[Justin7]

I often see a recurring issue in bonus disputes.

Assume the following (it is a hypothetical, and is NOT based on a current dispute):

Player opens an account with book, deposits $1k, and gets a $100 bonus. He meets rollover, and withdraws $2.1k (winning $1k, plus the $100 bonus).

The same player opens a new account with the book under a friend's name. He deposits $1k, and gets a $100 bonus. Once again, he meets rollover, and tries to withdraw $2.1k (having won $1k again). The book catches the player with incontrovertible proof (there's no such thing actually, but assume it here).

The player concedes he had both accounts, argues he should still get $2000 from his second account. The book argues it all should be forfeited. What do you guys think? And why?

[MrX]

Personally I feel the player should receive his deposit plus all winnings not directly attributed to the bonus.

However, in a case like this I don't feel too bad for the player even in a complete seizure of funds.

[Wheell]

Risk should roughly equal reqard on all sides. Since this is difficult to prove but easy to assert the player should generally get everything back, deposit, winnings, and bonus. If there is proof, such as a confession, the player only deserves the intial deposit back. Confiscation of a deposit is pretty much always off limits.

[Santo]

I'd return $1k from the second account.

[Korchnoi]

The book can only reasonably confiscate the bonus portion ($100) of the player's $2100 balance.

The player only made $100 from the “deceit.” Likewise, the book was only harmed by the amount of the bonus.

[isetcap]

Making the assumption that the T&C of the sportsbook in question clearly state that a player may not have more than one account; the player should have his second deposit returned to him, all other monies should be forfeited, and the second account should be closed. The player has no claim to the bonus or winnings on the second account and the book certainly has no claim to the deposited funds as the account was never at any point in time legitimate.

[phynqster]

Player should get 1k (deposit) back. Any money won from that 1k was under fraudulent terms(second account).

[Korchnoi]

Originally Posted by MrX

Personally I feel the player should receive his deposit plus all winnings not directly attributed to the bonus.

However, in a case like this I don't feel too bad for the player even in a complete seizure of funds.

What if the guy tried to cash out with $900 (a loss of $200 from his deposit+bonus)? Would you still give him back his original deposit of $1000. In this case, I think the only fair thing would be to take out the value of the bonus ($100) and return him $800. For consistency, this approach always seems best.

[Ganchrow]

I think that if a player's funds are at risk then any proceeds from those at-risk funds belong to the player. If the player had lost money instead of winning money would those losses have been nullified? It's much like taking a shot on a bad line ... a book should not wait to cancel these bets until after the outcome has been determined.

In a case such as this it's my opinion that bonus money should be forfeit but money won from wagering should not. Otherwise, were confiscating winnings to become widely accepted practice, then we might find the industry in a situation where books could actually encourage this type of behavior - a large number of players, all signing up with a book under false pretense could result in a windfall profit for that book. It hardly seems fair that the book should profit from this type of activity. Allowing this will ultimately only open the door to further unfair business practices on the part of the books when the situation isn't quite so clear cut.

No, in my opinion it behooves a book to initiate its due diligence prior to accepting a wager, not when the player elects to make a withdrawal. Certainly this type of activity on the part of players should not be encouraged ... but neither should a book's lackadaisical and ultimately self-serving attitude towards preemption.

[Doug]

The second bonus of $100 was fraudulent.

The second deposit of $1,000 was at risk, and could have been lost, so if it can lose,it should also be able to win.

I think he should be paid ( minus 2nd bonus) and booted.

[Santo]

Problem is he still gets a value from the second bonus, say it was a 10x rollover. He wagers $1100 and wins $1000, giving a balance of $2100, now $191.91 of that he wouldn't have without the bonus and so on.. without the bonus he'd have only been able to wager 1000/909.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by Doug

The second bonus of $100 was fraudulent.

The second deposit of $1,000 was at risk, and could have been lost, so if it can lose,it should also be able to win.

I think he should be paid ( minus 2nd bonus) and booted.

This might seem like the best alternative but it isn't. It allows for a shot taker to post up without fear of any retribution. When a person engages in fraudulent behavior he/she should risk penalization. Without some form of deterrent, this activity will continue. If fraudulent players must be concerned about whether or not they will receive winnings then they will think twice about making the attempt.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Santo

Problem is he still gets a value from the second bonus, say it was a 10x rollover. He wagers $1100 and wins $1000, giving a balance of $2100, now $191.91 of that he wouldn't have without the bonus and so on.. without the bonus he'd have only been able to wager 1000/909.

True, so it could be calculated to some figure as a comprimise.

How about if the daily action never used bonus money ?

[slash]

Originally Posted by Korchnoi

What if the guy tried to cash out with $900 (a loss of $200 from his deposit+bonus)? Would you still give him back his original deposit of $1000. In this case, I think the only fair thing would be to take out the value of the bonus ($100) and return him $800. For consistency, this approach always seems best.

Then we would never have a dispute. Books only complain about multiple accounts, if the book loses.

[Korchnoi]

Originally Posted by Santo

Problem is he still gets a value from the second bonus, say it was a 10x rollover. He wagers $1100 and wins $1000, giving a balance of $2100, now $191.91 of that he wouldn't have without the bonus and so on.. without the bonus he'd have only been able to wager 1000/909.

The EV of the bonus is still $100. The player receives and the book looses exactly the EV of the bonus which is $100 (ignoring vig/rollover).

[TyroneGoHome]

Take all the funds. He took a shot and lost. He will learn his lesson and not do it again.

[Dark Horse]

If the player knows he will always get his initial deposit back when he gets caught, he can continue to play this game ten, twenty, or more times.

So here's what I would do. First offense only (i.e. second account): player gets his winnings minus the bonus, accompanied by the very clear warning that if he tries this again no funds will be returned at all.

To protect my reputation I would be careful not to make up any new rules after the fact. Everything would be clear upfront. In addition, I would contact other leading books to start a discussion about developing a uniform industry standard that would forever discourage bonus cheaters. (As an added advantage to players this could allow books to go back to offering higher bonuses).

[JC]

Second deposit should be returned, less transfer fees incurred by the book. No winnings or bonus from the second account.

[WWTSblows]

I say he gets his $1,000 plus any money won that can be attributed to his deposit.

Minus the bonus from the first deposit.

[SquareShooter]

Originally Posted by Santo

I'd return $1k from the second account.

The "you should have never played here so lets pretend you didn't" approach - all bets placed are cancelled. Well then what if he actually lost his whole balance? Should he get back his deposit as well (hey! I never played there)?

I think that there's only one logical outcome. Return the balance minus bonus and ban both accounts for good. I think that being banned from a good book would be a harsh punishment for all of us.

The part of the responsibility should be on book as well - be aware of whom you let to play afterall.

[SquareShooter]

Originally Posted by TyroneGoHome

Take all the funds. He took a shot and lost. He will learn his lesson and not do it again.

Cool thats an F book's approach. They define your initial deposit as "taking a shot". The rest is as you told.

[Santo]

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

[gotsteam]

Originally Posted by Justin7

I often see a recurring issue in bonus disputes.

Assume the following (it is a hypothetical, and is NOT based on a current dispute):

Player opens an account with book, deposits $1k, and gets a $100 bonus. He meets rollover, and withdraws $2.1k (winning $1k, plus the $100 bonus).

The same player opens a new account with the book under a friend's name. He deposits $1k, and gets a $100 bonus. Once again, he meets rollover, and tries to withdraw $2.1k (having won $1k again). The book catches the player with incontrovertible proof (there's no such thing actually, but assume it here).

The player concedes he had both accounts, argues he should still get $2000 from his second account. The book argues it all should be forfeited. What do you guys think? And why?

Player should get his 1K deposit back and nothing more as any transaction is based on player attempting to defraud the book.

In reality it is the players who do these things and other similar things trying to take a shot at the book that have caused customer service to go down across the board with books.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by JC

Second deposit should be returned, less transfer fees incurred by the book. No winnings or bonus from the second account.

So player can lose money, but not win any ?

Bad precedent

[JC]

Originally Posted by Doug

So player can lose money, but not win any ?

Bad precedent

It's not a precedent if the player knowingly violated the terms.

[Justin7]

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.

[TyroneGoHome]

Originally Posted by SquareShooter

Cool thats an F book's approach. They define your initial deposit as "taking a shot". The rest is as you told.

When I was a kid, my daddy told me that if someone hits you to hit them back and harder. If I did that, the bad guy would lose interest and other bully's would not pick on me because they knew I would fight back.

If you want to steal from me, I am going to take everything I have from you. You might not like that, but you would not be in that position if you did not try to steal from me. Very basic logic.

There use to be honor amongst theives, those days are gone.

[luke m.]

Why doesnt the book do their homework at the beginning when the player signs up instead of waiting for a player to win and request a payout and searching for a reason not to pay a player. This can waste a lot of time for a player too, besides the health side effects and stress that these games cause players.

[Korchnoi]

Originally Posted by Justin7

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.

I agree they should be roughly in the same condition as before the fraud, but I don't agree you can take "time dealing with an issue" into account. My suggestsion was to take the bonus back if it was found the bonus was given under false pretenses. The bonus has an EV of $100. One party was harmed by this amount, the other received it wrongly.

If you want to take "time dealing with the issue" into account, then you should also dispute that the book was cheated out of a $100 bonus because they recieved vig for the full rollover that they otherwise would not have gotten.

[Dark Horse]

I would like to add that bonus cheaters, when they play for serious money, can seriously damage a book (see Actionbets), and thereby risk the payment of all honest players at that book. So let's not give these folks too much of a leash or benefit of doubt. It is true that we're all in the same boat, but they're the ones poking holes in it.


I previously suggested one free 'mistake', because it's not always clearcut. A player can open an account with a book only to learn later that this book is part of a family that he already had an account with. So if the books want honest players the books should be open about such things upfront. One problem is that books are often as shady as the shadiest of players.

But obvious bonus cheaters get no respect from me. They're thieves, and the other players at the burglarized book are not insured in the extreme case the book should go down. The reason I would confiscate all funds from the third account on is that there is now an investigation that needs to be funded, and a possible insurance funds that needs to be set up. Where there are three roaches, there may be thirty. There is no guarantee that all will be found.

But again, this would be very clearly stated in my book. Under bonus rules. The player would know upfront. I'd be willing to bet that, as a result of a strict policy (yet forgiving towards the first mistake, that could indeed be a mistake), my book would have no attacks from organized bonus cheaters.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Justin7

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.

I think another standard should be that the party supposedly aggrieved by that fraud should not be able to come significant benefit by encouraging that very same fraud.

Personally, I have no problem with resolution qua deterrence as long as it's arbitrated by an impartial third party. What does concern me, however, is when punishment is meted out by the very same sportsbook that would stand to directly benefit from its severity. A sportsbook simply can not be allowed to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.

Without mediation, I think the fair course of action is for the player to forfeit his ill-gotten bonus, any fees accrued by the book, as well as reasonable administrative charges.

Of course insofar as SBR is mediating a particular issue then the situation changes and I think some level of deterrence-driven punishment would be justified. This doesn't mean that a book should necessarilly be permitted to confiscate all of a player's winnings but rather some amount determined as function of the value of the bonus money received. If a player deposits $10,000 under a friend's name, receives a $500 freeplay with 10x rollover, and the proceeds to win $50,000 more, confiscating all $50K hardly seems reasonable. Just picking a number out of a hat, I'd say the monetary punishment inflicted on a player should be limited to somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 5 - 10 times the value of the initial bonus.

One important factor for SBR to consider would be whether or not the book were even tacitly encouraging such action. If, for example, a book allowed a player to receive a bonus on an account opened with the same name, address, and e-mail as another, then it's clearly unfair for the book to only cry foul when the player attempts to withdraw his winnings.

[TLD]

In most such cases there should be zero penalty other than that the book has the right to not take further action from the player(s). It’s really no business of the book’s if I’m giving my cousin Leroy money to open an account under his name, I tell him what to bet—or put the bets in myself—and he gives me the money that’s ultimately withdrawn from that account. Any such arrangement between Leroy and I is between Leroy and I. A book may not tell Leroy and I how we are allowed to decide what to bet, how we are allowed to pass money back and forth between us, etc.

They may—if they don’t like our doing this, or for any other reason—choose not to do further business with us. But all winning bets, losing bets, bonuses, etc. up to that point stand.

On the other hand, let’s say there is no actual second person of legal age with his own identity, etc., but instead the player, say, opens a second account under a phony name with Photo Shopped I.D. or something to get a bonus his original account would not have been eligible for. In that case, the bonus and any winnings from it may be removed from the account even retroactively. Not the deposit itself and winnings from it, because that was the player’s own money at risk that he could have won or lost.

More specifically, the way I would handle it is the same as if two deposits were made, with the second being invalid. So it would be like he deposited $1,000 (unbonused) legitimately, then five minutes later made a $100 deposit (unbonused) with an insufficient funds e-check or something that the book is unable to collect on. Assume they credited him the whole $1,100 temporarily until they figured out the second deposit was not legitimate. I would say they can go back through the history of the account and treat it as if he had made only the first of those two deposits. So any bets—winning or losing—made with money he didn’t “really” have are void. This may well be zero bets if he never dipped more than $1,000 into his account. Or it could be quite a lot if he frequently zeroed out his account on pending bets.

[luke m.]

If a player recieves a promotion bonus by email, and the player uses the promotion, and then forwards it to a friend and the book honors both people knowing that the email was forwarded by the friend before the account is opened without giving a referral bonus is it legit or not?

[increasedodds]

Assuming the book has rules stating a player can not have more than one account, and the players cumulative balances are up, the player should be returned his deposits.

If the player is down, he should be returned his balance minus bonuses, transfer fees, etc.

Proof must be ironclad - voice recognition, admission, etc - not the same IP address thing.

-Sean

[Dark Horse]

Last July I was at risk for 7K at Actionbets because the book was attacked by organized bonus cheaters. I got paid, but the book dropped from C to D- in no time. This was before the new law, when the climate was a lot calmer. It was only 50/50 that I would see this money, as the book seemed ready to go down.

Things became rather interesting when Aden from Actionbets and several of the bonus scammers joined in the debate right here on this forum. I recall that two of these new signups, supposedly all different people, made the very same ridiculous spelling mistake. Hilarious.

So I have firsthand experience of a risk to my funds caused by bonus scammers. And then they come here acting all innocent, looking for understanding and support from the same people whose money they put at risk. - - Gimme a break. You're either honest or you're not. And you know it.

Guess what. Actionbets would still be a C book (or higher) and I might still be playing there for -108, but for these f*cking morons.