At first glance it appears that SIA is cleaning up their act as they have been upgraded a few times in the last little while.
Well, you should all know that I risked >16k and wagered for several months or a couple of years and raked up >100k in profits through 4 separate accounts all from different locations with different names and got a donut at the end of it all except of my money back that is.
After receiving an email informing me that my accounts have been shut down NEW RULES were inserted on their site and applied RETROACTIVELY to wipe out all my winnings. Thats the equivalent of getting a credit card statement with a rediculous amount of interest expense and being told the rules were changed and accordingly u owe us X amount for the last 2 years because of the rule changes. In my mind, although i wasnt breaking any rules®s except for circumventing the max game limit i figured if they let we wager for such an extended period of time it would be fair to expect to get paid since i could have easily lost a truck load. or at the very least 1 out of the 4 accounts would be paid in full as that would be respecting the max betting limits.
at the end of the day, all the bets on the other side of mines got fully collected (in advance) for an extended period of time by sia and when it came time to honor the losing side they were not ready to pay up i guess its not their fault that they didnt catch on sooner and if we could get away with something like that why would we be in a rush to boot anyone out the door? sounds like a formula for riskless gain, collect in full and in advance if they lose but dont pay out profits should they win and still manage to get upgraded
SBR was involved in this dispute. Part of the problem is that there was at least one other account involved that was paid. This account was definitely related to the other 4.
If a party makes repeated misrepresentations to SBR, there are consequences. In this case, SIA showed that the syndicate was controlling at least 5 accounts, and that the syndicate lied on multiple occasions during SBR's mediation.
An issue of fact was: how much had the syndicate been paid by SIA? If one account was fully paid, SIA acted fairly. The syndicate controlling all the accounts controlled this information - how much it had been paid. As the syndicate was not completely forthcoming on this issue, I found in favor of SIA on that fact (concluding that other accounts controlled by the syndicate had probably been paid as much as the biggest winning account).
I don't think some dude multi-accounting sia really counts as a syndicate, especially since they got caught. Then again, BigDaddyHQ has syndicate, so I guess anyone can.