-
Comment -
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.
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?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 ?Comment -
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.Comment -
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.Comment -
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.Comment -
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.Comment -
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.Comment -
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.
Firstly, it wouldn't be a magistrate that heard the case; it would be a District Judge, maybe even a Deputy District Judge.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.
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!
Bookmakers certainly think the average punter is, Durtio!Originally posted by durito
.Originally posted by santo
Absolutely, Santo. I wish I had a pound for every time I have had this discussion over the years.Comment -
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.
You made a bunch of awful posts, as usual.so precisely what was done ?Comment -
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"
Please point to just one of those and spell out what was "awful" about it.Comment -
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 ?Comment -
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).
ctrl-f Hareeba!please show me what post you regard as "ignorant yapping"Comment -
No and Yes -- assuming, in the first case, a reasonable burden of proof is required.Comment -
I didn't ask about betting on same spin.
It was a general question about bonus abuse. You haven't answered it.
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.Last edited by Hareeba!; 07-10-11, 10:19 PM.Comment -
Businesses generally have the right to refuse service to anyone, unless it is for specific reasons (race etc).Comment -
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.Comment -
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?Comment -
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..Comment -
Rebate was 25% at one point fwiw.
Can we get a mod to comment on this?Comment -
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 0Last edited by chachi; 07-11-11, 07:03 AM.Comment -
I see that the cowards have deserted this thread without providing reasons for their derision of my posts (as usual).Comment -
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.Comment -
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.Comment
