[Justin7]

Player opens up 30 accounts to abuse a free-play bonus. One account wins big, the other 29 lose their small deposits. The book identifies the winning account with several other bonus-abusing accounts, and refunds his deposit from the winning account.

The player then says the other accounts are his, and wants his losses back. Opinions?

[HedgeHog]

The 29 losing accounts (zero balance) stand. However, the one winning account should too--less the fraud bonus and the % it played in his winnings (i.e. 10% bonus, forfeit 10% winnings; 20% bonus costs him 20% of winnings).

[Pareto]

He should definately not get his losses back.

And I dont know if I agree with you hedgehog. If you only take away the bonus and the winnings caused by this bonus, isnt that like saying, its free to try and cheat a book? If you dont get caught then you have made a lot of money. If you do get caught you only lose money you wouldnt have won in the first place.

[HedgeHog]

He should definately not get his losses back.

And I dont know if I agree with you hedgehog. If you only take away the bonus and the winnings caused by this bonus, isnt that like saying, its free to try and cheat a book? If you dont get caught then you have made a lot of money. If you do get caught you only lose money you wouldnt have won in the first place.

I agree that the cheater needs to be penalized, but keep in mind that most of his winnings were with legit bets (and with 80-90% of his own money depending on bonus size). He should lose the bonus and the role it played in his winnings.

[raiders72002]

Exactly what the book did is correct thing to do because the player admitted they were all his accounts. The book has to be sure before confiscating money from the winning account.

[jjgold]

I would take all his money period to teach him a lesson and teach others a lesson.

[raiders72002]

Justin- This was talked about before. What percentage of the problems received by SBR are legitimate complaints?

Most complaints are bonus whores and bad line players. I'd like to know the percentage again.

[prop]

I would take all his money period to teach him a lesson and teach others a lesson.

I would do the exact the same.

If the guy opened 3 accounts I would disagree. I would just settle with him by refunding deposits if he was a winner or sending him his remaining balance if he was a looser.

But 30 accounts, this is what I would think: This ****er is steeling from me, **** him I'm not giving him anything.

[Stumpage]

Yeah, I'd have to say that this clown deserves little, if any, assistance in terms of helping him out on his dispute. He cheated, and he got caught. Personally, I'd be happy to see him get nothing. Fools like this are the reason legitimate players are often scrutinized with suspicion by sportbooks. We all sort of get lumped together, despite there only being a few "bad eggs" as it were.

To hell with him...Screw him.

[prop]

Sportsbooks need a rating guide for their players

SPR (Sportsbook Player Review) Initiates jackass663 with a D rating after he recently opened 30 accounts at the same sportsbook to take advantage of their sign up bonus offers. Jackass663 is a friend of dumbshmuck (SPR rating F) who is a cash out only player with a long history chargebacks.

Note: Please don't confuse him with jackazz663 (SPR Rating A-) who is a stand up player that bets the Yankees 162 games per year and only cashes out on rare occasions when winning streaks add up.

[Justin7]

Justin- This was talked about before. What percentage of the problems received by SBR are legitimate complaints?

Most complaints are bonus whores and bad line players. I'd like to know the percentage again.

Of the complaints I field... About 30% just require some kind of information to help a player, 30% have a serious issue where the book is in the wrong, and 40% have a problem that either the player did not try to resolve, the player was in the wrong, or the player and book just didn't communicate (call both of them wrong).

[mshanedub420]

If you **** over a sportsbook I dont see why they won't do it to you. i would

[HedgeHog]

Wouldn't blame the average Book for confiscating all the money from someone stupid enough to open 30 accounts. But don't you think an A or B Book would look into the one winning account to verify that the bets were legit (not bad lines or past posting which this guy isn't beyond doing). And then, and only then, pay him his winnings less bonus and the % of winnings attributed to the bonus? For reputation sake alone, I think a solid Book would and should do this.

[prop]

Nope, because all of his winnings would have started with shot taking using a bonus that he is not entitled to.
5Dimes has an A rating,, LOL i can only imagine the email he'll get from them when he asks for his 29 other accounts deposit back.

[spliff]

Yeah, I'd have to say that this clown deserves little, if any, assistance in terms of helping him out on his dispute. He cheated, and he got caught. Personally, I'd be happy to see him get nothing. Fools like this are the reason legitimate players are often scrutinized with suspicion by sportbooks. We all sort of get lumped together, despite there only being a few "bad eggs" as it were.

To hell with him...Screw him.

my thoughts exactly.

[DrSlamm]

books should use due diligence before awarding a bonus. After a bonus is awarded they should forfeit all rights to getting it back.

[JBC77]

Player should get nothing.....

[JBC77]

What kind of degenerate cries to SBR after getting busted scamming?

I'm shocked you guys didn't tell him...."hope the door doesn't hit you in the a$$ on your way out."

[Dark Horse]

Player has no case. Why do you want input on this, Justin?

[swifty]

teach him a lesson no money

[RickySteve]

Stockholm Syndrome running rampant in this thread.

[tacomax]

The 29 losing accounts (zero balance) stand. However, the one winning account should too--less the fraud bonus and the % it played in his winnings (i.e. 10% bonus, forfeit 10% winnings; 20% bonus costs him 20% of winnings).

But isn't that a case of the book taking a shot at the player just as the player took a shot at the book? An eye for an eye maybe, but we're not living in the world of the bible.

I'd say that the book should pay back the deposits on all 30 accounts. However, the book has incurred costs while investigating this issue so they should be totaled and then debited from the total paid. That way the book will not be profiteering from the bonus abuse and the player would be given the incentive not to try this again anywhere else.

Incidentally, the book should bear some responsibility for this case. If they didn't/couldn't detect the fraud when the accounts were opened but somehow did it when it came to paying out then something is wrong with their systems and is something that needs to be sorted out.

[Justin7]

Here's another dispute I'm pondering:

A winning player has his limits reduced. He opens up another account at the same book to get around the reduced limits (this is undisputed). The book catches him, and confiscates the second account. The book has rules that clearly permit this. The player is making a claim against the book.

[LLXC]

Don't **** with sportsbooks...

[tacomax]

After reading what Justin7 said, I presume there was nothing in the T&Cs preventing the level of abuse from the player. If there was then go by the T&Cs.

A winning player has his limits reduced. He opens up another account at the same book to get around the reduced limits (this is undisputed). The book catches him, and confiscates the second account. The book has rules that clearly permit this. The player is making a claim against the book.

If the T&Cs state that players can't have 2nd accounts and that the punishment is confiscating the money in the 2nd account then the player has no case here.

[sean72]

books should use due diligence before awarding a bonus. After a bonus is awarded they should forfeit all rights to getting it back.

Amen brother

books should investigate an account before they give them a bonus

Once they give a bonus then they should honour it

[Dark Horse]

Here's another dispute I'm pondering:

A winning player has his limits reduced. He opens up another account at the same book to get around the reduced limits (this is undisputed). The book catches him, and confiscates the second account. The book has rules that clearly permit this. The player is making a claim against the book.

One more reason why we need a universal set of rules that books either subscribe to or not. That way players can avoid books that write their own rules. The temptation to start playing God is just too great for some. The player should at least have his deposit (in second account) returned. Confiscating money should be an absolute last resort, reserved for only the most serious of transgressions. That type of punishment just doesn't fit this, rather innocent, 'crime'.

[HedgeHog]

After reading what Justin7 said, I presume there was nothing in the T&Cs preventing the level of abuse from the player. If there was then go by the T&Cs.



If the T&Cs state that players can't have 2nd accounts and that the punishment is confiscating the money in the 2nd account then the player has no case here.

Disagree that if it's in the T&Cs, then basically end of story. The Book writes its own rules and regs and they are usually heavily favorable to the Book's rights and to the detriment of the player. Confiscation of the 2nd account is too severe. Give him his deposit back on the account and kick him out. I echo the need for universal procedure on this matter. I am in full agreement with Dark Horse on this one.

[curious]

Player opens up 30 accounts to abuse a free-play bonus. One account wins big, the other 29 lose their small deposits. The book identifies the winning account with several other bonus-abusing accounts, and refunds his deposit from the winning account.

The player then says the other accounts are his, and wants his losses back. Opinions?

I think most sportsbooks have it in their list of rules that if a player abuses bonuses in this way the sportsbook has the right to void all winnings.

So, the "right" thing to do in this case is whatever the sportsbook's terms and conditions of play are that each player must agree to in order to use the sportsbook. What do the terms and conditions of play say?

[Santo]

I think most sportsbooks have it in their list of rules that if a player abuses bonuses in this way the sportsbook has the right to void all winnings.

So, the "right" thing to do in this case is whatever the sportsbook's terms and conditions of play are that each player must agree to in order to use the sportsbook. What do the terms and conditions of play say?

That's only the case because they're offshore though. In most cases, T&C aren't enforceable if they're unreasonable, no matter how well and clearly they're written. Just look at software EULA's for example.

[curious]

That's only the case because they're offshore though. In most cases, T&C aren't enforceable if they're unreasonable, no matter how well and clearly they're written. Just look at software EULA's for example.

I don't know what country you live in, but we are talking about an activity that is iillegal being done with an organization that is illegal. (At least according to the laws of the United States which is where i live). Good luck getting your case heard if you want to fight the T&Cs because they are "unreasonable".

If you want to play with them you have to agree to their rules, if you don't like their rules, then don't play with them. Simple as that.

[raiders72002]

There's no way in the world that a book can detect scammers when they make deposits.

It's similar to letting a customer inside of a bank. The guy pulls out a gun and robs you.

The players pulling these scams know exactly what they are doing. That's why most can find SBR so easily.

The gambling business is about reputation no matter what side of the counter that you are on. Pretend that you are playing with a local.

Would you pull this crap with a local? If the answer is no, then don't pull this stuff offshore or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[curious]

There's no way in the world that a book can detect scammers when they make deposits.

It's similar to letting a customer inside of a bank. The guy pulls out a gun and robs you.

The players pulling these scams know exactly what they are doing. That's why most can find SBR so easily.

The gambling business is about reputation no matter what side of the counter that you are on. Pretend that you are playing with a local.

Would you pull this crap with a local? If the answer is no, then don't pull this stuff offshore or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

I just told someone the same thing. The only thing that an online sportsbook bettor and an online sportsbook have is trust. Without trust there is no way you can do business together. Personally, I wouldn't do anything that would give an online sportsbook a reason to think they cannot trust me. I could care less about bonuses. I know I can win, I don't need bonuses.

[raiders72002]

I just told someone the same thing. The only thing that an online sportsbook bettor and an online sportsbook have is trust. Without trust there is no way you can do business together. Personally, I wouldn't do anything that would give an online sportsbook a reason to think they cannot trust me. I could care less about bonuses. I know I can win, I don't need bonuses.

[LVHerbie]

where the thirty accounts open at the same or over an extended period of time? I would need some more information but it looks like the book should have been able to compare IP addresses or something since obviously when it came time for him to cash out they didn't seem to have any trouble catching him... seems to me the book should be making a large contribution to some sort of charity with this money...