skype a friend anywhere in the world, and ask him to place a bet, live and without any trace. What is a book going to do about that? If it can't handle that reality, that's not my problem. Books need to come to grips with the 21st century. They use its technology to make money. So deal with the flip side of the coin.

If the player is 'caught' through an mistake with his IP address, that's his own fault. He did choose to play that game, and his understanding of the consequences is already build into his use of another account. So, in that case: not foul (i.e. the book). However, that only proves with certainty who placed the bets involved in that session. It does not prove that the friend didn't place bets outside of that session. The burden of proof remains with the book for all other bets. It is not free to assume anything. No radioretroactivity.

[HedgeHog]

Sexy Gambling Chick was illegally betting in Costa Rica as shown by IP address, if I recall correctly.

[Peeig]

TomCowley's post was awesome and eye opening to a relative noob like myself

[nikosgr]

So from now on, every bookmaker will confiscate money of winners, just by giving a silly excuse. Proofs and only proofs. Everything else is just a silly excuse.

[magnavox]

Bets should be honored as funds were legitimate. The only thing they can take away is bonuses, period. Books cannot take all the time in the world in deciding whether they will pay or not on bets they actually take.

Their "excellent" fraud department should be on it much quicker and the moment they find out -- player's access to account is blocked, current balance paid out after all bets are settled.

I get a feeling that in the old times, when John was running the place, the consensus would be "no matter who is behind those bets, even if it's a goat, they booked and should pay...

[Stacocakes]

Some good posts here.I just want to throw in my two cents.

I am sure the books that have a decent rating would never confiscate the multiple account's balances because it would be to hard to prove for them.What they just do is limit the player to nothing so then the player withdraws his money and leaves the book no questions asked. This way the book doesn't have to deal with the player anymore and the player won't complain on the forums that his balance has been confiscated. I think some of the books though take this stuff way to far in that all they basically do is monitor all their player's and whenever a player has a good week or two streak they cut the limits of that player to nothing and say it was "not in the company's best interest to have you as a customer". That is IF you get an email or something stating this. Some sites just cut you to nothing and have the standard "Oh we sent an email to you regarding your account being limited". Actually no you didn't so stop ****ing around with this bullshit. As was stated in other posts, some of these gambling sites are way to quick to boot a player and then look at a long list of excuses they can use as their reason for doing so. Probably just look to see what city the player is in and if there is someone else that has been booted from the same city they use the "Possible multiple ID" card. Or if they have nothing else to turn to the "Not good for our business" card. If books weren't so quick to boot someone that is winning then people wouldn't have to create multiple accounts all of the time. Using different identities, seperate IP's, seperate bank accounts...all of that stuff is a hassle and if someone had the choice they would just stick to their original account and bet with that. Back in the day bonus's were alot more common so people were doing everything they could to screw the books out of money and get as many bonus's as they could but the gambling sites realized this was a problem and reduced most of the bonus's they allowed.

Bottom line is that multiple account's are now used by people that get booted from a site and want to continue playing there. The websites are screwing themselves in this whole mess because they are too quick to boot or limit people. For every player that is winning I am sure there are 100's of player's that lose so why give your book a bad reputation by limiting everyone who wins at the book and allowing everyone that loses. Word of being limited get's around all of the internet forums and everyone knows who the books are that do this. Think of all of the lost business these books have had to endure because of this mess. Why would someone that is just getting into gambling want to deposit at a book that will only accept him if he loses? Realize that believe it or not there are actually some people that gamble and WIN and that they might slightly dent the profits that you are making at your book.

Until they smarten up, I don't feel bad for any of the books losing money because a player is using multiple ID'S to bet with them. They will never be able to prove 100% that a player is using multiple accounts so they will have to keep on paying out whoever is doing this and the only thing they can do is just limit the person and force them to leave. Books can't be stupid enough to confiscate funds from someone that they THINK is cheating the system because that would look bad on the book and would be horrible for business. ANyone that wanted to bet there would worry that anything they deposit into the book could be taken at a moments notice and nothing can be done to get it back.

[Dark Horse]

At the risk of being repetitive. It is, under any and all circumstances, unacceptable for a book to confiscate funds retroactively. No exceptions.

The only money that is ever 'on the table' is the money being wagered at any given time. Once a bet is settled a book has no business whatsoever to go back in time. None. You can ban me from your place, but yesterday is gone. 'Vegas rules'.

And any books that don't honor this golden rule should be avoided. That's the only way to make it clear to them that: it's our money, not theirs.

I'm a little surprised that Justin, who has admitted to practicing camouflage in Vegas, would lean towards the book here. Did they ever take your winnings from the day before?

The only session that counts is the present one. Vegas rulez.

[magnavox]

I'm a little surprised that Justin, who has admitted to practicing camouflage in Vegas, would lean towards the book here. Did they ever take your winnings from the day before?

That's what I wanted to ask him as well, how would he feel...

Anyway, was it admitted only in Vegas? I got the impression it was offshore as well.

[Dark Horse]

Camouflage is part of the game.

That's all this is. Camouflage. Yes, you can get caught. And yes, you can have your winnings confiscated. But not retroactively.

I'm lucky enough not to play at books that pull this kind of crap, but if one did, I would consider that the exact same thing as a credit shop getting stiffed by a player.


On a sidenote, it is rather strange that this is presented as a hypothetical case. Is this truly just a mind game, or does SBR's interest to protect a book now outweigh its interest to warn or protect players? Some of us may be fine with the book confiscating funds, but to others it is an automatic blacklisting. So it would be good to share the name of the book.

[RickySteve]

The funds are at risk, winnings should be paid. The book has to improve security and/or how they make book. They are not allowed to benefit from fraud by free-rolling deposits.

This raises the more general absurdity of a book offering the exact same bet to two different people and saying one person can bet it but the other can't. They're either taking the best of it or they're not, who's betting makes no difference.

[Justin7]

That's what I wanted to ask him as well, how would he feel...

Anyway, was it admitted only in Vegas? I got the impression it was offshore as well.

I've used quite a few disguises in Vegas. I have a hell of a story about Caesar's that will be in my book

I have never multi-accounted. Nor will I. I use camouflage occasionally (make weird bets that look like crap, but are 0 or small +EV to throw off player profiling), but I have never defrauded a book.

[Dark Horse]

This raises the more general absurdity of a book offering the exact same bet to two different people and saying one person can bet it but the other can't. They're either taking the best of it or they're not, who's betting makes no difference.

That's exactly right. It makes no difference.

So what if a guy takes one side? Find someone else to take the other side, if it bothers you that much.

Just because books call it 'fraud', that doesn't make it fraud. We don't have to buy into that terminology. They're already getting fat off the juice. And then they want more... I believe the correct terminology for that is not fraud, but greed.

[Stacocakes]

You guys also have to factor in that most players lose. What most are assuming here is that the seperate account that the player is opening is almost always winning which is not the case. I think that if most player's openened up seperate accounts that the books would still profit in the longhaul because many of the new accounts would be losing money.

[magnavox]

So it would be good to share the name of the book.

I think it's pretty obvious.

[Doug]

tomcowley, excellent post. one of the best i've ever read on this forum.

ditto

[IrishTim]

I've used quite a few disguises in Vegas. I have a hell of a story about Caesar's that will be in my book

I have never multi-accounted. Nor will I. I use camouflage occasionally (make weird bets that look like crap, but are 0 or small +EV to throw off player profiling), but I have never defrauded a book.

Can't wait for that book, Justin.

[moonbeam]

A player plays at a recreational shop. He wins a lot, and is thrown out. He comes back in under a friend's name. He's good with IP addresses, and isn't caught for awhile.

Some time later, the book figures out that "account B" is being played by the same person that controlled "account A" and was thrown out for being too sharp.

Assume there are no bonus issues. You know with 100% certainty that A&B are controlled by the same person. The book has rules against this. The book voids all winnings from account "B".

Fair or foul? Why?

It´s a FOUL because all of those books try to fugg you whereever they can.

A+ books voids winning wagers for no reason (which is the same then a "no pay")

Thats why everyone have the right to fugg them back.

[Dark Horse]

Fugg...

Is that were hucking meets fugging?

[nikosgr]

Since it is more than obvious that the situation that Justin7 describes is the same with an other thread of this forum, i was wondering why Justin7 started a new thread.

[nikosgr]

And, to answer to the initial question:
If there is a real person, that can provide all the papers that this book is asking, then that person must be paid. Everything else is just an excuse to confiscate peoples money.

[Lucas]

Guys why are you all so up in arms here he asked a very specific question not is there a way to have 100% proof but rather if they DID have 100% proof answer the question asked, this is being dug into wayyyyyyy too deep, I don't think the player is naive but rather manipulative, he probably called his buddy said hey I can make some money I'll give you 10% of whatever I win if you let me sign up with your name and send them a copy of your ID if they ask and you cash the checks in your name..... it's called a beard and very common for gamblers whom are sharp and banned at certain books

ok, now imagine that you will sell your picks to your buddy for 90% net profit and you give him a loan huh
i guess it is legit for you, is not it? the problem is that that is the SAME CASE
this is nonsense, bookies have to really start to look for good linesmakers

guys stop with the stupid IP issues, there are other ways how to track your computer but even that is not 100% certainity as was pointed out above

Justin7 go to study theology of philosophy, we can talk how will be garden of eden look like or how will be the hell for arbers, but this is pointless, there is no way how the sportsbooks can prove it

tomcowley, excellent post. one of the best i've ever read on this forum.

i agree

[Lucas]

I've used quite a few disguises in Vegas. I have a hell of a story about Caesar's that will be in my book

I have never multi-accounted. Nor will I. I use camouflage occasionally (make weird bets that look like crap, but are 0 or small +EV to throw off player profiling), but I have never defrauded a book.

Justin, I have a strange memory, I am very bad with names and words, but I remember what you wrote here, when you came to SBR. You wrote something like "i used to be a dirty player, but no more". I do not want to be nasty, but I am 99.9% sure. I also do not want to spend 4 hours searching. I understand this is/would be not best info about SBR mod and I do not want you to lose reputation even if my memory is right. It is better to leave some issues untouched.

It is a memento. Have you said something about you as non fair player, or is it my memory which is distorted and then I must lose my 4 hours to see that I am idiot and apologise? Do not try to edit the old posts! Maybe I already found the thread, screenshoted it and now I am trying to catch you