[Justin7]

This is somewhat hypothetical.

Issue #1:

A player creates 20 fictitious IDs. With each of them, he creates a small paper trail - somewhat authentic license, passports, addresses, and even separate IP addresses.

The sportsbook provides irrefutable evidence that all these accounts are related, and cancels all wagers and bonuses on the 20 fake accounts, plus the original. All deposits are refunded.

The player admits the accounts are fake, but says he is entitled to the winnings from his original account. Does the player have a case?

Issue #2:

If a player does a good job creating fictitious accounts, assume it will cost a sportsbook about $100 in labor costs to identify a fraudulent account. A sportsbook only identifies these accounts when a payout request is made.

If the sportsbook investigated accounts as soon as they were opened, they could be canceled earlier. Is it reasonable for a book to delay investigations on fraudulent accounts, if 80% of the fraudulent accounts will "bust out"? By waiting, fraudulent accounts that bust out do not get their deposits back, so the book benefits two-fold (less fraud investigation fees, and kept deposits).

[louisvillekid]

issue #1, F*#K NO the player has a case. I don't know why someone would go through that much trouble unless they were trying to bonus whore out a Book.

issue 2#,first off, $100 seems low to investigate, but i don't see a books need to investigate every account as soon as its opened, now if there is a pattern of same bets coming from all accounts and they are grabbing bonuses on each, then i could see a books argument to not give the winnings, heck i could even see their argument to confiscate all the money.

[raiders72002]

1. player has no case.
2. The book shouldn't be required to investigate every case before a withdrawal is made.

[zerocage]

a whole lotta work for nothing

[rugbybdyb]

The bottom line is that in either situation the player was trying to get an edge and got caught....either way if you cheat and get caught its your fault, and we can go and say the book would not have returned the bet had the player lost, but the book would have never been in the posistion to either cancel or refund the bet had the player not tried to get an edge. Either way the player losses, he losses. If he wins and cheated he looses....no real other way to look at it.

[Justin7]

Does it matter if the player opened up two accounts or twenty? Does one extra account give the book a free reign to cancel all action from the winning account?

[durito]

If someone did this to a bank or investment company -- their entire accounts would be confiscated and they'd be turned in to the feds for creating fake documents.

I don't see why this should be any different.

[Dark Horse]

Does it matter if the player opened up two accounts or twenty? Does one extra account give the book a free reign to cancel all action from the winning account?

Yes, that does matter. One extra account is one mistake. One mistake could be an honest mistake. As in the case where a player opens an account with a book that he doesn't know is affiliated with a book that already gave him a bonus.

Issue 1. Player has no case at all. If he played different accounts against each other, his first account could end up sky high.
Issue 2. No opinion at this point.

[Dark Horse]

Issue #2:

If a player does a good job creating fictitious accounts, assume it will cost a sportsbook about $100 in labor costs to identify a fraudulent account. A sportsbook only identifies these accounts when a payout request is made.

If the sportsbook investigated accounts as soon as they were opened, they could be canceled earlier. Is it reasonable for a book to delay investigations on fraudulent accounts, if 80% of the fraudulent accounts will "bust out"? By waiting, fraudulent accounts that bust out do not get their deposits back, so the book benefits two-fold (less fraud investigation fees, and kept deposits).

As a matter of principle, sports books should do anything within their power to catch fraud as soon as possible. Security is a number one priority in Vegas. So why not for offshore books?

The obvious answer is that when people walk out of the casino they're gone; whereas offshore books hold our money as if they are banks. That is a trust from the client to the book; not a right that the book can use at its discretion. Offshore books that misuse this trust in any way, in my opinion deserve an immediate downgrade.

[jaypavs]

Could someone give me a reason, other than receiving a bonus, why someone would have multiple accounts.

[katstale]

Easy test.

1) No

2) Yes

[katstale]

Could someone give me a reason, other than receiving a bonus, why someone would have multiple accounts.

Increase max bet limits

[The HG]

Well, my opinion on all of this kind of thing is that in general, I am a big supporter of anyone trying to abide by stated rules, and a big critic of anyone trying to get around stated rules, even if they are good at it, even if the other side is sloppy or careless in enforcing the rules, even if the other side decides to try to overfukk back the one who tried to fukk them first.

Is one person allowed to have multiple accounts? No? Then if they make 20 IDs and addresses and driver's licenses and blah blah blah, and they get caught, fukk them as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't say I feel "happy" if they get caught, but I don't care if they get royally fukked back, or anything like that.

If you're going to try to get an edge by breaking rules, you better think things through fully, very much like if you're going to try to get an edge by doing statistical analysis, interestingly. If someone thought they could get away with something and they wind up getting busted, why should we feel sorry for them?

If someone tries to break the rules, let them deal with the benefits or consequences of it on their own. I don't mean it in a mean-spirited way, I just think they are in the wrong.

[Dark Horse]

If someone did this to a bank or investment company -- their entire accounts would be confiscated and they'd be turned in to the feds for creating fake documents.

I don't see why this should be any different.

It is very different, because banks have to abide by the law of the land. Books on the other hand write their own laws, and are pretty much beyond the reach of the law.

Unlike interest-paying banks, books hold an unfair advantage against the player; a disadvantage that the player knowingly accepts. Books should stop crying foul every time a player threatens to turn the tables on them. That is the nature of the game, which the book should have knowingly accepted. Vegas recognizes this and therefore prioritizes security.

Bottomline. I'm all for books using Vegas rules, and many do. However, if books wish to stop short of Vegas-like security that is their problem. The only reason they refuse to see this is that they hold players funds. That opens the door to a retroactive type of 'security' that should be off limits. The funds in a player's account should be considered as being in a neutral zone.

I realize this is not the reality we live in at the time, but I think we should try to move towards it. Instead of being easy on themselves and hard on the client, books should reverse that attitude. Those that do so will join the beacons of the industry, with the obvious rewards of across-the-board players trust that comes with that.

[2Pac]

I think books should reverse the process, and make it much harder to get the money into the book.

However, this would take away a lot of their revenue.

[magnavox]

Great post, DH.

[robmpink]

This is somewhat hypothetical.

Issue #1:

A player creates 20 fictitious IDs. With each of them, he creates a small paper trail - somewhat authentic license, passports, addresses, and even separate IP addresses.

The sportsbook provides irrefutable evidence that all these accounts are related, and cancels all wagers and bonuses on the 20 fake accounts, plus the original. All deposits are refunded.

The player admits the accounts are fake, but says he is entitled to the winnings from his original account. Does the player have a case?

Issue #2:

If a player does a good job creating fictitious accounts, assume it will cost a sportsbook about $100 in labor costs to identify a fraudulent account. A sportsbook only identifies these accounts when a payout request is made.

If the sportsbook investigated accounts as soon as they were opened, they could be canceled earlier. Is it reasonable for a book to delay investigations on fraudulent accounts, if 80% of the fraudulent accounts will "bust out"? By waiting, fraudulent accounts that bust out do not get their deposits back, so the book benefits two-fold (less fraud investigation fees, and kept deposits).

Here is my two cents. #1 If the rules say only one account per household or one account per person then the player has no case. #2 You are at the mercy of the book if there is monkey business. Is it fair that they have the upper hand in this? No. But you brought it to yourself with the initial deception.