Public internet

**5mike5** · 08-08-12, 10:41 AM

thats terrible

**djefferis** · 08-08-12, 11:00 AM

When did it become reasonable for bookies to steal to start with?

Close account, sure..but pay the player what they have in acct at time of closure.

Bottom line, the book reserves right to decline ANY action. If they don't like your action is coming from Starbucks, so be it.

If you catch a cheater-toss them and use common sense checks to ensure he doesn't sneak back in. If you got a Guy betting 5k a game, is a simple verification that the name/DOB/address exist too costly for a book earning 10% vigorish. If there's question, request id, if they refuse boot them and track the IP.

Crroks are stupid, they will try the same IP multi times. Again, if your seeing 72 accounts logging within minutes of another signing off, all betting limits from a ** D's in Des-moines IA, and you miss it, you dwarves to be burned by the thief.

**wrongturn** · 08-08-12, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

More and more complaints are revolving around players using public internet to gamble. Invariably, other players who use the same facility have a shared IP address.

The rule against shared IP addresses is to prevent fraud or multiple accounts.

Given the increased availability (and usage) of public IP addresses, is it still reasonable for books to treat any player using a public IP address as a fraudulent player, close his account, and seize winnings? I see this happen perhaps 20 times per week in SBR complaints.

Like all rules in sportsbook, this depends on how they enforce it. A books use the rule in reasonable way, while lower books use it as excuse.

Reasonable way is to have other info, like bet pattern etc., to support the multi-account violation claim. At very least, A books should warn players about IP issue before taking action.

**FreeFall** · 08-08-12, 01:43 PM

I don't think it's reasonable in the least bit.

If there is an acct with a password that should be all they worry about. I would be more open to a proactive/nicer approach of sending out an email notifying the player or a default option on signup informing the player this is their IP and they need to use this one only if they want to log on.

Hiding behind made-up/out-of-date policies is not a solution to stealing winnings to help their bottom lines.

**touchback** · 08-08-12, 01:56 PM

This is surely a bit of a pickle... but from a services point of view they have to protect themselves from player collusion... such as chip dumping with poker... or even one guy using multiple accounts to abuse bonus and freebet incentives as well as arbing. Any good and or respected book will have a very skilled team or guy that will look at the whole account history including login and IP as well gambling patterns to spot abusive play and if an enquiry is made by SBR can produce documentation to back it up... J7 and crew are very smart guys and it would be difficult for a service to get one over on them... good example is the EZ Corey debacle from the other year. In my opinion J7 got to the bottom of that whole thing rather thoroughly and is the main reason I opened this account after following SBR for years... but yes unethical books use it as an excuse to steal from winners, thats why stick to respected and or well rated services.

**lecubs28** · 08-08-12, 02:25 PM

hmm, this is concerning cause i put in bets on the go often - starbucks, mcdonalds, airport, whatever.

will i be protected if i log in using my work vpn?

**djefferis** · 08-08-12, 02:31 PM

I don't feel its always a issue of ethics for books looking to steal citing these rules, rather laziness and cluelessness on the books part.

Sales dept lets guys chip dump, abuse bonus, do whatever go gain free money, what do they care...their job is to attract new signups and depositors. Security can't catch all the cheats sales draws in because there are just too many..so when mgmt catches one, they act abusively towards the cheat.

Off course mgmt could just keep a decent sales staff, pay a living wage and not hire guys to troll forums for deposits, but that cost money. They think they are saving a few bucks just putting a Guy on commission, and then bitch when sales delivers crooks.

**sideloaded** · 08-08-12, 02:31 PM

uhh ipv4 addresses are gone. Many isps use proxys and limited dhcp pools. Having the same ip is common. Books are retarded.

**touchback** · 08-08-12, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by sideloaded

uhh ipv4 addresses are gone. Many isps use proxys and limited dhcp pools. Having the same ip is common. Books are retarded.

Absolutely... not necessarily the book but the IT department, retarded/just lazy, and if in CR probably stoned. Then again, the way services squeeze employees with low wages and long hours usually involving 6 day work weeks more likely just not motivated. It is such an important department I would just pay them very well to get their best...

**Justin7** · 08-08-12, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by sideloaded

uhh ipv4 addresses are gone. Many isps use proxys and limited dhcp pools. Having the same ip is common. Books are retarded.

dhcp pools. I haven't heard of these. Can you elaborate?

**sideloaded** · 08-09-12, 12:39 AM

A isp only has a certain ip block allocated to them. Especially small isp's could have as little as 256. These are released and renewed between customers on a daily basis. So two customers with the same Isp one could have 70.186.201.109 in april and then customer number two could pull that ip in may.

**shari91** · 08-09-12, 03:28 AM

Too slack of the book if they're just relying on IPs. Many of the regular posters here, including myself, have IPs that match up with other posters all over the world. Even though I'm logging in from home 99% of the time, my IP address changes every so often and it's assigned to another ISP wherever. Need to have better security measures than that. That being said I've never had a problem with any of the books I've played with.

**Santo** · 08-09-12, 07:30 AM

One question worth asking is how the measure is used..

Is it that two people have the same IP account so they must be committing fraud = retaliatory action.

Or is it that behaviour triggers fraud alerts which causes an investigation during which they find other players with the same IP = retaliatory action.

Whilst the action leading to the retaliation in both cases stems from a duplicate IP, I would suggest the cases are subtly different..

**wrongturn** · 08-09-12, 08:01 AM

If the book says the two account's activity intertwines during the same period, this is not a reusable IP issue that most are concerned about here, it is more likely an issue about sharing IP through gateway, which could happen at one home, or at a public WIFI hot spot.

**shari91** · 08-09-12, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by wrongturn

If the book says the two account's activity intertwines during the same period, this is not a reusable IP issue that most are concerned about here, it is more likely an issue about sharing IP through gateway, which could happen at one home, or at a public WIFI hot spot.

That's fair enough but Justin7 didn't elaborate so it's hard to say. My point at least was that while IPs can be one tool to help determine fraud at times, only relying on IPs is completely negligent. If it's dodgy/mirrored behaviour between multiple accounts + matching IPs (especially more than one) then I'd be hard pressed to fault the book. If it's a case of matching IPs and we 'think' they might be related somehow but we have no other proof then I don't believe that's substantial enough to warrant accounts being zeroed out.

**Bill Dozer** · 08-09-12, 09:38 AM

One instance of like IPs alone never a reason to confiscate winnings. There are about 3 or 4 other ways of concluding its the same machine now. I doubt there are many cases where it is just that though.

**djefferis** · 08-09-12, 10:42 AM

Using the IP match logic is about the same as saying you own a berreta 9mm (sp?) And a man was murdered 1000 miles away with that same model gun. If you have no alibi, then you are guilty of murder likely.

Never mind they sell 1000's a month...its guilty until proven innocent in some operators minds.

**unluckysob** · 08-10-12, 08:38 AM

Are 2 players---2different people---2 different physical addresses---2different names---2different accounts----allowed to bet from same computer----my buddy lives about 3 miles away----sometimes i use his computer

**chilidog** · 08-10-12, 09:52 AM

There's been times when I've been at a friend's house watching football, and I've wanted to use his laptop to place a bet on the game, and I refuse to login to any books that he also uses, for this very reason. Hell, there's even been times that I wanted to logon to SBR, but I wouldn't do that, because he also has an SBR account.

**filipinho** · 08-10-12, 10:06 AM

IMO, sportsbooks should have right to suspend accounts only in "bonus abuse" & "circumventing limits" cases.Example, two sportsbooks that will NEVER cause you problems with shared computer/IP are Sbobet and Pinnacle, and that is because they dont offer bonuses, and you cant circumvent limits there.But, with public internet you never know what others were doing while using it...In today's climate, definitely avoid IP and computer sharing.

**mtneer1212** · 08-10-12, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by sideloaded

A isp only has a certain ip block allocated to them. Especially small isp's could have as little as 256. These are released and renewed between customers on a daily basis. So two customers with the same Isp one could have 70.186.201.109 in april and then customer number two could pull that ip in may.

Basically this is dynamic addressing, where having a dedicated IP that never changes is static addressing.

**lukahh** · 08-11-12, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by unluckysob

Are 2 players---2different people---2 different physical addresses---2different names---2different accounts----allowed to bet from same computer----my buddy lives about 3 miles away----sometimes i use his computer

don't even think about doing it. it will all be cancelled, winnings confiscated. and in this case, quite rightly so.

same IP for short while is not a reason for solid book to boot you, even if you are winning.

**mathdotcom** · 08-11-12, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

More and more complaints are revolving around players using public internet to gamble. Invariably, other players who use the same facility have a shared IP address.

The rule against shared IP addresses is to prevent fraud or multiple accounts.

Given the increased availability (and usage) of public IP addresses, is it still reasonable for books to treat any player using a public IP address as a fraudulent player, close his account, and seize winnings? I see this happen perhaps 20 times per week in SBR complaints.

No because they can just make shit up

They can use their discretion to stop offering bonuses to the individual[s] in the future but not to confiscate funds

**fixxer** · 08-12-12, 04:50 AM

I already saw a rule at a bookmaker (don't remember which, one of the Malta based operations), which forbidded the use of the account from a public place (not simply forbidded the shared IP). This is a clear rule, which the bookmaker can base a decision on. (so this how a customer cannot defend his case, by telling that he used the PC from a public place, and this is the reason for the IP match)
Actually it's far more safer to not to use a betting account from a public place, as it can cause some serious security issues. (keyloggers, etc...) On the other hand, I know a friend for example, who only uses his acc. from a public place, as he don't want to do any betting from home or working place, which I can completely understand.

If a bookmaker has this rule in the terms (and had this in the terms in the moment of the issue), I agree with the closing of the account, and - if no other clear evidence is against the bettor, that he cheated - returning his balance, or at least the last deposit from his current balance (if possible) to the source of deposit.
But if a bookmaker don't have this rule, than it's an unjust decision. As betting is a market transaction between 2 sides, everything should be based on rules and terms. If the bookmaker has an exact, clear rule against public places, it has the right to close accounts (etc...), as the other side violated the rules. But if not, it's an allowed thing to do.

But this is just about public places, and players who defend themselves by telling that they used a pc from a public place....IP's can match with other users simply based on great bad luck, so if there is no other evidence against a player, as Mr. Dozer wrote, this is not enough to base a decision on.

**DwightShrute** · 08-12-12, 08:32 PM

2 solutions IMO

1. Send the book a copy of your CC, license and authorization form which you will need to do anyways when you request a payout.

2. better yet, send the deposit P2P which the vast majority do now anyways.

peace

**iceminers26** · 08-13-12, 12:44 AM

or you could just stop touting bullshit books like BetOnline who have bubble gum problems like this daily.... you wouldn't have to make threads like this and we could all sleep easier... thread gives SBR an out next time BO comes up with BS like this, chances are it will be within the week.