I have read numerous times how a book is not paying a person because it was deemed that the person was performing activities which the book considers against its rules (ie. multiple accounts, scalping, etc). My question is if the books are allowed to not pay a person after he wins like this, then why doesn't the book have to pay back the people who LOSE this way. Obviously, the books don't know every case, but somehow after a little investigation they always are able to find that a WINNER played against the rules. Therefore they don't pay him. Now that they conclude that he played against the rules and feel they are right for not paying the player, why are they not obligated to pay that person back for all the times he lost, playing against the rules? These books rake in the money on many people who create multiple accounts against the books rules, yet when a perosn finally wins they refrain from paying him. If they take the money, thinking the person will lose it anyway, then either they should pay him when he wins or pay his losses back. Why can books have it both ways? If someone does somehting against their rules, then retroactively the money in the account should be rendered useless.
I am new to the offshore thing...
So enlighten me.
I am new to the offshore thing...
So enlighten me.