EWINNER Reply to Recent Incident

ewinner.com · Sep 28, 2003

We would like to address the recent issues related to players having multiple accounts and purposely putting in higher action than is allowed on our site and also taking advantage of our generous bonuses.

When any user signs up with EWINNER they must agree to abide by and state that they have read the rules and regulations for the service; rule #3 is:
3. A member may have only ONE account. The Company reserves the right to close or disable a member's account without notice in cases where the Company, at its sole discretion, deems this appropriate. Only the initial deposit will be refunded on all accounts.

We uncovered three sets of accounts who had been blatently violating this policy having all bet from exactly the same IP addresses even though all three were located in different towns and geographic locations. All three "pairs" were also betting the same action with very little variance. I know the arguement has been made that these people "share" computers, however in one case one account was in NYC while the other account was in Rhode Island, we also have trouble understanding how someone wagering $1,000 per event has no access to a PC in each instance.

Below are the three accounts with their last three charachters within the account x'ed out and the ip addresses they used.

73xxx: 24.116.18.122
563XXX: 24.116.18.122

homedXXX: 65.199.3.142, 64.217.197.148, 64.218.133.167, 64.219.169.189, 65.70.164.158, 66.140.63.33
ctwallxxx: 65.199.3.142, 64.217.197.148, 64.218.133.167, 64.219.169.189, 65.70.164.158, 66.140.63.33

35xx: 64.222.44.146, 64.228.18.48
35XX: 64.222.44.146, 64.228.18.48

Below are the totals in deposits and withdrawals for each account:

73xxx: Deposited $3800 Withdrawals: $10115
563xxx: Deposited $3550 Withdrawals: $4950

homedxxx: Deposited $2500 Withdrawals: $21165
ctwallaxxx: Deposited $5000 Withdrawals: $5000

35xx: Deposited $3000 Withdrawals: $4300
35xx: Deposited $5000 Withdrawals: $11300

As you can see not one account had a net loss using our service, in fact we paid them over $30,000 in sum to blatently take advantage of our book and violate the terms and conditions for which they signed up.

I would like to address many other inaccuracies that have recently been reported here. EWINNER is not in ANY financial distress. We are NOT being bought by any other book nor have we ever had any discussions to this effect. These 6 players WILL NOT be paid at any point by us. EWINNER will accept NO mediation by THERX or Ken in this situation. It is clear that our legitimate customers are standing by us in this issue and have not expressed concern to move money away from our book. We are processing withdrawals and operating as normal and will continue to do so.

As we have done since day one We will continue to quickly pay all of our players that have posted up with us and are not violating our very basic rules and regulations.

Thank you.

EWINNER

wilheim · Sep 28, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>All three "pairs" were also betting the same action with very little variance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why the significent differences in withdrawals in each case? In one case the account deposited $5000 and withdrew $5000, how can he be playing the same action as the account from the same IP?

wil.

lurkerforages · Sep 28, 2003

I agree Willheim

I see, so they played the same games with the same ammounts yet they have very different balances?????

I always laugh when when a sportbook says winning is a justification for taking someones deposit.
Ewinner, Just pay and move on.

TTinCO · Sep 28, 2003

Something doesn't make sense here.

We have a player\book dispute over $20K or so in winnings.

All of a sudden, Shrink pulls them down as an advertiser and says that they need $20K to remain solvent.

Shrink, there has to be a lot more behind your claims of insovency than this one player dispute, DOESN"T THERE????

acw · Sep 28, 2003

EWINNER,

Before I end up having the same problem. A good friend of mine likes to have a share in my bets, so he has opened many accounts at the same places, as where I bet. Is it ok, if I sometimes put a bet on for him on his account?

bucsfan67 · Sep 28, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by acw:
EWINNER,

Before I end up having the same problem. A good friend of mine likes to have a share in my bets, so he has opened many accounts at the same places, as where I bet. Is it ok, if I sometimes put a bet on for him on his account?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AS LONG AS YOUR NOT USING BSKILLER'S COMPUTER..

wilheim · Sep 28, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>We uncovered three sets of accounts who had been blatently violating this policy having all bet from exactly the same IP addresses even though all three were located in different towns and geographic locations <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not a computer expert by a long shot, but how do you explain identical IP's in different geographical locations, and in one case different states? How do lap tops work as far as being on-line and mobile, do they change IP's from place to place?

wil.

acw · Sep 28, 2003

wilheim,

You are making it too complicated. Personally I have an IP address that is being shared by about a thousand other users. And I know for sure that among those thousand there are a few more gambling crazy. On top of that my address given is geographically completely different from my IP address. Even the big books (Ladbrokes, William Hill, etc.) discover this irregularity immediately, so what do they do?

YES!
They pick up the phone or send me an email asking me for clarification!

But when you deal with a sh*t book like EWINNER, then you know that they will simply have a shot at their clients first and then steal the money.

Thank God, The Shrink this time took them off immediately.

wilheim · Sep 28, 2003

That is my point, as I said I am no computer expert, in fact the opposite. It makes no sense to me for Ewinner to say these guys were in cahoots, when they were so widely dispersed geographically. I just don't believe their story (Ewinner's) holds up. Again I am hesitant to debate computer tech. stuff.

wil.

Tekari · Sep 28, 2003

acw, you dont share an ip address with anyone else, and especially not 100's of people.

you could have ip address 129.21.143.1 and then me living near you on the same network could be 129.21.143.7 but we woudln't have the same exact IP.

It depends if you have static or dynamic as it is different for computer that have roadrunner or network connections vs dial-up.

acw · Sep 28, 2003

Tekari,

I think you are wrong!
For a start in my own house I have a little network of some 7 computers that to the outside world share the same IP address. Ok, those are indeed all mine, but the complex I live on has its own little network too for those living on it, which results in the fact that every one living on my complex to the outside world shares the same IP address and then on top of that I would not be surprised, if my provider even splits one and the same IP address up to more than one complex.

TTinCO · Sep 28, 2003

You can be in an office of 2000 people, and if there is only one connection to the internet, all of the clients will show the same IP.

benstern · Sep 28, 2003

These bastards wont see a penny from me..I was going to sign up and am glad i didnt now!!what a bunch of crooks

TTinCO · Sep 28, 2003

Ben, wait a couple of days until the entire story unfolds. There appear to be a few things going on here.......

GrandMasterB · Sep 28, 2003

Guaranteed if these guys lose their postups and reload there would be no complaints from this shit book.

Nice explaination ewinner. I hope you won't be in business long.

Tekari · Sep 28, 2003

Yes if they have something called a NAT (network address translation)

Then the external IP address will appear the same to the outside world but this would only apply to LAN like businesses etc.

It does not apply to people's personal homes sharing the same IP with another house etc. Or even on a college campus for that matter.

NAT's apply to companys or possibly a small network in your own home.

99% of the time when it shows up with the same IP address it's coming from the same people barring exceptional circumstances such as two people working at the same company under a NAT (but they would most likely not have acess to gamlbing sites anyway with a NAT)

TTinCO · Sep 28, 2003

"but they would most likely not have acess to gamlbing sites anyway with a NAT"

Don't kid yourself....only the largest of companies tend to actually pay for internet content filtering.

Tekari · Sep 28, 2003

I have worked for both kodak and xerox on IT internships and also Strong Hospital (local hospital) and they all block domains based on key words like "sex" "gambling" etc. Also it's getting much easy for IT to monitor people's outside traffic now. Your right smaller companies don't do it, but then again you are greatly decreasing the chances of two people large internet wagers on the same site on the same teams. I feel it would be an extremely rare case if it has ever happened.

wallstreetcappers · Sep 28, 2003

This whole thing seems like a joke. How the hell can a book think someone is taking advantage of them?

So take away their bonus, but pay them what they won.

You took the action, pay up, how is that so hard? If you dont like the risk, then close up shop. You cant expect that they will lose, that is just ridiculous.

If they broke the rules, take the bonus and boot them out, but you took their bets and it is on YOUR shoulders to verify the authenticity of the accounts you allow to sign up. Is that fair? No, but books arent fair either..you charge VIG and make us play off lines..

Sounds like you are whining after someone won, and isnt that a shame that a few guys won..

I dont buy this theory of collusion, there is NO way of predicting an outcome, so give the Back to the Future 2 discussion a rest.

If you dont stop them from betting, they HONESTLY won the wagers..taking a wager away that won when you didnt do your homework is wrong.

How about you refund a few losers to the squeeky clean guys that are your bread and butter losers??

TheGeneral+ · Sep 28, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TTinCO:
"but they would most likely not have acess to gamlbing sites anyway with a NAT"

Don't kid yourself....only the largest of companies tend to actually pay for internet content filtering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know of several small companies locally who have software for this.

It its pretty common except in mom & pop shops around here.