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

[dealer wins]

I recently read about 2 players having their balances confiscated on Whill. They both had a 20% refund offer on the live casino and both bet £2500, one on red, one on black. IMO if you have done something like this you wont see your money again, Whill are hot on bonus abuse and its covered in their T&Cs.

[Horatio]

I recently read about 2 players having their balances confiscated on Whill. They both had a 20% refund offer on the live casino and both bet £2500, one on red, one on black. IMO if you have done something like this you wont see your money again, Whill are hot on bonus abuse and its covered in their T&Cs.

This refund is a 20% cashback on losses, if it is the one I am thinking of. If it is, and both players bet that amount of money, one would presumably win £2500 and one would lose £2500.

If I am right in thinking that this offer is sent to the player individually, then that is an offer made to the specifically named individual and only he can accept it. If he accepts that offer (or, if it is an invitation to treat and based on this the player makes an offer which William Hill accepts) then it becomes a binding contract on both parties; the player and the bookmaker.

In the situation mentioned above, the player who won would not have received any bonus as his bet won. He would receive his winnings, though.

The player who lost is down by £2500 and so would receive 20% of his losses back, as per the terms of the offer which was accepted.

If one or both of these outcomes did not occur, then William Hill are in breach of contract to one or both players and it will not be difficult to enforce the contract(s) against the bookmaker. If the winning player does not receive his winnings from a bet which was accepted, this is as fundamental a breach as there could be. If the losing player does not receive his refund, this is also a fundamental breach.

If both players have their bets cancelled and their stakes refunded to them, that is also a breach of contract by William Hill as they are duty bound by contract law to pay out on the winning bet, collect on the losing bet, and pay any refund in accordance with the accepted offer.

If either player has his balance confiscated, there is no justification for this in law. It is an appropriation by the bookmaker and amounts to theft. It would mean that they do not pay out on the winning bet but collect the stake of the winning player; they also collect the stake of the losing player and do not pay him his refund. Dealer wins, is this what happened? Please forgive me; I'm not doubting your word and I note you say you read about this, but I find it incredible to believe that this occurred. If it is what happened, how on earth do William Hill expect to get away with this? They are committing a serious act of theft here, without question.

[dealer wins]

If 2 players collude to cheat Whill out of £500 they can and will keep both winnings and deposits.

[Hareeba!]

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.

[Horatio]

If 2 players collude to cheat Whill out of £500 they can and will keep both winnings and deposits.

Then, as I say, they are committing theft and will have no defence to the charge. None whatsoever. They are appropriating property belonging to another.

Dealer wins; do you honestly believe they can do that in law? Think about it. I will be staggered if you, or anybody else, thinks that this behaviour is lawful! If William Hill really are doing this, I think they are in big trouble!

Furthermore, what have the players done wrong in that situation which William Hill mistakenly think gives them the right to do this; a right which they do not enjoy in law? The contract between each player and William Hill is quite separate; a point which I have made more than once in this thread. Presumably there was offer and acceptance between each player and William Hill? If so, the terms of this must be honoured. As I have also pointed out more than once, in every event there will be winning bets and losing bets. The winners are entitled to their winnings and if there is a bonus or refund payable to the losers then they are entitled to receive this.

[Horatio]

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.

If a bookmaker is not honouring winning bets, it is he who is in breach of contract; not the player. Paying out on winning bets is the consideration which a bookmaker gives to a betting contract.

If a bookmaker is not paying bonuses or refunds he is duty bound to pay under the contract, it is once again he who is in breach of contract.

You are right in that the contract includes all the terms and conditions which are lawful terms and conditions and not what are known as "unfair" terms. Any terms and conditions which are unfair cannot be enforced by either side against the other.

I will stress again. There have been situations were bookmakers have mistakenly thought they could enforce terms and conditions against the punter, supported by their Regulator. That is because most people who are in Customer Service, including those who are managers and supervisers, do not fully understand contract law. They will stick to their guns until the matter goes to law. As soon as it does, the issue is passed to the bookmaker's legal department and then the bookmaker's position changes; at least, it has in the cases I have been involved in. It usually ends up costing the bookmaker a lot more in the end; in more ways than one!

But you don't have to take my word for it if you don't wish to; you may believe what you like!

[Hareeba!]

If a bookmaker is not honouring winning bets, it is he who is in breach of contract; not the player. Paying out on winning bets is the consideration which a bookmaker gives to a betting contract.

If a bookmaker is not paying bonuses or refunds he is duty bound to pay under the contract, it is once again he who is in breach of contract.

You are right in that the contract includes all the terms and conditions which are lawful terms and conditions and not what are known as "unfair" terms. Any terms and conditions which are unfair cannot be enforced by either side against the other.

I will stress again. There have been situations were bookmakers have mistakenly thought they could enforce terms and conditions against the punter, supported by their Regulator. That is because most people who are in Customer Service, including those who are managers and supervisers, do not fully understand contract law. They will stick to their guns until the matter goes to law. As soon as it does, the issue is passed to the bookmaker's legal department and then the bookmaker's position changes; at least, it has in the cases I have been involved in. It usually ends up costing the bookmaker a lot more in the end; in more ways than one!

But you don't have to take my word for it if you don't wish to; you may believe what you like!

It is not 'unfair' for a book's terms and conditions to exclude unfair practices by customers such as blatantly abusing bonuses such as colluding to ensure they can't fail to win.

But you don't have to take my word for it if you don't wish to; you may believe what you like!

[horja1]

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...

[Optional]

Then, as I say, they are committing theft and will have no defence to the charge. None whatsoever. They are appropriating property belonging to another.

They have enough defense if you and Gimcrack bet opposite sides of red/black on the same spin then tried to claim the 20% refund, for example.

Even if it seems like only circumstantial evidence to you, it's very obvious to their security people unless you have planned it over time and built up a play record there that 'hides' your intentions.

I agree they should refund your money and just boot your cheating asses if that's the case though.

[Monte]

Shit book, they give out promotions that can easily be beaten, and then make up for it by confiscating money.
How the FUKK would they know that 2 players are related, what if just 2 have the same idea to beat their stupid bonus on..lol...Roulette, and it happens one guy picks black and one red. Ridiculous, a real bookmaker like Pinny would pay up and close the account, not STEAL.

[Horatio]

It is not 'unfair' for a book's terms and conditions to exclude unfair practices by customers such as blatantly abusing bonuses such as colluding to ensure they can't fail to win. !

I assume you are referring to the situation you mentioned earlier about one player betting on red whilst the other player bets on black and both have been offered a refund bonus of 20% which both players have accepted? If so, then you are missing the point which I have made earlier.

The player who bets on red (and we will assume he wins) will win his stake plus 100%. Let's say his stake is £10. He wins £10.

The player who bets on black loses his entire stake. He recovers 20% of this, but he still loses overall. He is 80% down. Let's say his stake is £10. He loses £10 but receives a refund of £2 so his overall loss is £8.

These are totally separate contracts; one between player A and bookmaker B, the other between player C and bookmaker B.

Our player who bet on red has not abused any bonus. He hasn't received any bonus as his bet has won.

Our player who bet on black has received a bonus in the form of a refund as his bet lost. That was what the bookmaker offered him under the terms of the contract.

I cannot see how that is an abuse of any bonus. I cannot see how a court would find that was an abuse of any bonus.

I will happily stand to be corrected if you can refer me to any case, decided by a court, where the court found that in such a scenario the bets in question were not regarded as separate contracts, the term in the bookmaker's terms and conditions to which you refer was held not to be unfair, and as a result it was held that the player who was due a refund was not entitled to it.

And you will have to pick me up off the floor if you can refer me to a case where a bookmaker was able to rely on a term which he claimed entitled him to confiscate a player's deposit and winnings (or not pay out winnings but retain the stake/deposit) in the manner which an earlier post suggest William Hill had done. They cannot do that under law; no more so than they can shoot someone if it says in their terms and conditions that "we reserve the right to shoot any punter who places a winning bet with us" and, having shot the punter, try and rely on that term as giving them the right to do so!

I see from other threads that posters believe you are employed by a bookmaker. From the stance you are constantly taking I think they are probably correct as it the stance of someone who works for a bookmaker in Customer Service and who clearly does not understand contract law, but who thinks punters are mugs and that all he has to do is refer to the terms and conditions and that will be that. Please accept my apologies if I am doing you an injustice.

[horja1]

The player who bets on red (and we will assume he wins) will win his stake plus 100%. Let's say his stake is £10. He wins £10.

The player who bets on black loses his entire stake. He recovers 20% of this, but he still loses overall. He is 80% down. Let's say his stake is £10. He loses £10 but receives a refund of £2 so his overall loss is £8.

I cannot see how that is an abuse of any bonus. I cannot see how a court would find that was an abuse of any bonus.

You must be joking ... if these 2 players work together they win £2/round, regardless if the ball hits black or red ... how can this not be bonus abuse?

[Hareeba!]

I assume you are referring to the situation you mentioned earlier about one player betting on red whilst the other player bets on black and both have been offered a refund bonus of 20% which both players have accepted? If so, then you are missing the point which I have made earlier.

The player who bets on red (and we will assume he wins) will win his stake plus 100%. Let's say his stake is £10. He wins £10.

The player who bets on black loses his entire stake. He recovers 20% of this, but he still loses overall. He is 80% down. Let's say his stake is £10. He loses £10 but receives a refund of £2 so his overall loss is £8.

These are totally separate contracts; one between player A and bookmaker B, the other between player C and bookmaker B.

Our player who bet on red has not abused any bonus. He hasn't received any bonus as his bet has won.

Our player who bet on black has received a bonus in the form of a refund as his bet lost. That was what the bookmaker offered him under the terms of the contract.

I cannot see how that is an abuse of any bonus. I cannot see how a court would find that was an abuse of any bonus.

I will happily stand to be corrected if you can refer me to any case, decided by a court, where the court found that in such a scenario the bets in question were not regarded as separate contracts, the term in the bookmaker's terms and conditions to which you refer was held not to be unfair, and as a result it was held that the player who was due a refund was not entitled to it.

And you will have to pick me up off the floor if you can refer me to a case where a bookmaker was able to rely on a term which he claimed entitled him to confiscate a player's deposit and winnings (or not pay out winnings but retain the stake/deposit) in the manner which an earlier post suggest William Hill had done. They cannot do that under law; no more so than they can shoot someone if it says in their terms and conditions that "we reserve the right to shoot any punter who places a winning bet with us" and, having shot the punter, try and rely on that term as giving them the right to do so!

I see from other threads that posters believe you are employed by a bookmaker. From the stance you are constantly taking I think they are probably correct as it the stance of someone who works for a bookmaker in Customer Service and who clearly does not understand contract law, but who thinks punters are mugs and that all he has to do is refer to the terms and conditions and that will be that. Please accept my apologies if I am doing you an injustice.

You continue to miss the point about collusion. Between them they can guarantee a profit = abusing the bonus promotion. Not worth bothering with any further discussion on this issue. Believe what you like.

I don't work for anyone and have never worked for a bookmaker.

I've been in business all my working life and though no lawyer, have studied the basics of things like contract law and think I have a pretty fair grasp of it. You strike me as being a young kid who's just learning this stuff with no practical experience and can't think beyond the black and white in the textbook you just looked at.

[Optional]

LOL @ Horatio.

You might even be right if you were dealing with a court of law. But you're dealing with a bookmaker who knows the regulations better than you. And whatever you think, it's odds on they have enough evidence to legally defend their position long enough to ensure you guys don't have those funds available to abuse another bonus for quite some time. ;-)

[Horatio]

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 suppose we are now as she PM'd me and I gave her my email address so that she could contact me and I could advise her.

I have watched this forum for years but have never posted. I only came on here because I saw Gimcrack's thread and the way she was being treated by some posters. I have for years posted on another forum (under another name) which deals with gambling issues and if this issue had been raised on there instead of on here I would not have felt the need to joint the forum at this point.

They have enough defense if you and Gimcrack bet opposite sides of red/black on the same spin then tried to claim the 20% refund, for example.

Well, I can assure you that this has not happened, Optional, but even if it had that would not justify what is theft. I have just made a point in another post that if a bookmaker had in his terms and conditions a term which allowed him to shoot a punter, he could not rely on this. He would have no defence to the murder, attempted murder or s18 wounding charge he would be facing. Nor does he have a defence to what is theft. He has appropriated the punter's property and he cannot try and create his own defence to that by inserting a term which he believes permits it.

Even if it seems like only circumstantial evidence to you, it's very obvious to their security people unless you have planned it over time and built up a play record there that 'hides' your intentions.

It is not the opinion of the security people that matters. It is what the law says that is definitive.

[tomcowley]

Total joke move, the book suffered literally zero harm. In fact, even assuming intentional collusion, they're better off that the players played it this way than in consecutive spins. The EV of both methods is identical, and the hit to WH's EG is smaller if they play the same spin (largely because they don't have the outcome where they lose to both players). So this is a new one, book robs players who were doing them a favor with their method of play (given that they were going to play the promo to begin with).

[Optional]

It is not the opinion of the security people that matters. It is what the law says that is definitive.

Their opinion matters because if Gimcrack wants to see a cent back anytime this year it will only happen if they agree. And I doubt quoting law at them is going to give her a snowflake's chance in hell of resolving the dispute quickly.

I don't think anyone disagrees WH sound out of line simply confiscating balances btw. But you have to accept the possibility that they know the rules and what evidence is required and may not be simply taking a random shot at stealing player funds.

[Horatio]

You must be joking ... if these 2 players work together they win £2/round, regardless if the ball hits black or red ... how can this not be bonus abuse?

Because the contracts are quite separate!

But even if you were to regard them as not separate (which they certainly are) let's look at this from the other perspective; that of the effect of the bets on the bookmaker.

If both players are completely unconnected, what is the loss to the bookmaker across the two bets? £2.

If both players "work together", what is the loss to the bookmaker across the two bets? £2.

All that is happening is that one player is being paid the bonus/refund which has been agreed by offer and acceptance with the bookmaker.

But the point above is not necessary, as each contract is separate from the other. If a bookmaker didn't want to accept either or both of these contracts, he had the absolute right to do so.

[Horatio]

I've been in business all my working life and though no lawyer, have studied the basics of things like contract law and think I have a pretty fair grasp of it. You strike me as being a young kid who's just learning this stuff with no practical experience and can't think beyond the black and white in the textbook you just looked at.

If you had a fair grasp of this then you would understand the situation better than you appear to.

As to your second point, I would refer you to posts 26 and 28.

[JustinBieber]

Fwiw I think OP is an absolute idiot for firstly announcing such a promotion exists because now it wont anymore and secondly if they did actually abuse this promo when it was so +EV to begin with.

My experiences with this exact promotion:

I get an email saying I get 25% of my losses back up to £250/$250.

I placed a $1k bet on red. I won, my money is in my account and has been since I did it 2~ weeks ago. I have been able to place wagers with williamhill since this time and havn't had any problems logging in/emails banning me.

I don't want to side with williamhill 100% but if I won 1k off them and havn't been banned then this does suggest that OP colluded with another player betting opposite red and black or bet $500 red and $500 black on the same spin.

[Horatio]

Their opinion matters because if Gimcrack wants to see a cent back anytime this year it will only happen if they agree. And I doubt quoting law at them is going to give her a snowflake's chance in hell of resolving the dispute quickly.

I agree with you that the dispute will not be resolved unless the security people agree; and experience tells me that they may be unlikely to do so. Can I also draw your attention to post 28?

The correct procedure is to give the company the chance to resolve the issue without the need to go to the County Court but to stipulate a timescale by which the dispute should be resolved. Once that timescale has elapsed a claim may be made. In the meantime, interest can be added to the claim on a daily basis and then there may be the matter of inconvenience to be considered. I believe William Hill announced record profits last year or half year. I don't know whether or not negative publicity will be something which they wish to ponder; that's up to them, of course.

[Optional]

If both players are completely unconnected, what is the loss to the bookmaker across the two bets? £2.

If both players "work together", what is the loss to the bookmaker across the two bets? £2.

Not quite correct. The expected loss on the promo for independent players is actually 15% per player, due to the Zero.

[Horatio]

Not quite correct. The expected loss on the promo for independent players is actually 15% per player, due to the Zero.

I don't know about that as I wasn't considering the possibility of zero, but I dare say it is right if you say so. Having said that, I would have thought that if one player backs red and one player backs black, and zero comes in, both players lose whether working together or not, resulting in the same outcome for the bookmaker? In each case, they would both receive a bonus/refund.

I don't think the specifics matter as I think the point I was trying to make was fairly clear. At least, it was to me!

I am probably not going to post any more in this thread, unless somebody asks me to do so specifically or unless I feel I really need to. I have tried to deal with all points which have arisen but I suspect that I will just end up repeating myself which I have already done in some cases.

I wish Gimcrack all the best and will continue to assist in any way I can if required.

[DIF]

Gimcrack. Nothing is wrong with you. Will Hill suck against most players. I can have shit for this but I read stories of them every day. Me and my friends was treated the same. Hill was good but that was 6-7 years ago.

[BrianLaverty]

Why do Europeans think just because the books are legal, it gives them a right to screw the book over?

Its blatantly obvious that Horation and Gymcrack (or whatever the **** the name is) are affiliated together and abused the bonus in some way. Just like almost every other European whos had trouble with a book here.

Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans, abuse bonuses more then anyone else. When a book closes a Europeans account, they DO have a legit reason (Mainly being fraud) 99% of the time.

[chachi]

May I enquire which country the OP resides in for sake of curiosity?

[tomcowley]

There's no bonus abuse. At least not by any sane definition of the term. WH gives out a 20% loss rebate, 0 rollover, over, and over, and over, and the guy just deposits, bets it all, and withdraws the win or the rebate. WH may HOPE that only degenrate fucktards who'll lose everything no matter what will take the offer, but they can't be surprised- or cry foul- when somebody with a brain comes along. Should they either change the bonus offer or cut him off from it or both? Sure. Do they have any valid reason to steal money because a player deposits-shoves-withdraws? Absolutely no way in hell. And they're stealing deposits on top of winnings. GMAFB.

[Hareeba!]

There's no bonus abuse. At least not by any sane definition of the term. WH gives out a 20% loss rebate, 0 rollover, over, and over, and over, and the guy just deposits, bets it all, and withdraws the win or the rebate. WH may HOPE that only degenrate fucktards who'll lose everything no matter what will take the offer, but they can't be surprised- or cry foul- when somebody with a brain comes along. Should they either change the bonus offer or cut him off from it or both? Sure. Do they have any valid reason to steal money because a player deposits-shoves-withdraws? Absolutely no way in hell. And they're stealing deposits on top of winnings. GMAFB.

What do you know about the details of this case that the rest of us don't to be able to categorically state there is no bonus abuse involved ?

The issue may not be bonus abuse but something other infringement of their rules or the law of the land.

What's clearly wrong at this stage is that they are unwilling to tell the OP the nature of the problem.

[andywend]

When a player deposits $500/$1000 or more into a sportsbook and takes advantage of a 25% bonus and bets it all on one even-money type of event (one spin of the roulette wheel, one side of a football/basketball game, etc), it is clear they are partnering up with someone else doing the same thing to extract money from the sportsbook.

I have no problems whatsoever when the book turns around and closes all of the accounts and confiscates all the money (including the original deposits). There needs to be some sort of penalty assessed against people who do this type of thing to make up for all the people that get away with it.

Admittedly, these problems wouldn't keep happening if books made it clear in the bonus terms & conditions that this type of betting pattern was prohibited.

Gimcrack, you know full well that you tried to take a shot at William Hill and you clearly abused the intent of the bonus they gave to you. Therefore, don't cry foul when they try and take a shot against you in return.

[Monte]

Why is it clear they are partnering up?
This is beatable alone, there are some people out there who can do maths ya know.

[JustinBieber]

I think there is a decent chance they partnered as if you read my post I have done exactly what they say for the maximum amount of money they allowed and I have been allowed to keep the winnings.

[chachi]

As have I ... and as you say JB no issues

[tomcowley]

When a player deposits $500/$1000 or more into a sportsbook and takes advantage of a 25% bonus and bets it all on one even-money type of event (one spin of the roulette wheel, one side of a football/basketball game, etc), it is clear they are partnering up with someone else doing the same thing to extract money from the sportsbook.

No it isn't. They may have been in this case, but your statement is absolutely retarded. It's a simple, brainless way to make money from a retarded casino promo. You're assuming everybody is some broke-ass like you, I guess.

I have no problems whatsoever when the book turns around and closes all of the accounts and confiscates all the money (including the original deposits). There needs to be some sort of penalty assessed against people who do this type of thing to make up for all the people that get away with it.

Nobody's getting away with anything- the book just offered a stupid promo.

[tomcowley]

What do you know about the details of this case that the rest of us don't to be able to categorically state there is no bonus abuse involved ?

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.

[Optional]

I don't know about that as I wasn't considering the possibility of zero, but I dare say it is right if you say so. Having said that, I would have thought that if one player backs red and one player backs black, and zero comes in, both players lose whether working together or not, resulting in the same outcome for the bookmaker?

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)