[Justin7]

This dispute is very complicated, but I thought I'd share what I have learned so far.

13 Players played at Wagerweb since 2002 (or earlier), and received a special promotion from 2002 to the end of 2006. Only 9 were still active at the end of 2006. Each player would get a 5% rebate of his net win or net loss, each week. Not surprisingly, the players mostly played one $5k bet per week. Over a course of 4 years, those players collected $561,157 in rebates. During that same period, these players had a loss of $384,420 from wagering, but finished up $176,737 (561k - 384k) due to the rebates.

At the end of 2006, Wagerweb created a Fraud Investigation Department. The 9 accounts were suspended, at which point the account holders entered an agreement with Wagerweb to resolve the dispute. Without looking at the agreement or what happened afterward, I have been trying to determine one thing: did the 9 players defraud Wagerweb?

There are 2 "subgroups" of the 9 players. 4 played mainly on the internet, and 5 played mainly by telephone. The investigation on the telephone players is ongoing, but I have most of the facts on the internet players.

Wagerweb claims that the players were "abusing a bonus". Per their site, "Bonus programs are intended for recreational bettors only. Professional players or players considered to be abusing the bonus system by any means may have bonuses and money earned from wagering bonuses revoked at the discretion of Wagerweb." (this rule doesn't appear to have been on the site in 2002 when the players signed up).

Wagerweb claims that the players were working as a group. In support of this, they provided
1. IP logs. These showed the all 4 players sharing IPs. In response, the players provided proof that these IPs were proxy servers at AOL. Since the all used high-speed AOL at the office (they work at the same office), they should have the same IP.
2. Wagering pattern. In a 6-week sample, many of the players bet on the same games. In 8 weeks, there were 6 different instances of at least 5 players betting on the same game; in one instance, 8 players bet on one game. By betting both sides of a game with different accounts, the players could arbitrage the book with the rebate.
3. Wagering timing. Although the wagering occurred during different times of the day, the accounts always logged in with 1 hour of each other (and in some instances, within 60 seconds).
4. Password errors. During the 6-month period, there were 6 instances where 2 account holders typed in the password for another account (the two accounts transposed passwords).
Wager web concluded that these accounts were working together.

The players provided additional information. They are mostly stockbrokers, and all work together. The players never hid their affiliation. They frequently transferred money between the Wagerweb accounts to avoid deposit hassles. Some of the players were also under similar affiliated.

The players also question why this was allowed for 4 years before Wagerweb claimed bonus abuse.

My question for the forum: did these 4 players do anything that would warrant having a bonus revoked?

[hitbitritz]

if everything above is deemed to be correct...IMO, they did not. this is yet another example of why we should all play at top books...sad situation.

[Doug]

This was stupid:

They frequently transferred money between the Wagerweb accounts to avoid deposit hassles.

[Doug]

4. Password errors. During the 6-month period, there were 6 instances where 2 account holders typed in the password for another account (the two accounts transposed passwords).
Wager web concluded that these accounts were working together

........................................ ........................................

WW can tell an incorrect password was entered years ago ?

That surprises me !

Tough case ! Casablanca seems to have been lax, and should have noticed these large accounts long ago. I thought limits were under 5k also ?

[magnavox]

The book just cannot retroactively deem certain wagers as a bonus abuse. Just look at the CRIS issue of the same kind (Bet Points) couple of years ago. They were downgraded until agreed with SBR.

[Doug]

I bet they only bet baseball. Casablanca used to have a dimeline, so a pick game would be -105 both ways.

bet 5250 to win 5000 on both sides, lose 250, get bonus of 5% of 5250 + 5000 ( 512.50), up 262.50 for the week.

They have to look at 5k bets a bit, see opposite always being bet, then transfers between accounts. You catch this fast, and end the bonus.

Lax proceedures from CBS, they should pay !

[increasedodds]

Wagerweb should pay these people.

As long as the people are real verifyable people.

The bottom line is this: Wagerweb offered a ridiculously stupid promotion. They then let it run for 4 years. You can not bet $5000 online at Wagerweb ($2000 max) so they must have called these in or gotten permission to do so online.

There is absolutely no way Wagerweb did not monitor these $5000 bets. Wagerweb was hoping they would lose and if they did not planned to pull the fraud card.

This is complete BS and no one should play at Wagerweb until these guys are paid.

If you offer a ridiculous promotion and get beat, you should pay and learn.

All that being said, these guys are clowns. I know many people who use multiple accounts at multiple books. The #1 thing to do first is get separate laptops with individual IP addresses. If you are betting 100,000s $ there is no reason to move money between the linked accounts, to use the same IP, etc...

But just because these people were idiots should not mean they should not be paid so long as they all have verifyable IDs.

If I were Wagerweb, I would pay them and send a copy of the payment to the IRS.

Sean

[increasedodds]

Also, by definition, someone making one $5000 bet each week is not recreational, so wagerweb should have put an end to it after 1-2 weeks, not 4 years. That is the bottom line. WW took a shot and that is all there is to it and they should now pay.

Sean

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Wagerweb claims that the players were working as a group. In support of this, they provided
1. IP logs. These showed the all 4 players sharing IPs. In response, the players provided proof that these IPs were proxy servers at AOL. Since the all used high-speed AOL at the office (they work at the same office), they should have the same IP.
2. Wagering pattern. In a 6-week sample, many of the players bet on the same games. In 8 weeks, there were 6 different instances of at least 5 players betting on the same game; in one instance, 8 players bet on one game. By betting both sides of a game with different accounts, the players could arbitrage the book with the rebate.
3. Wagering timing. Although the wagering occurred during different times of the day, the accounts always logged in with 1 hour of each other (and in some instances, within 60 seconds).
4. Password errors. During the 6-month period, there were 6 instances where 2 account holders typed in the password for another account (the two accounts transposed passwords).
Wager web concluded that these accounts were working together.

If this is not bonus abuse, then what is? Very obvious.

Originally Posted by Justin7

The players provided additional information. They are mostly stockbrokers, and all work together. The players never hid their affiliation. They frequently transferred money between the Wagerweb accounts to avoid deposit hassles. Some of the players were also under similar affiliated.

The players also question why this was allowed for 4 years before Wagerweb claimed bonus abuse.

My question for the forum: did these 4 players do anything that would warrant having a bonus revoked?

This is where it gets murky. Why did WW allow something so obvious for so long?

Personally, I wouldn't trust WW enough to think that they didn't do this on purpose. The money was in their possession, so there was no 'problem' unless payouts were requested.

When exactly did WW decide there was a problem? When payouts were requested? If so, that would clearly show their motivation and explain why the 'fraud' went on for so long.

From what I understand, initially the players were wrong. But at some point the book must have made a decision to go along with it, because they could always refuse to pay. I don't know when that decision was made, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was years before the present dispute.

Where the players wrong? Yes. Was WW wrong? Yes. What to do when both parties are in the wrong? Compromise.

[Dark Horse]

On the other hand, if the players did get paid until now, then it is clear that WW wasn't aware of the fraud (which brings up another question as to why they missed something so obvious). In that case the players were still wrong, but WW's participation was unwilling (as opposed to willing, if they knew of the fraud but let it go on).

So, if you ask me, the players are guilty. The book is either just as guilty, or unbelievably stupid. In either case it is pretty much a draw.

[picantel]

Fraud on WWs part. They should pay. I believe Bill Dozer and Cris used that against me when they did not pay the bets. They stated since I knew there were problems my continued play made it my fault. Unless WW is incredibly stupid they would have known what was going on but decided it was no longer cost effective so they tried to pull the plug with fraud. The only fraud is by WW.

[Korchnoi]

Originally Posted by Justin7

2. Wagering pattern. In a 6-week sample, many of the players bet on the same games. In 8 weeks, there were 6 different instances of at least 5 players betting on the same game; in one instance, 8 players bet on one game. By betting both sides of a game with different accounts, the players could arbitrage the book with the rebate.

Why did you word it this way? When they played the same game, did they balance their action? Were they arbing the book or not?

If they weren't "arbing" the book and all were betting the same way, would they be rightly called a "syndicate"?

[MYFOOTBALLGAME]

Betting 5k at Wager Web constitutes having the call transferred to the front desk where mgmt reads lines. Transferring money between accounts is not normally allowed at Wager Web and needed management permission everytime. Over a million dollars was transferred between accounts each year. The book took a shot and as payouts were being requested Wager Web threw in the fraud towel. There were no rules broken by the players. Wager Webs policy was......one account per household....that's it.

[Doug]

Maybe these bets worked even better ?

Game is -105 both ways, 5k on home team at -105, book moves line to +100 on visitor ( perhaps ?) then the other guy hits it !

[Dark Horse]

If WW changed the rules after the fact, the players clearly couldn't have broken the rules in question. Even if, by today's standards, they were clearly engaged in bonus fraud.

In that case the players should have been informed that the rules had changed.

[Doug]

I'm sure these players must have made withdrawals, probably zeroing out accounts after baseball, then amazed its still there next season, so repeat.

They used to take some very related parlays.

[acw]

Justin7,

Knowing that Wagerweb are obvious stiffs, will you revise your view on this one:
Luke M vs. WagerWeb opinion

[Dark Horse]

FWIW, it doesn't seem like the players were trying to hide anything. As stock brokers they would have been smart enough not to run red lights here. So the book must have given them the green light.

WW, by contrast, does seem to hide a few things. Such as the time when they changed the rules, and the (convenient?) time they instituted a fraud department; thereby suggesting they didn't know what was going on (even though players openly transferred funds between accounts?!?).

So, if there is such a thing as a honesty scale, WW loses.

[Mistaflava]

In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart.

For an example of estoppel, consider the case of a debtor and a creditor. The creditor might unofficially inform the debtor that the debt has been forgiven. Even if the original contract was not terminated, the creditor may be estopped from collecting the debt if he changes his mind later. It would be unfair to allow the creditor to change his mind in light of the unofficial agreement he made with the debtor beforehand. In the same way, a landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if there is construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies on this advice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting rent retroactively.



Why the 'fraud' went on for so long ?

increasedodds
"Wagerweb should have put an end to it after 1-2 weeks, not 4 years"

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by acw

Justin7,

Knowing that Wagerweb are obvious stiffs, will you revise your view on this one:
Luke M vs. WagerWeb opinion

ACW,

What are you talking about? On the dispute you referred to, Wagerweb was clearly in the right- the player was clearly trying to defraud them, and clearly violating their rules.

I have seen nothing that suggests that "Wagerweb are obvious stiffs". In this dispute, the parties have very different perceptions, but are both working towards full disclosure.

Regardless of how this dispute resolves, 1. Wagerweb had a valid concern to initiate an investigation; and 2. Wagerweb is working with SBR to resolve this fairly.

[acw]

Originally Posted by Justin7

On the dispute you referred to, Wagerweb was clearly in the right- the player was clearly trying to defraud them, and clearly violating their rules.

Your opinion! Not mine!

[sasquatch]

I played there consistently, without change, all sports year round. Then, after four years, they cried foul.

[slash]

Originally Posted by MYFOOTBALLGAME

Betting 5k at Wager Web constitutes having the call transferred to the front desk where mgmt reads lines.

Back when I used WW, one could place 5k bets online.

[MYFOOTBALLGAME]

Originally Posted by slash

Back when I used WW, one could place 5k bets online.

Slash, you are correct. I played almost all my games for 5k there on the internet and on the phone. But when I bet on the internet, over half of the time they moved the line on me when I submitted it, so I starting calling in the majority of my plays. I would just get a rundown of the entire card so I wouldn't tip them off as to what I was going to play.

[increasedodds]

There is no way WW was not aware of these $5000 bets. If you believe that, you believe BOS is a better book than Pinnacle.

Pay the guys or lose a lot of players.

Sean

[tatehill2000]

DOUG,,,, I played all sports Year round,,,, Thanks to everyone for their support,,, you cant just Fing STEAL my GDAM money!!!!!

Tater

[tics]

bottom line is... these guys are bonus hunters .. should a bonus hunter get paid????

[slash]

Originally Posted by tics

bottom line is... these guys are bonus hunters .. should a bonus hunter get paid????

You can't be serious?

[bigloser]

Originally Posted by acw

Your opinion! Not mine!

or mine

[bigloser]

Originally Posted by Justin7

ACW,

I have seen nothing that suggests that "Wagerweb are obvious stiffs". In this dispute, the parties have very different perceptions, but are both working towards full disclosure.

It seems to be obvious to most of the posters here. Wagerweb are in the wrong. Dont see where the different perceptions come in.

And it does make Luke look better

[Dark Horse]

It comes down to grading the different elements, but this can't be done without a proper timeline. Did the players commit bonus fraud, in a way that most of us by today's standards would agree? I think so. But WW allowed it, and even facilitated it by having players move funds between accounts. If you place that against the crazy bonus offer they continued to give out, the responsibility to keep track of participants clearly belonged to WW.

Nothing was said about players having been paid before this dispute arose. Did it suddenly arise when players, perhaps concerned with the new antigambling law, requested payouts? And was this when WW suddenly decided to institute its fraud department? Did the players break any rules that were in effect, or were the rules written after the fact? We need a better timeline of events to analyze the motives.

Without making this all too elementary, my dear Watson, which motives were out in the open, and which were hidden? And if they were hidden, what was the reason for that? By the way things have been described so far the players weren't hiding anything - why else would they move funds between accounts?! -, but the same cannot be said for the book. I think Santo once pulled up a historical database with previous versions of web pages. Perhaps that could help establish exactly when WW added their new rules? So in addition to a timeline, it would also be helpful to know who was hiding what and when.

[20Four7]

Originally Posted by slash

You can't be serious?

I believe he is slash...... which is sad.

[BadAzz]

After these issues I would not touch WagerWeb with a 10 feet pole. Of course, that is really not an issue since I don't think I can build up a confiscatable balance with my full one dollar limit.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

It comes down to grading the different elements, but this can't be done without a proper timeline. Did the players commit bonus fraud, in a way that most of us by today's standards would agree? I think so. But WW allowed it, and even facilitated it by having players move funds between accounts. If you place that against the crazy bonus offer they continued to give out, the responsibility to keep track of participants clearly belonged to WW.

Nothing was said about players having been paid before this dispute arose. Did it suddenly arise when players, perhaps concerned with the new antigambling law, requested payouts? And was this when WW suddenly decided to institute its fraud department? Did the players break any rules that were in effect, or were the rules written after the fact? We need a better timeline of events to analyze the motives.

Without making this all too elementary, my dear Watson, which motives were out in the open, and which were hidden? And if they were hidden, what was the reason for that? By the way things have been described so far the players weren't hiding anything - why else would they move funds between accounts?! -, but the same cannot be said for the book. I think Santo once pulled up a historical database with previous versions of web pages. Perhaps that could help establish exactly when WW added their new rules? So in addition to a timeline, it would also be helpful to know who was hiding what and when.

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

might pull it up

[Doug]

http://web.archive.org/web/200101190...ww.betcbs.com/