SHRINK, on multiple accounts...

[suetoneous]

Where do you stand (for the record) :

1) A guy creates multiple accounts (2 or more) with legit names. All the ‘new’ accounts have different mailing addresses and all came in thru Neteller. However, only one person plays all these accounts. All the accounts received bonuses and there were also referral bonuses.

2) A guy creates multiple accounts and the names are not legit. All the ‘new’ accounts funded by W/U. All the accounts received deposit bonuses and there were referral bonuses. All the accounts are played thru one computer, tho the mailing addresses are in different states.

The rollover requirements are met and all accounts request payouts equaling their entire blaance. Also, in both cases all the accounts are huge winners. And, in each case there were numerous examples of the same game being played at the max. amount. The bonus money was also put into play and there were thousands in winnings just on the bonus money.

3) Finally, Patrick M. states: “it is wrong for the players to do it (have multiple accounts) Yes. No question. However it is part of the business for people to do it. When you open you are to expect that. Doesn't make it right but it will happen.” He is saying that it even tho books get cheated, that that’s to be expected and the books still must pay the winnings. Do you agree?


Thanks

 

[SrMuny]

Top.....Maybe he missed the post...

 

[Halifax]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sr Muny:
Top.....Maybe he missed the post...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[buddyboy]

Some of this talk about ewinner is making it sound like a posting forum owner was in with a group of beards betting into a shop, circumventing limits and collecting bonuses.

Let's think about that.

A posting forum owner has beards betting into the book, they collect bonuses, circumvent limits and basically fleece the place. In an effort to insure his beards get paid he targets books that advertise on his site and sends players to that book. This of course gives the book the needed cash to payoff the beards. If the book catches on the posting forum owner threatens to report "rumors" of problems at the book. If his team gets paid these "problems" clear up and everything is cool again. If the book doesn't pay then the ads are pulled, posts go crazy about no/slow pay.

I just can't see a posting forum owner doing this kind of thing it is too outrageous.

 

[lander]

Buddy,
No offense, but I think Ken is a little bit too much of a high roller to worry about getting 20 guys together to "bonus whore" and get down an significant amounts and EWinner.

I find this one to be comical.

 

[TheGeneral+]

Comical is an understatement.

 

[THE SHRINK]

No offense, BUT...

The last time I bet a dime on a game was in HIGH SCHOOL!!!

and I probably lost, lol...

Ken

 

[oldmantime]

If the books would only STOP the bonus altogether and just reward LOYAL players, with a MAILED gift once ayear or so; you would see much of this nonsense END.

When there is only ONE mailing address for a gift like shirt or pens calenders, etc. Let books worry about "multiple accts." for reasons other than a bonus! Totally absurd.

 

[BettingProphets]

Kenneth

why arent you addressing the questions?

 

[buddyboy]

yeah you guys are right.

If someone wanted to get $100K down on a game, they would have to have 100 guys each laying $1000. One guy couldn't micro manage all that.

Maybe he could have 5 or 6 "teams" each with a "team leader" that could be contacted to lay down as much as possible on a game before the line moved.

If one of the "teams" got screwed or stiffed by a book it could really mess up the operation as a whole.

btw this is just for disscussion purposes... kinda like Oliver Stone making a JFK movie... it is just too crazy to be true... but so very interesting.

 

[lander]

Buddy,
I'm no linesman, but I think I a shop with nickel limits might notice 100K in action over a small period ...

.. and remember, sharps like Kenny play value not TV games ...

so this would be likely to come in on obscure bets like Mid Appalachain St. (for example).

 

[buddyboy]

damn, you are right again.

I guess these teams would have to spread it around to a lot of different shops.

Maybe get $5000 down on one game at one shop by using 5 or 6 accounts and repeating this at maybe 10 shops till the line moves.

the teams would work hard because they would get a % of the profits, so the more accounts they had at different shops the more they could get down.

If someone came to me and said, "hey you want to make some money betting games for me? All you have to do is get 4 or 5 of your friends to open accounts at these 8 books. I'll call you to let you know what games to bet and for how much in total. You will have to spread it around so the line doesn't move. You will make money based on how much $$$ you can get down before the line changes. I'll supply all the money, you make sure I get the winnings."

Now let's say I get greedy and decide that I could get more $$$ down on a game if my team of 4 or 5 guys each had multible accounts....

anyway..

The only down fall would be if a shop didn't pay... that would really mess up the cash flow.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Sue - that is my position on it, you are free to have another. If I had a book and my lmits were $300, if you and 3 friends played together and bet a dime on a game, I will pay you. When I catch you than you are gone but I am not going to steal what you bet if you won. Why? Because if you lost I damn sure ain't giving it back to you. I have my own safeguards in place when I open for business. If not I shouldn't even open.

But yes I do not support a book being able to offer all these bonuses, not ever look for anything (until a player wants his money), and then be able to take everything from the guy if they find a rules violation. Too severe for my taste and it's not the books money anyway. Never was.

 

[suetoneous]

Well, it’s obvious shrink isn’t going to answer the questions…for the record. I can’t say I blame him. But Shrink’s actions with Rio (Sick G.) and Ewinner shows he will likely support the punter over the book in case #1. And even if ‘House Rules’ forbid multiple accounts from being run from the same computer, and winnings derived from the bonus money, apparently Shrink also believes the punters should be paid in full.

As for Case#2, I don’t recall any examples at the Rx where the names were not legit. And by “not legit” I mean the names may be real names but the person whose name the account is under is not aware his name is being used. My guess is that Shrink would still come down on the side of the punter here…


Patrick, if one guy was running five accounts from his computer and betting the same game on all 5 at the max and won, I think we would both agree and say he gets paid in full, even tho he broke ‘House Rules’ by circumventing the betting limits. But if this same guy received deposit/referral bonus money and put it all into play and won, I think the book has the right to rescind the bonus monies and all winnings derived from the bonus monies – this guy is a bonus scammer. Apparently, you disagree…

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Sue - Yes we disagree but not necessarily completely apart. If he used the bonus money to make bets that might be another story, that's why I said earlier all cases are not the same. For instance let's assume we KNOW there is one guy doing all this. Let's say a book has deposited a total of 2k extra in his account from illegal referrals etc..... He sent 10k but now has 12k sitting there, an extra 2k in his account through cheating. If he had lost his account down to underneath the 2k level and then started winning that might be another story. That stuff he got by questionable means (2k) was a big part of how he got the rest of his money.

I would think in most cases where a guy puts in 10k and then gets 2k by questionable means it's not a factor. He goes out and wins 30k and the extra bonus money had ZERO affect with if he won his bets or not. When he goes to get his money I don't think the book has a case for anything more than all the bonuses/referrals and hit the player with all fees they incurred. Then show him the door, just like everyone else does. To take the 30k the guy bet on games is something I don't agree with. That comes under to me bets made and accepted, nothing more. None of the other stuff had anything to do with it, he could have easily lost as well as won.

In closing I want to say this, we will not all agree on everything. Some of this stuff is your own background and experiences of life. I have admitted helping out with a book for a large part of life when younger, it may make me see things differently. Stiffs and rats are the worst thing in the world. To some a rat may be a person who is doing right in their eyes, "guy shouldn't have ever broke the law to begin with". Who am I to say he is wrong even if I strongly disagree? We won't all agree but it doesn't have to be the end of the world. In this case some here feel a violation of the rules even if they don't affect the wagers should be confiscated too, a sort of death penalty for their entire balance. I can't say they are wrong but I can say I disagree strongly with it. There is no hidden meaning in this or deep conspiracy as some suggest, I just don't agree with the book on this one.

 

[suetoneous]

Ok patrick. Thanks for clarifying.

I just wanted you to show that there was 'some room' for the books to protect themselves from greed and/or scammers.

 

[zone136]

The only thing I would like to add is that the people we are talking about have been warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and........warned and nothing gets them to stop. Maybe keeping their money will get the message accross.

 

[zone136]

Oldmantime has it correct, it is time for the books to pull the plug on the big bonuses!!!!!!!!