1. #1
    Justin7
    Justin7's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-31-06
    Posts: 8,577
    Betpoints: 3561

    Input wanted re: confiscation dispute

    The facts are not in dispute. The player opened two accounts at a sportsbook. The book's T&C clearly prohibit opening multiple accounts at the same book. The T&C allow the book to confiscate the entire balance, including deposit, if a player violates this.

    The player's balance at his second account was confiscated before a single bet had been graded.

    Fair or foul?

  2. #2
    purecarnagge
    purecarnagge's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-05-07
    Posts: 4,826
    Betpoints: 18

    I'm personally against a book setting limits unless they are requiring phone calls. This internet age is dumb. I know 6 guys who have to bet off 1 account at multiple books. This is all because they share the same house they rent.

    You want to set the limits then make them call in. I mean this multiple account stuff gets old sure. But if all these bets loose then the book takes the bets. if they win, then the book steals the winnings? Its gotta be a two way street.

    Limits=why you can only have 1 account...

  3. #3
    pico
    USC ml
    pico's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-05-07
    Posts: 27,323

    foul. a good book like pinnacle would just ban him and return his money. shady books use it as an excuse to steal money.

  4. #4
    Francis Sollozzo
    Francis Sollozzo's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-15-07
    Posts: 2,381

    no way in hell should they keep the guys deposit , name the book!!!

  5. #5
    Justin7
    Justin7's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-31-06
    Posts: 8,577
    Betpoints: 3561

    I need to verify facts (or give the book the opportunity to ignore me) before I post anything damning, like their name. I hope I didn't just give away my lean on this one.

  6. #6
    HedgeHog
    HedgeHog's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 8,560
    Betpoints: 5575

    Horrible rule. The Book is looking for an excuse to steal. Just because they write a clause in their T & C 's doesn't make it just.

  7. #7
    tomcowley
    tomcowley's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-01-07
    Posts: 1,129
    Betpoints: 6786

    Should the book have caught this on signup or deposit? (Same name or addy or IP, same name on CC, etc.) If so, they're taking a shot by waiting, and they should definitely refund the deposit in full.

    If the player "legitimately" tricked them with his signup/deposit and only got caught by duplicating a bunch of bets.. I'd still favor refunding the deposit, minus processing fees.

    If you have a 1-per-customer sale, buy one, then walk right back up and try to buy another one with a different cashier, give her the money, and the manager recognizes you.. he can't just steal your money and throw you out even though you were intentionally trying to defraud him. I can see an escalating penalty for a second offense, however.

  8. #8
    Thremp
    Thremp's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-23-07
    Posts: 2,070

    I'd go foul. TCs that are ridiculous are immaterial. If someone put in their TCs some sort of weird catch all clause and used it to steal balances it'd be inappropriate. I'd take all winnings from acct #1 and refund deposits on both. If he lost on #1, I'd refund his money on #2.

  9. #9
    THE HITMAN
    THE HITMAN's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 06-16-07
    Posts: 1,491
    Betpoints: 8919

    Oh, definitely foul, IMO. Not even down the line, pop up behind the plate. Cloise the accounts if you want, ban the player, but on what ethical grounds do you confiscate ?? Just a license to steal, a one way street.

  10. #10
    Thremp
    Thremp's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-23-07
    Posts: 2,070

    Quote Originally Posted by THE HITMAN View Post
    Oh, definitely foul, IMO. Not even down the line, pop up behind the plate. Cloise the accounts if you want, ban the player, but on what ethical grounds do you confiscate ?? Just a license to steal, a one way street.
    Either side should not be allowed to take free shots at the other.

  11. #11
    robmpink
    Update your status
    robmpink's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-09-07
    Posts: 13,206
    Betpoints: 42

    I say it is fair. I will say that I think the rule of having even the deposit taken away is nutty (probably a C or D book). That is the books stance and is written in the rules. The player is thus taking his chances by opening an another account.

    You could ask everyone here and the majority will say it is horse crap, which it is (keeping the deposit) but it is in the rules. What leg does this guy have to stand on?

  12. #12
    InTheHole
    InTheHole's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-28-08
    Posts: 15,244

    Foul....if no wager was placed on the second account...confiscate winnings, return deposit, and BAN for life.

  13. #13
    pico
    USC ml
    pico's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-05-07
    Posts: 27,323

    geeze justin...do you even have to ask. forfeit winnings might be borderline acceptable, but keeping deposit is just stealing.

  14. #14
    tomcowley
    tomcowley's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-01-07
    Posts: 1,129
    Betpoints: 6786

    What's to stop the book from offering the player some attractive bonus if he deposits over a certain amount, then jacking it all? It's the same unreasonable shot by the book as intentionally (or negligently) not catching the multiaccount before the deposit. If a book had something buried in its T&C about forfeiting a balance if you risk exactly $666 total for a day, it wouldn't be any more reasonable than what's going on here "because it's in the rules".

  15. #15
    Arilou
    Arilou's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-16-06
    Posts: 475
    Betpoints: 30

    If we don't let the book do what it explicitly told us it would do in this situation, we create some perverse incentives. The book is now correct to take a longer-term shot and allow the player to bet and take a shot that way. Instead they pulled the plug right away, straight up, and we need them to want to do that. Meanwhile, if we make them return funds to player then he has no reason not to take the shot himself for the same reason. Yes, keeping the deposit is extreme, but the man was caught dead to rights cheating - the reason books should (almost) never do this is because you can never be sure, or you can only be sure when they admit it and if this is what happens when they do that then they never would admit it. I wouldn't do this if I was the book, as I don't think it's worth it, but they have the right to do it.

    It's a swing, a miss and a caught stealing. Runner is out.

  16. #16
    Santo
    Santo's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-08-05
    Posts: 2,957
    Betpoints: 1551

    I'm not sure we have enough information to fully judge. Was the first account limited, or funded?

    Big difference between opening an account week 1, betting, getting limited, opening another week 3 to circumvent the limit and opening an account in 2005, forgetting about it, and opening another in 2008..

    SBR Founder Join Date: 9/8/2005


Top