[rolemand]

Here's another thought about fraud (and only when it is clearly fraud). The party hurt by the fraud should not be worse off when the whole thing is over than before - they should be in the same condition as before the fraud.

If a player commits a fraud, a sportsbook can waste many hours (easily 30+) dealing with a similar issue. Regardless of how the player does with his account, his actions end up costing the book time, which is money.

Keep spitting out ideas, everyone. SBR will have to set a precedent on this issue at some point.

The workload point is only valid where you can point to overtime occurring specifically to deal with this incident. You're paying your employees to sit there whether they have cases to work on or not. I'm not sure how you could validate this extra time. What was the opportunity cost in this incident to the sportsbook?

[luke m.]

A book is the one honoring the bonuse when the customer signs up. Its like a coupon one per customer. If I went to the store with my friend and we both had coupons, wouldnt we both be entitled to use it even if we were together in the store. Books are the ones who honor bonuses. It is their responsibility to deny a bonus if they wish to. If one of the 2 account holders cannot be verified, well then I believe that is fraud but when both account holders send their IDs along with copies of their Social Security cards, then that is not fraud. How many people are walking around with other peoples Social Security cards?

[luke m.]

Also when the first person gets their check payout and deposits it into their personal bank account, and can show proof from the bank that the check cleared that person's account, then that is also a way to verify identity of a player. Because I would think that it would be very difficult to open a bank accout in someone else's name.

[jase81]

I agree Luke. when they open a second account the first player is acting as a bettors advocate He does the betting for his friend. Its much the same as when a person sends someone else to an action to do the bidding for them. If the book gives the bonus then they should honour the bonus as long as the second account can be varified under the second persons name, It doesnt matter who is acctually doing the beting

[Dark Horse]

Bonus disputes involving many players are a category by themselves.

Ask yourself what type of players are going to be involved in such a dispute.

Professionals? No. They know better.

Amateurs? More likely, but not if players have 80K and 50K on the line (as in the Wagerweb dispute).

So what remains? I could be wrong, but the only category that comes to mind is 'professional bonus scammer'.

[Lucas]

I would give him VIP status and some nice reload bonuses
No... serioulsly, maybe it would be good to establish some universal rules for industry. I would be for hard rules.

I was speking with CZ bwin.com head Jindrich Rajchl and he told me that Bwin confiscates all the money incl. initial deposit in such cases and euro lottery law usually allows such behavior.

[tacomax]

By doing that you give him a no-lose proposition on opening the second account.

A short post, but the best post yet.

[Korchnoi]

A short post, but the best post yet.

By doing anything else, you encourage the book to take a shot at the player by not doing its due diligence when new members sign up.

I think security is a legitimate business expense of running a book. It’s overhead. A book can choose to invest manpower to combat bonus abuse if it feels that doing so is in the best interests of the book.

[Korchnoi]

bump

[Santo]

We're not going to convince each other. I think that the player taking the shot should have to suffer all liability, not be given a free pass to open an account and see what happens with no/less risk. You disagree. C'est la vie.

[tacomax]

By doing anything else, you encourage the book to take a shot at the player by not doing its due diligence when new members sign up.

If you talk decent books, they don't take shots at players. But, as Justin advised on the LukeM case, the book should have a relative free-reign to come to whatever decision they want.

I think security is a legitimate business expense of running a book. It’s overhead. A book can choose to invest manpower to combat bonus abuse if it feels that doing so is in the best interests of the book.

Sorry, don't agree with that. If books want to incorporate increased security into their model then the prices (i.e. juice) go up for every player at that book. Would you prefer to play at a -105 book that charged the scammers the cost of the investigations or play at a -110 book where everyone is paying for the shot-takers?

[tacomax]

Getting a bonus is not taking a shot.

But creating multiple account to take advantage of bonuses is taking a shot. That's the important distinction.

[Poventino]

No bonus including winnings from the bonus should be paid out.

[BrentCrude]

Anyone remember the episode where Jerry returns the expensive blazer because the salesman ticked him off?He brought the blazer back to the store and told everyone at the store the return was because of spite.The manager said we don't give returns for the reason of spite.Jerry then changes his story and says he just didn't like it.The manager says,no,you can't return it because you already said spite was the reason you returned it.

This whole bonus abuse scenario reminds me of that.How can you get caught bonus abusing if it's proven the account is from a different household????Man,stick to a simple story and just say it's your brother,friend or relative with the other account and that you should even get a referal bonus and not a duel account holder penalty.Who's dumb enough to tell the truth these days.Didn't you learn your lesson from how OJ and Clinton got off the hook by denying they did anything wrong and started spinning it where the blame was put on the cops and the republicans.

Then if the sportsbook asks you if this ''IS'' you with both accounts you tell them it depends on what the word is is.Then if the government nabs you for making a bet over the phone orally you tell them that it wasn't a bet because it was done orally.

[Bill Dozer]

If the player undeniably commits fraud he is at the mercy of the sportsbook. One of the flaws of the offshore industry is that the systems are not sophisticated enough to cross reference signup or wagering data. For the most part fraud detection is performed manually and with most Risk Mgt. departments only looking at active winning accounts, the guilty party is often faced with a worse situation than if the book simply addressed the benefit of the scam. It's player, or in this case fraudster, beware. Players need to understand all rules and TOS when joining.

Here, a fair result is what most suggested, voiding the action for account #2. It's almost never this black and white. Different rules and timeline of events can affect the situation. But ultimately, all that the book's have is their TOS and they need room to enforce it.

The more action the fraudster gives, the more data the book has to identify fraud and the more responsibility is shared by the book. In cases where the 2nd account has extensive wagering history, the book may feel more responsible for lack of detection and only delete the bonus and winnings derived from it. We have seen this when quality books see account number 2 as more than just a bonus manipulator and as someone who wanted to continue playing but recover some of the losses after busting in account #1. Often it's a recreational player who uses a different name of someone in the household and doesn't initially see why this is unethical. Fair or not, I think a lot of books choose to just let the gambling-gamblers keep betting with the 2nd household signup bonus.

In most cases there are more than two accounts, the player disputes the book's conclusion. The deposit or an amount above the total deposited through the life of the account is in question because the book feels it has been scammed for a total above the amount available.

[cwsulzba]

You should get your deposit back.

[luke m.]

Books like bonus hunters because it creates cash flow. Right or Wrong? If wrong, then why do books create sister books and offer bonuses? Why would an operation create a sister book if they are not looking for more post up money? Why is it ok to have an account with a book and all of its sister books and qualify for all the bonuses? Why would a book need a sister book if they can handle everything out of one book? Why dont books disclose their sister books to the public?

[Doug]

They shouldn't confiscate bonuses from sister books, it should be clear who is related to whom. Many catch the account instantly at a sister.

Sisters can be OK to service different areas like :

language differences
low juice/full juice
different limits
exchange/book

A lot are really just the same product with a different name,though.

[Korchnoi]

Sorry, don't agree with that. If books want to incorporate increased security into their model then the prices (i.e. juice) go up for every player at that book. Would you prefer to play at a -105 book that charged the scammers the cost of the investigations or play at a -110 book where everyone is paying for the shot-takers?

That's a business decision that's up to the book. Whether you play at that book is your decision too.

Listen, a business has to evaluate if its actions are profitable. If a store puts out tons of coupons, they have to be prepared for people to use them. If the coupons are one per person, they can either put a system in place to make sure each customer uses only one or they can take the save money by not checking it, but potentially take a financial hit for it.

If a restaurant offers half price meals before 6pm to seniors, a lot of rational people will show up and eat early. Some non-seniors might try to eat half price too. If the restaurant doesn't check their IDs and later find out that the person wasn't a senior, do you think the restaurant should make another charge on the guy's CC so that they pay full price *plus* some arbitrary fee to discourage this "fraud?" The restaurant would get charged-back in a second for this.