How many times have we heard this 'roommate story' now from scammers?

[TheFunkMonkey]

Lander, you seem to think that nobody has roommates!

What about this VERY common situation:

You've got 4-5 guys who just graduated from college. They decide to rent a house, they've got good jobs. They're living the bachelor life. Women, boozing, gambling, cars, etc.

If they're gambling with an offshore book, there is a decent chance they're gonna use the same book. One of the guys will be like "Hey, I've used Pinnacle for three years. They're legit, never had a problem."

Do you really think one of the guys will be like "But Bob, couldn't that cause a problem? I mean, I've never had an online account, but won't Pinnacle wonder why we have the same IP address? I think it would be better if I picked a random book that nobody has heard of!"

End result, you've got 3-4 roommates who are using the same book. And they're gonna bet NFL, and you know they're gonna watch the games on Sunday/Monday and order pizza, and you know they're gonna share lots of bets.

Believe it or not, lots of people have roommates. Hard to believe, but true!

 

[lander]

Let me ask you guys this.

A thief breaks into a jewlerly store and swipes 500K worth of diamonds. Three months later the thief is caught, the diamonds are found.

Do you

A. Let the thief KEEP the diamonds and tell the jewler, "too bad - you should have had better security in tact"

OR

B. Return the diamonds to the jewler and punish the thief?

Thanks.

 

[lander]

Funk, I NEVER said nobody has roommates. You and RPM are using a non-existing premise here.

Let me repeat, again - "if you are ACTUALLY roommates then pick one of the 300 other books to play at and save yourselves the troubles that are certain to arise."

Thanks.

 

[RPM]

lander, you are unfairly assuming that there really is no second person (roommate).

you know what happens when someone assumes....

 

[lander]

RPM,
I never said that either

 

[RPM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Funk, I NEVER said nobody has roommates. You and RPM are using a non-existing premise here.

Let me repeat, again - "if you are ACTUALLY roommates then pick one of the 300 other books to play at and save yourselves the troubles that are certain to arise."Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


good point lander, but the rules dont say "1 account per i.p. address". they say one account per person. many many many people dont realize this could result in a problem. anyone who is trying to scam like this would know enough to use a different ip

 

[chaz]

Landers

You stated: Well, if you join the book follow the rules. It's not so simple. Scammers CANNOT be rewarded .. it opens the doors. It hurts the industry. and it hurts the HONEST player.

Your point about scammers should not rewarded is very valid, BUT, they won the money with their bets in an honest fashion and should be paid these winnings without any excuses. They did not past post, as far as we know, and deserve to be paid. I believe that the bonuses should be witheld but certainly not their winnings. That would be unscrupulous and there is never a valid excuse for that practice.

 

[RPM]

chaz,

i disagree with you on one point. either there are seperate people, in which case they deserve the bonus money, or it is one guy scamming, and he deserves nothing.

 

[lander]

Chaz,
It's well know that EWinner has valuable dog prices (as do most IGW books), and low limits.

Certainly there is a reason for this. Their reason is probably (like SIA's and WagerStreet's) that they have mostly squares that bet LOW amounts.

They are not Grande, thus the LOW limits.

Muliple accounts is circumventing limits.

Let me ask you again :

Let me ask you guys this.

A thief breaks into a jewlerly store and swipes 500K worth of diamonds. Three months later the thief is caught, the diamonds are found.

Do you -

A. Let the thief KEEP the diamonds and tell the jewler, "too bad - you should have had better security in tact"
OR
B. Return the diamonds to the jewler and punish the thief?

 

[lander]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> good point lander, but the rules dont say "1 account per i.p. address". they say one account per person. many many many people dont realize this could result in a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've made it clear that it is impossible to enforce a 1 IP per player rule. First off, many people share the same IP. Second off, many people have DHCP (basically a dynamic IP).

They were suspected for MANY reasons, not just IP. Same bets, same times, same registration dates and, yes, same IP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>anyone who is trying to scam like this would know enough to use a different ip <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Claude didn't.

 

[Jazz]

Correct answer - C. Fence the diamonds for unmarked hundreds, give 25% to the crooks for hush money and let them go, 25% to the jeweler who will simply collect the half-mil from his insurance company anyway, and bury the rest in your backyard in moisture-proof, vacuum-sealed canisters for your 'pension fund'. Repeat as necessary.

 

[sickgambler]

You're actually right Lander.. Claude NEVER used another IP in his career offshore. He's always used his cable modem that basically says his full name.

He really never thought it was that big a deal, that's why, or he would have hid his IP... Giving all that action and never circumventing limits ever is why. He really had NOTHING to hide.

I don't know, but could it be that Claude is maybe living in a fantasy world.. for thinking there was nothing wrong with it..

 

[lander]

Does anyone else think that books have limits for a reason?

Wagerstreet just chopped me to $200. Ok, I respect them - that's their choice. Should I go signup under my wife's name now? My buddies name?

No, of course not.

 

[chaz]

Landers

I do not believe that the analogy you stated is totally applicable to this case as the jewel thief soley committed robbery. In the EWinner case the players gambled to win their money and did not walk in and steal the bets. There is a gray area here and I would not dispute that the amount of their winning might be in question. However, I am of the belief that I am responsible for my business and any occurences which are associated with its operation. I must put the proper controls and safeguards in place to ensure its success. You do not want to concede that EWinner management was, in any way, negligent in avoiding this occurence. A general, flimsy rule does not give them the right to withold these players' funds. I do not have a problem with them downsizing the winnings because of the exceeding of the limits but, once again, I must state that they took the bets and the players should be paid. If the bets lost I am sure that they would not give back the amount that exceeded the limits and I think that you do not believe this either. As I stated previously, neither party should ever be in a lose-lose position. There is never fairness in that situation and I do not believe that can ever be justified.

 

[PO69]

And WHY IN THE HELL are they ALWAYS foreign people causing all of hte trouble at sportsbooks.


I have talked to a few sportsbook owners myself, and one that they all agree on is this next statement.

"95% of our customers are from the USA! But can someone explain why about 60% of our problem customers come from other countries???????"

Well ok, SICK GAMBLER sqews the results a bit, but not more than about `10%, hehe!! We all know that he has done the scammer thing to about 10 books, so maybe they are all overreacting to him!

 

[Jazz]

I'll once again make the boring but correct point that the reason these same disputes continually break out is because there is no real regulation of these books, at least not the ones outside of the U.K. and Australia. Instead, you've got mystery owners who have made a decision not to pay, not the manager (I don't believe that personally), and who have no one to account to for their actions, no official authority who can be contacted and can rule for or against the book.

Nope. You've got a free-for-all attitude out there, which has allowed the recent DDoS attacks to flourish, because those books in the unregulated areas have found out that there is no one there to help THEM out. I'm not happy at all that it is happening, but this too is only a consequence of this 'my rules or none' unregulated marketplace out there, and in one case you have the bettors with no 'rights' whatsoever except that exist by the sufferance of each individual book, and in the other case you've got books getting reamed by hackers who know they're ripe for the plucking - and in that case the books themselves have no one to appeal to. A person more cynical that I might say 'what goes around, comes around'.

 

[theswami]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Let me ask you guys this.

A thief breaks into a jewlerly store and swipes 500K worth of diamonds. Three months later the thief is caught, the diamonds are found.

Do you

A. Let the thief KEEP the diamonds and tell the jewler, "too bad - you should have had better security in tact"

OR

B. Return the diamonds to the jewler and punish the thief?

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course B.

The problem in this situation is that it is not as clear cut as someone robbing a jewler. There are instances where the book knows about the mutliple accounts and books the action hoping and waiting until the player loses. Essentially, that is taking a shot at the player since the book knows that at some point they will claim that they are scammed and keep the players' balances. My suggestion is always to deduct the bonuses and fees from the balances, pay the player, and boot him.

It is nearly impossible to know who was taking the shot here. My guess is that it was the player(s). With that said, the book had a chance to beat the player as well and since it did not recognize and/or bring the issue to light sooner, the book has to take the hit.

In fact, if I read one of the other threads correctly, the player(s) claims that the book knew about the multiple accounts and gave the go ahead.

I have ALMOST changed my opinion on this issue...maybe if the books screw enough of the multiple account holders the practice will stop. As I said, the problem here is that many bookmakers will knowingly book the action with the expectation that 1) the player will lose or 2) they will screw them if the winning gets too out of control. Bottom line, you book it...you pay.

Similar to retail, the customer is always right. Most department stores will honor a bad price if they tag the item with it, you never hear of a book doing this.

 

[lander]

Swami,
Great post.

My attitidue is that I'm all for books fuking scammers. Harsh, I know, but it keeps Offshore safer for the honest guys out there.