[Justin7]

Near the end of 2008, the player deposited $500 at Gambler's Palace, and received a $250 bonus. He won $237, and requested a withdrawal before meeting the required rollover.

GamblersPalace had a rule on point:
In order to redeem any deposit bonus, you must meet the rollover requirements. You must wager the original deposit plus any bonuses and fee's prior to making a withdrawal. Withdrawals can be made prior to wagering the full amount, but the bonus will be forfeited.

GamblersPalace deducted the $250 bonus, as well as $137 in winnings, and paid the player $600. The parties agree that GamblersPalace had no rule on point to confiscate winnings.

SBR recommended that GP pay the player the $137 in winnings, and revise its terms and conditions if it intends to do this in the future. GP agreed to revise its rules, and initially agreed to pay the player.

GamblersPalace reneged on its promise to pay the player. The principals of the company claimed that the manager handling the dispute did not have authority to bind GamblersPalace in this dispute, and the promise was just "him personally", not by GP's principals.

Issue #1: Can Gambler's Palace confiscate winnings for failure to meet rollover when there is no term or condition addressing this?

A sportsbook cannot confiscate winnings for failure to meet rollover unless there is a rule clearly on point. There are situations where this is fair and reasonable to defend against professional bonus players. However, it must be clearly stated in the rules. It was not, so Gambler's Palace has illegally confiscated $137.

Issue #2: Can an employee of a sportsbook bind a sportsbook in an agreement?

An employee acting with apparent authority can bind the sportsbook unless the other party knows the manager does not have authority to reach an agreement. In this case, the primary person handling the dispute stated "We will revise our rules and pay the player." From the employee's statement, any reasonable person would believe he is speaking on behalf of the sportsbook.

In this case, GamblersPalace confiscated $137 from the player with no basis - in other words, outright theft. GamblersPalace then promised to pay the player and reneged on its promise. A re-evaluation is pending.

[Sinister Cat]

Hey Justin, sort of off topic, but what laws do you (or should you) apply to the books behavior? Where do these rules come from? Your "opinions" are sort of like legal memorandum except with no citation to actual authority. Obviously, it is just common sense, if nothing else, that a sportsbook can't just confiscate winnings, and that their employee should bind them, but I'm just wondering if there is any source for these rules that you apply. Just curious.

[fiveteamer]

this does not seem like a palace for gamblers at all...

[MonkeyF0cker]

All that over $137? You've gotta be kidding me. How many manhours have they wasted on this dispute? What is wrong with these books? The just thing to have done would have been for them to simply cancel the withdrawal and afford the player the opportunity to fulfill the rollover requirement. But that's neither here nor there. I don't see how they could possibly justify confiscating his winnings. The bonus sure, but not the winnings. Unreal.

[Mudcat]

GamblerPalace is pretty cheeseball these days. I could site other cases of them nickel-and-diming like this with no rules to defend it.

I don't see this case as being all that bad. There are books with harsher rules about this stuff. Some would simply refuse to even consider a payout until the rollover is complete. They wouldn't play ball in any way.

But sure, they should have stuff in writing.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

GamblersPalace had a rule on point:
In order to redeem any deposit bonus, you must meet the rollover requirements. You must wager the original deposit plus any bonuses and fee's prior to making a withdrawal. Withdrawals can be made prior to wagering the full amount, but the bonus will be forfeited.

Clearly states that gamblerspalace can only confiscate the bonus amount, and nothing else.

Love to know how they justify removing anything beyond that. If they can just invent T&Cs at will and retrospectively apply them, players cannot trust they won't just do that at any excuse.

Another book off my list.

[Justin7]

Hey Justin, sort of off topic, but what laws do you (or should you) apply to the books behavior? Where do these rules come from? .

I use "US common law" with one adjustment: I assume gambling contracts are legal, as though both parties were in Nevada. The one modification is the bad line rule, which does not exist in Nevada, but is needed when you have a volume of internet bets.

[tomcowley]

ROFL. Over $137. This place has to be getting ready to go deposit-only if it's willing to take any negative publicity over that amount.

[purecarnagge]

yeah I would sink there rating, maybe them and beted could meet up at the bottom!!!

[Andre777]

They do not payed my 117 $ yet . Gamblers Palace it is not a seriously house, i think that you should Downgrade them .

[Bill Dozer]

Thanks Andre. It nay come to that. We will check in with them again and see if they will reconsider.

[AMBlai01]

Of course the answer to Number 1 SHOULD be that if they don't put it in writing then they need to pay up and give the player the winnings.

I think the answer to issue Number 2 is pretty obvious as well. In any business you are representing the company when they hire you. When a decision is made at work, that employee is speaking for the company and if there is an agreement made with that employee a company should honor that. If there is an issue with what that employee said and the agreement they made that is between the company and the employee. The company needs to honor that decision and deal with their issues with the employee internally.

[SBR Lou]

Gamblers Palace confiscation

GamblersPalace (SBR rating C) confiscates $117 player winnings
The player requested a withdrawal prior to meeting his bonus rollover. GamblersPalace rules state that if the player takes a payout before meeting the bonus terms and conditions the amount of the bonus will be deducted. GamblersPalace initially agreed to pay the player and reword its rules to reflect a deduction of the bonus and winnings from that bonus. The sportsbook later refused to pay the player.

Note: The player never had the bonus plus funds in play, meaning the bonus was not directly used to earn winnings.

[betpartners]

Number 1

they should pay, its their own fault their rules were insufficient

Number 2

Tricky, because someone represents a company does not mean they have complete authority to make decisons on their own which would include changing the rules and conditions etc.

Therefore to number 2 i say no depending on the persons position, if its a manager then yes a low level employee no

But number 2 is irrelevant, number 1 is quite clear cut in this instant and yes you do need to question their motives for wanting bad publicity over such a small amount.

[Bill Dozer]

They do not payed my 117 $ yet . Gamblers Palace it is not a seriously house, i think that you should Downgrade them .

We expect you to be paid tomorrow. Should know shortly.

[JoshW]

I don't like the nickel and diming, but books have rules on these bonuses in order to make sure it isn't easy for the player to come out ahead.

Maybe I have been in the industry too long, but I don't see how players make these withdrawals without figuring out first if they have met the rollover.

In the end the $137 needs to be paid, but players need to be extra aware of full rules on bonuses.

[Andre777]

They pay me today, thank you SBR, thank you Justin. Thank you a lot.

[j0hnnyv]

books a joke. andre: take that money and put it in thegreek,betjm, or 5dimes. no more worries!!

[Bill Dozer]

Good work Justin.

If Gamblers Palace can avoid these ticky tack fouls they could take the book up a notch.