SERIOUS problem with Hill's; account closed and money confiscated

[Hareeba!]

The only way it's abuse is if it's just one guy. That doesn't seem to be the case, and you never even argued that it was the case. The actions, assuming there are actually two people, CAN'T be bonus abuse.

what makes you say "That doesn't seem to be the case" ?

what information do you have about the details here that the rest of us don't?

why isn't it abuse if two or more players collude on a strategy to take advantage of a bonus if the t+c cover that ?

[tomcowley]

what makes you say "That doesn't seem to be the case" ?

Why do you think it is? It doesn't seem like the same person posting twice. Do I know that for a fact? Obviously not, and the whole discussion here is moot if it's one guy with 2 accounts.

why isn't it abuse if two or more players collude on a strategy to take advantage of a bonus if the t+c cover that ?

Well, for one simple reason, because the T&C don't prohibit doing what was done. Can you make any argument that doesn't suck?

[BrianLaverty]

Why do you think it is? It doesn't seem like the same person posting twice. Do I know that for a fact? Obviously not, and the whole discussion here is moot if it's one guy with 2 accounts.

Its blatantly obvious that these two people are the same.

As someone else in this thread said..

"Horatio ... are you and Gimcrack connected in some way? Asking this cause you both joined SBR on 7th July, you received your first points 29 minutes after he did, both posted only in this thread and both saying that Will Hill has to pay the money.."


I would be willing to bet money that these guys ARE connected and are probably the same people.

[tomcowley]

Its blatantly obvious that these two people are the same.

As someone else in this thread said..

"Horatio ... are you and Gimcrack connected in some way? Asking this cause you both joined SBR on 7th July, you received your first points 29 minutes after he did, both posted only in this thread and both saying that Will Hill has to pay the money.."


I would be willing to bet money that these guys ARE connected and are probably the same people.

Connected, sure. So what?

[gliblet]

Well for WH's defence the key is if they are connected. If they are connected and choose to conceal this from WH, and, by being connected are able to gain a monetary advantage, then they may be guilty of trying to obtain pecunary advantage by deception, a criminal offence.

Additionally, since the OP would have to recover any balance in a civil court where the burden of proof is lower, then WH would probably only have to show that the 2 players (if of course there were 2 players) picked the exact same game, stake, and selected opposite sides for a magistrate to decide they acted within the law in confiscating the winnings, although I would expect them to insist they return the initial deposit at least for the account which had the winner.

[tomcowley]

Well for WH's defence the key is if they are connected. If they are connected and choose to conceal this from WH, and, by being connected are able to gain a monetary advantage, then they may be guilty of trying to obtain pecunary advantage by deception, a criminal offence.

Except they don't gain a monetary advantage. That's what's so stupid about all of this. If two completely independent players were going to do the deposit-single bet-withdraw strategy, WH would WANT them to be on opposite sides of the same spin over either other possibility (different spins, or on the same side of one spin). That's the optimal arrangement for WH.

[durito]

The contract between player and bookmaker includes all the terms and conditions. The player accepts these by playing at that book. So should he/she contravene those t+c there is no breach of contract should the bookie decide to invoke the measures contained therein.

You can't be seriously be this dumb.

[Hareeba!]

Why do you think it is? It doesn't seem like the same person posting twice. Do I know that for a fact? Obviously not, and the whole discussion here is moot if it's one guy with 2 accounts.

IF is a big word

fact is you just don't know

Well, for one simple reason, because the T&C don't prohibit doing what was done. Can you make any argument that doesn't suck?

so precisely what was done ?

I'm simply asking questions

[Hareeba!]

You can't be seriously be this dumb.

perhaps you'd be so good as to inform us specifically why you find it to be dumb?

[Santo]

Contracts are not simply enforced as written -- they have to be fair if tested before a court. I feel I've had this discussion before, but not sure if it was here.

[Horatio]

2 players risk $100 each on a single spin, with a 20% rebate on losses.

Possible outcomes;

a) 32.45% of the time both will pick correctly = $200 loss for casino
b) 32.45% of the time one will pick correctly = $20 loss for casino
c) 32.45% of the time neither will pick correctly = $160 win for casino
d) 2.65% of the time they will have no chance = $160 win for casino

To get the expected result for the casino multiply each $ outcome by the frequency.

-$64.90-6.49+51.90+4.21 = -15.28 (would be exactly -15 without % roundings)

Which is a 7.5% loss per player.


Not that it's really relevant if 2 players working together can grab more than expected on a single spin or not. It's the fact that they change the odds to a 10% profit 97.35% of the time, and can only lose 80% of their stake 2.65% of the time, that makes it unfair.

*Edit: In fact thinking about it a little more. You could each put 98.85% of your stake on red/black and 1.15% on the zero and collect a guaranteed 7.5% each spin with no risk of loss. (I think that's right anyway)

Back on to make a couple of responses where I feel I need to.

I still don't follow how this is relevant or indeed how it works, Optional. I'm not trying to be awkward here, just trying to understand.

It has been suggested earlier that a way to get an advantage is for one side to back red and the other to back black. That is what I was looking at and trying to explain my view of this. If both sides did this, backed red and black for £10 each, they couldn't possibly both win, could they? Therefore, would the following not be the only possible outcomes?

Red comes in - player 1 loses £10, player 2 wins £10, player 1 enjoys a £2 refund. Loss to the casino is £2.
Black comes in - player 1 wins £10, player 2 loses £10, player 2 enjoys a £2 refund. Loss to the casino is £2.
Zero comes in - player 1 loses £10, player 2 loses £10, both players enjoy a £2 refund. The casino wins £16.

Suppose Player a and player b are husband and wife.
But now suppose player a and player b do not know each other from Adam.

Whichever of those three outcomes comes in, is not the profit or loss to the casino going to be the same whether it is husband and wife or two players who do not know each other who placed the bets? I do not see how it isn't.

[Horatio]

Well for WH's defence the key is if they are connected. If they are connected and choose to conceal this from WH, and, by being connected are able to gain a monetary advantage, then they may be guilty of trying to obtain pecunary advantage by deception, a criminal offence.

Contracts are quite separate, giblet, as I have explained previously. It is obvious that some people don't, or won't, accept that.

I note that you said "may" be guilty of trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception. That offence no longer exists in English Law, but even if it did, I do not see how there is any deception within the meaning of the term.

Additionally, since the OP would have to recover any balance in a civil court where the burden of proof is lower, then WH would probably only have to show that the 2 players (if of course there were 2 players) picked the exact same game, stake, and selected opposite sides for a magistrate to decide they acted within the law in confiscating the winnings, although I would expect them to insist they return the initial deposit at least for the account which had the winner.

Firstly, it wouldn't be a magistrate that heard the case; it would be a District Judge, maybe even a Deputy District Judge.

Secondly; a District Judge would have to find that William Hill are not in breach of contract. If they are not paying out on winning bets or withholding bonuses which are payable to players, they most certainly are in breach of contract.

Thirdly, the law would have to permit William Hill to confiscate winnings and deposits and so William Hill would have to direct the judge to the law which permits them to do this. They are going to have an impossible task in doing so as, for reasons explained previously, the term in the contract which purports to permit this is certainly not it!

You can't be seriously be this dumb.

Bookmakers certainly think the average punter is, Durtio!

Contracts are not simply enforced as written -- they have to be fair if tested before a court. I feel I've had this discussion before, but not sure if it was here

.

Absolutely, Santo. I wish I had a pound for every time I have had this discussion over the years.

[tomcowley]

IF is a big word

fact is you just don't know

It's irrelevant to the discussion here- the only interesting case if it's it's two different people, and the posts I responded to were your ignorant yapping about how the book could be in the right even if it were two different people.

so precisely what was done ?

You made a bunch of awful posts, as usual.

[Hareeba!]

It's irrelevant to the discussion here- the only interesting case if it's it's two different people, and the posts I responded to were your ignorant yapping about how the book could be in the right even if it were two different people.

If the two different people each agree to terms and conditions which bar them from colluding with others to abuse a bonus why is the book not permitted to take appropriate action ?

please show me what post you regard as "ignorant yapping"

You made a bunch of awful posts, as usual.

Please point to just one of those and spell out what was "awful" about it.

[Hareeba!]

Contracts are not simply enforced as written -- they have to be fair if tested before a court. I feel I've had this discussion before, but not sure if it was here.

I quite agree Santo.

But do you regard it as unfair for a book to have and act upon a condition which bars players from colluding with others to gain an advantage contrary to the spirit of a promotion ?

Do you regard it as fair that a book can decide it no longer wishes to accept your bets when you've not infringed any of their terms and conditions ?

[tomcowley]

If the two different people each agree to terms and conditions which bar them from colluding with others to abuse a bonus why is the book not permitted to take appropriate action ?

Because there's no rule against betting on the same spin, and there's no abuse because betting on the same spin causes WH no harm (the "harm", or -EV, to WH comes solely from the retarded promo offering and the players using the bet once and withdraw strategy, and has nothing to do with what spins they bet on, or what side of the spins they bet on).

please show me what post you regard as "ignorant yapping"

ctrl-f Hareeba!

[Santo]

No and Yes -- assuming, in the first case, a reasonable burden of proof is required.

[Hareeba!]

Because there's no rule against betting on the same spin, and there's no abuse because betting on the same spin causes WH no harm (the "harm", or -EV, to WH comes solely from the retarded promo offering and the players using the bet once and withdraw strategy, and has nothing to do with what spins they bet on, or what side of the spins they bet on).

I didn't ask about betting on same spin.

It was a general question about bonus abuse. You haven't answered it.

ctrl-f Hareeba!

You now like a few others in this forum have demonstrated that you are only too keen to throw shit on posters but when called upon to elaborate are found sadly wanting.

I may not be right in everything I post but I do so honestly and with a belief in what I'm saying. I'm perfectly prepared to accept I'm wrong if someone shows me where but is seems you and a few others don't care to engage in rational debate, preferring to simply pour shit on me for posting what I believe in without being prepared to back it up.

[Hareeba!]

No and Yes -- assuming, in the first case, a reasonable burden of proof is required.

Of course reasonable proof is always required.

But why is it fair for a bookie to deny service to one customer but not another when there's been no breach of any terms and conditions ?

[Santo]

Businesses generally have the right to refuse service to anyone, unless it is for specific reasons (race etc).

[Hareeba!]

Businesses generally have the right to refuse service to anyone, unless it is for specific reasons (race etc).

So I keep hearing. But is that fair ?

[Santo]

Well it's fair in that at some stage a democratically elected government enacted that law. There are lots of laws I don't agree with (on ethical/moral grounds), but fighting them isn't a battle I'm likely to win.

To the extent we're considering what books should do / engaging in dispute resolution we just have to work with what laws are set down, and English common law is generally the best base for the cases discussed here (maybe less so for Asian books), given it's the basis of the UK, US and Aussie systems.

[Hareeba!]

Well it's fair in that at some stage a democratically elected government enacted that law. There are lots of laws I don't agree with (on ethical/moral grounds), but fighting them isn't a battle I'm likely to win.

To the extent we're considering what books should do / engaging in dispute resolution we just have to work with what laws are set down, and English common law is generally the best base for the cases discussed here (maybe less so for Asian books), given it's the basis of the UK, US and Aussie systems.

ok mate, but I wasn't aware that there is a actually a law which says that

common law dating back to past times I guess ... about time it was challenged methinks

[Santo]

It's more a case that you can do things the law does not specifically exclude. The law specifically excludes discrimination / refusing service on the grounds of Race, sex, age and so forth, but not (for example) if you're abusive to their staff, disruptive to their business etc.

You'd need a law passed that specifically says companies can not deny service if a customer is unprofitable / disruptive to their running of a profitable business, either aimed wider or just at bookmakers. Yesterday, Dick Smith NZ had a bug in their website where they were selling 50" Plasma TV's for $0 + shipping. They're declining to honour those transactions. Is there a difference?

[Hareeba!]

It's more a case that you can do things the law does not specifically exclude. The law specifically excludes discrimination / refusing service on the grounds of Race, sex, age and so forth, but not (for example) if you're abusive to their staff, disruptive to their business etc.

You'd need a law passed that specifically says companies can not deny service if a customer is unprofitable / disruptive to their running of a profitable business, either aimed wider or just at bookmakers. Yesterday, Dick Smith NZ had a bug in their website where they were selling 50" Plasma TV's for $0 + shipping. They're declining to honour those transactions. Is there a difference?

Yes. A very big difference. That's akin to a bookie posting a bad line.

[Optional]

I still don't follow how this is relevant or indeed how it works, Optional. I'm not trying to be awkward here, just trying to understand.

More basically then, the books argument against collusion is that together you can change the odds so there is minimal or no risk of loss to the combined bankroll. So it's not considered gambling under the legislation. And I 'think' you will find the bookmaker and player are governed by specific legislation that says that they must be gambling. (to prevent opportunities for money laundering)

Don't be confused by the tripe Tom Cowley keeps repeating, there IS a significant difference in expected outcome for 2 players working together under the 20% rebate conditions. As I obviously badly tried to explain the basic math of.

[JustinBieber]

Rebate was 25% at one point fwiw.

Can we get a mod to comment on this?

[chachi]

More basically then, the books argument against collusion is that together you can change the odds so there is minimal or no risk of loss to the combined bankroll. So it's not considered gambling under the legislation. And I 'think' you will find the bookmaker and player are governed by specific legislation that says that they must be gambling. (to prevent opportunities for money laundering)

[FairPlayBet]

you could file a complaint with SBR, or with IBAS, or take legal action

have you carefully read and complied with all the terms and conditions relating to their offer ?

were you betting on red whilst your mate was betting on black?

Have you guys noticed that the OP was never answered this question. Accidentally or not but he just missed it.

[chachi]

somehow I dont think it was accidental ...

betting red and black only though does of course carry a small risk of ruin so generally green would be covered as well

assuming the single zero at WH, even a blind pit boss would spot something like 2.5k on high, 2.5k on low with 140 on 0

[Hareeba!]

I see that the cowards have deserted this thread without providing reasons for their derision of my posts (as usual).

[tomcowley]

I didn't ask about betting on same spin.

It was a general question about bonus abuse. You haven't answered it.

Great, two more terrible posts that have nothing to do with anything being discussed. Keep up the good work.

[Hareeba!]

Great, two more terrible posts that have nothing to do with anything being discussed. Keep up the good work.

I ask you a question.

You fail to answer it.

Instead you post something irrelevant to the question asked.

I respond appropriately.

And you then say I am the one off topic ?

[tomcowley]

Your question was irrelevant to the dispute in the thread. I made the mistake of assuming you were referencing the dispute and weren't intentionally going off on a moronic tangent that had nothing to do with the thread, but I obviously should have known better.

[Hareeba!]

Your question was irrelevant to the dispute in the thread. I made the mistake of assuming you were referencing the dispute and weren't intentionally going off on a moronic tangent that had nothing to do with the thread, but I obviously should have known better.

That is just plain garbage.

The question I posed in #84 is 100% relevant to the topic of the thread and several of the posts in it and particularly to your preceding post.

You for some reason aren't prepared to answer it.

Neither the other questions I posed in that post.