Is this considered fair?

[SyndicateSteam]

I opened an account with a sportsbook about 3 months ago. I got a 20% bonus, and before meeting roll over, I lost. Then, I got a promotional email, inviting me back for another 20%, inwhich I took the offer.

I hit a pretty nice run, and made just under 10K. Went back in yesterday to make a few wagers and found my account locked. Spoke with CS and they informed me they no longer want my action. They said I could transfer my balance to some "no-name" book, or receive my balance via Neteller.

I chose to receive my payout. Then they informed me they would be keeping my 20% bonus and charge me a fee of almost $100 to withdrawal my money. I stated my concern of unfairness, and asked to have my bonus pro-rated. I have played over half the required amount.

The only email I received from them was one stating I could finish my wagering at a $50 limit, what a joke.

Fair, or unfair?

SS

 

[InsideThePylons]

Unfair

 

[Rogthedodger]

Dimeplayer is cleaning house today Syndicate Steam :sad3:

 

[D2bets]

Unfair.

I'd e-mail SBR and see if they can help you out.

 

[sherman]

unfair

 

[TheGeneral+]

Reduicing your limits to $50 is fair. It's their right. I think you shouldn't have to pay a withdrawal fee if you are booted though.

 

[D2bets]

He should get to keep ALL the bonus and WD at no charge. They drew him in with the bonus offer. The bonus has no meaning if they will simply cut you off and take it away if you should happen to not lose the bonus. That's bait and switch.

 

[BillDozer]

Sportsbooks have the right to protect themselves and there is nothing wrong with lowering limits.

However, lowering the limit to $50 is going to require these players to make 50-60 wagers in order to complete the last leg of their roll-over. This is not a realistic expectation. It would either cost them to surrender their bonus, which has already been invested in, or force them to spend an excessive amount of time making bets they did not wish to make while not being able to get the action they do desire.

The rules do give DP the ability to alter betting limits and bonuses but changing the conditions that were initially in place this drastically is not very fair.

I think management realizes that prorating the bonus is the fairest action and I think this may be done, especially since the player was invited back, albeit by an auto generated promo letter.

 

[charleslanger]

SS needs to be given his bonus AND FREE withdrawal-- whoever initiates termination/adjustment of terms of the agreement BEFOREHAND has to pay the piper: live up to the original terms. This would never, EVER be allowed to happen in England or Australia.

The Book does not want him to complete his rollover because he likely will win much more in the process-- so pay up the bonus, it's still a win/win for the book, as they save the potential losses incurred during the completion of the rollover terms.

ENOUGH sticking up for rogue books, ENOUGH-- it's total BS!!! Who's going to want to post up with stories like these?

assuming of course, that this is the entire gist of the story-- that no pertinent facts have been omitted....

As an aside-- this is the perfect reason to spread action around as much as possible... though that is a royal pain in the ass & such an incentive-killer for high-limit bettors... and Vegas is no better... so disappointing......

 

[Muddy]

No, of course its not fair. The book has to prorate your bonus.

 

[earl]

what a joke (according to your side of the story). who is this crap book????

 

[charleslanger]

no prorating of bonus either-- full bonus: it's not the player who is reticent here, this is not a favor to the player-- it's about keeping your word......

btw, SS: how much more action is needed?

 

[marc]

IT is totally outrageaous. Some players win, and some players lose. Thats the nature of the game. To try to confiscate a bonus from someone because he won, is ridiculous. If they don't want to give bonuses to players who win, they shouldn't offer upfront bonuses. They should offer net loss bonuses.

Clearly in this case they can't claim they are giving you the boot because they don't like your action. Because when you lost, your action was fine. It is only now, when you win they give you the boot.

They are being both dishonorable, and foolish. Have you spoken to Ryan Hill. If anyone knows LUke, someone should mention to him, that actions like this are going to destroy his reputation.