Discriminations?

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
Recent issues that may be discriminatory. Each country or region will have its own regulations and peoples will have their opinions. How do you weigh in on these:

  • Sportsbetting: Sportsbook reduces limit of one player to 1% of countryman. $1000:$10 Hungarian playing UK Sportsbook bet365
  • Bonus restrictions by region/residency
  • Bingo site allegedly closing accounts because of players belonging to advocate forum
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
I used to run an online record store taking orders for CDs. We had a high amount of fraud from a number of Asian and African countries, so we stopped taking orders from any country in Asia and Africa and our problems stopped overnight and the effect on sales revenue was minimal.

My point is, if I was running a business dealing with consumers, I would want to be, expect to be, allowed to discriminate against who I like. It's my business and I should be allowed to pick and choose who I sell to. And if people don't like it, then go somewhere else.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
I agree. Others don't (per source threads)

But can a buffet offer 'all you can eat' to a skinny person and 'limit one plate' to a large person? i.e. sportsbook limits and casino bonus offers?

Would we expect other rogue behavior from a casino (or bingo site) that closed accounts or refused to pay due to forum activity? (alledged closed accounts atcyberbingo... known refused to pay @Virtual)
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Palm Bay Florida
But can a buffet offer 'all you can eat' to a skinny person and 'limit one plate' to a large person?
100% of buffet places are "'all you can eat' :lolup:
They are great for The Fat one's and they love them skinny people to come they don't eat as much.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
100% of buffet places are "'all you can eat' :lolup:
They are great for The Fat one's and they love them skinny people to come they don't eat as much.


Should casinos and sportsbooks be the same? I can't send out coupons to only skinny people... should everyone be treated equally?

Of course there is market choice... I can shop where 'my kind' is welcome and not frequent 'discriminators'.
 
Last edited:

tencardcharlie

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Location
The playboy mansion.
The important thing IMHO in my opinion is if there is a valid reason for discriminating. If a business, like in Simmo's case, have big problems with fraud from certain countries then that is clearly a sufficent reason to not accept customers from those countries. If, for example, a restaurant doesn't accept people of certain race because the owner's prejudice then that reason is not valid.

Sportsbetting: Sportsbook reduces limit of one player to 1% of countryman. $1000:$10 Hungarian playing UK Sportsbook bet365

OK

Bonus restrictions by region/residency

OK

Bingo site allegedly closing accounts because of players belonging to advocate forum

Not OK if the reason is to try to silence criticism. Could be OK if there is the forum is linked to some sort of fraudulent activity. Of course all legitimate players must be payed.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
I used to run an online record store taking orders for CDs. We had a high amount of fraud from a number of Asian and African countries, so we stopped taking orders from any country in Asia and Africa and our problems stopped overnight and the effect on sales revenue was minimal.

My point is, if I was running a business dealing with consumers, I would want to be, expect to be, allowed to discriminate against who I like. It's my business and I should be allowed to pick and choose who I sell to. And if people don't like it, then go somewhere else.

Totally correct. The casino/sportsbook may choose the limits for any of its customers. In return, they can decide whether they want to bet there. Before any outcome, no one knows whether its a winning bet or not so why is it unfair. There must be a balance against so-called discrimination and the right to protect a business through exposure to high bets.
 

shaunm

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Location
Wigan
If this is the one from the other thread...

[*]Sportsbetting: Sportsbook reduces limit of one player to 1% of countryman. $1000:$10 Hungarian playing UK Sportsbook bet365
[/LIST]

This isn't descrimination, he's had a large bet, and instead or cutting the price to a lot shorter, they have just limited the further amount he can have on it. Happens day in day out at bookmakers
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Palm Bay Florida
Should everyone be treated equally?
Now that is a crazy thing to ask.
We all now this is a Yes.
But this is what life is you have many discriminators out in the World today.
And it's sucks too.
And it's like my Bus Trips to the casinos I do.
I was told by someone in the State if I know someone on Welfair and they come with me I should report them.But you know what I can't I can't lower myself to do this to someone.But if I know if this person is very much in debt and they have a family and the family don't have food on the table or a good living quarters this is something different for me to take.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
This isn't descrimination, he's had a large bet, and instead or cutting the price to a lot shorter, they have just limited the further amount he can have on it. Happens day in day out at bookmakers

I gather that he feels it is discrimination because of the laws or standards of his country of origin.

Is Hungary EU? Does the EU have such laws? Is UK not yet EU?

I think VWM asserted in a bonus 'discrimination' discussion that it is not 'cricket' to offer one person a retail offer or coupon without giving the same opportunity to everyone. iirc.
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
Not OK if the reason is to try to silence criticism. Could be OK if there is the forum is linked to some sort of fraudulent activity. Of course all legitimate players must be payed.

I agree with your post Tencard except the above bit. I still think it is ok for the Bingo program to stop taking players who frequent a forum. They can choose to a) listen to the critics or b) turn their back on them. If they choose the latter, that should be their choice IMO and that includes shutting them out. If the critics dont like it they can play elsewhere but they are still free to criticise openly.

It's not dissimilar to a forum. If I ran a forum and people came along and started pissing me off, I'd ban them way quicker than CM ever would. And I should be allowed to - they can go whine elsewhere about how victimised they are but at least life goes on without any hassle on my forum.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
Now that is a crazy thing to ask.
We all now this is a Yes.
But this is what life is you have many discriminators out in the World today.
And it's sucks too.
And it's like my Bus Trips to the casinos I do.
I was told by someone in the State if I know someone on Welfair and they come with me I should report them.But you know what I can't I can't lower myself to do this to someone.But if I know if this person is very much in debt and they have a family and the family don't have food on the table or a good living quarters this is something different for me to take.

Well, I guess if the state underwrites the transit service, they have the ability to 'discriminate'... it's their money going into the casino? If they don't subsidize the bus service, that was a gestapo action on their part, imo.
 
Last edited:

ugaboga

Dormant Account
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Location
Australia
This isn't descrimination, he's had a large bet, and instead or cutting the price to a lot shorter, they have just limited the further amount he can have on it. Happens day in day out at bookmakers

I don't think you understand him. His issue is not that he placed $4,000 on one outcome, then tried to place some more on the same outcome.

He was limited to placing 1% of the previous maximum on all events. In other words, they were limiting his account because he was winning.

It would be akin to fortune lounge limiting Juliack to $5 maximum bets on Video Poker :)
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
... It's not dissimilar to a forum. If I ran a forum and people came along and started pissing me off, I'd ban them way quicker than CM ever would. And I should be allowed to - they can go whine elsewhere about how victimised they are but at least life goes on without any hassle on my forum.

Wouldn't that smack of censorship? Certainly it's the forum owner/moderator's right to control access - but fairness dictates that opposing opinions, respectfully rendered should be tolerated if not encouraged.... Or else we have virtual danny's forum:eek2:
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Palm Bay Florida
Well, I guess if the state underwrites the transit service, they have the ability to 'discriminate'... it's their money going into the casino? If they don't subsidize the bus service, that was a gestapo action on their part, imo.
The State don't fund this.It's money out of the customers pocket.
You do have to see it in the States eyes.It's really tax payers money here.
And I don't look into everyone's life to see what they have.It's really non of my business.But in this business you do hear some good one's.and it can be all hear say too.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
I don't think you understand him. His issue is not that he placed $4,000 on one outcome, then tried to place some more on the same outcome.

He was limited to placing 1% of the previous maximum on all events. In other words, they were limiting his account because he was winning.

It would be akin to fortune lounge limiting Juliack to $5 maximum bets on Video Poker :)

In the 'real world' odds are always changing. Bet limits are unfair, the odds determine the limits. A large bet would affect the next odds, wouldn't it? I don't use online sportsbooks, so don't know how they work.
 

shaunm

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Location
Wigan
In the 'real world' odds are always changing. Bet limits are unfair, the odds determine the limits. A large bet would affect the next odds, wouldn't it? I don't use online sportsbooks, so don't know how they work.

i understand what you mean. but if there are 99 10 bettors and 1 20,000 bettor, and he/she puts 20,000 on a horse at 10/1, and the bookmaker cuts the price to 6/1, is it fair that all the 10 punters have to take this price? if you limit the big staking bettor, then he has 20,000 at 10/1 and the 10 bettors can get their money on at 10/1 so everyone is happy.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I think some casino discrimination rules are unreasonable because they don't seem to be related to fraud. If the problem is fraud, they should be fighting that, rather than blocking whole countries.

Discrimination used to be the norm, and was acceptable only 50 or so years ago, but the groups discriminated against fought back and have won rights to equal treatment. The rules now require a good reason to be made for discrimination, it is not good enough just to discriminate and not say why.

Grand Prive were a case in point. They decided to stop giving bonuses to players who used the British Pound, as it gave such players an unfair advantage. In order to receive their promotions, players had to use the US Dollar. This wasn't discrimatory, as all players had the choice to use the dollar and receive promotions, or use the pound and not receive them.

They then added a rule that UK players had to use the pound, and this became discrimination, as the players could not take part on an equal footing by having the same options as all the rest.

The argument about businesses discriminating on grounds of place of origin is not that clear cut, and here in the UK would be illegal if the discrimination were solely on grounds of things like race, gender, religion etc. Discrimination would be allowed on the basis of an individuals circumstances, and if an individual repeatedly commits fraud they can be banned from the places they have targeted, or may target in the future.

Discrimination on the internet is hard to police, as the question of juristiction arises, and it would be up to the person discriminated against to make a complaint. Where the country is outside the EU, and the complainant is not on EU soil at the time of discrimination, the business will most likely not be challenged.

My suspicion with casinos is that they are NOT discriminating due to fraud in many cases, as they would have us believe that US players are above such things, but the Fins are all thieves, along with the Danes. It seems the discrimination is against small countries, but with the US they will swallow the cost of the fraud (naturally, UIGEA has changed everything since).

It would really take a test case in the courts to see if certain types of discrimination are allowable or not, and it would depend on the reasons given.
Current arguments exist about discrimination against MEN with car insurance. The insurers are currently allowed to do this, because the discrimination is based on risk assessment, and not purely gender. This, however, may change, as the EU want to outlaw this kind of risk profiling, and require insurers to asess drivers as individuals.

Casinos can get away with such discrimination because it would be the law in their licencing juristiction that counts, so those moving to Malta had better realise that some of their terms might be subject to challenge, and they may be required to make changes. Because all EU countries are considered equal, it will not be allowable simply to day that one EU country is a hotbed of fraud and another is fine. The EU courts will take the view that if they met the criteria for admittance in the first place, they are no less "safe" than any other for business.
If anything, the EU rules against discrimination are so extreme that it is the business to prove their innocence, not the complainant to prove guilt, which is the opposite of most other court matters. This is because those that seek to discriminate because of personal prejudice have found ways to frustrate the law, and use "indirect" methods to get rid of those they don't like.

In the case of the African countries, it would be down to the business to PROVE that the rate of fraud is so high they had no other choice (should the courts decide to accept the matter, that is). There are one or two countries that are deemed so "evil" they sit on official blacklists, and in these cases it IS legal to discriminate against it's citizens, and in some cases it is compulsory.

What particuarly raises my blood pressure are those casinos that call ME a "fraud" or "fraud risk" just because I live here in England:mad:
 

kaszino

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Location
Hungary
Does a restaurant have the right to tell a guest without any reason, you cannot enter and eat here?
Does a shop have the right to tell a customer without any reason, you cannot enter and buy here?
Does a casino have the right to tell the player without any reason, you cannot play here?
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
In the US it's actually legal for an auto insurance company to use your credit score (fico) to determine your insurance rates. As liability insurance is compulsory in most if not all states, this has the de facto effect of discriminating against the poor, because somehow a study must have shown that all risk is bad risk. (study probably funded by insurance industry if one was actually done at all)

Market force should be the way to deal with the issues, but as we can see from Rogue casinos continuing to operate, boycotts can't work without dissemination of information and solidarity of 'consumers'.

I wonder if there is a personality trait more common in gamblers than others that says, 'I got mine, you're on your own', or if apathy or ignorance of the issues is what is at the heart of it all.

My opinions so far:

Bookmaking: Granted, I don't fully understand bookmaking... but when I played the football cards decades ago, a new set of odds came out at least twice per day, sometimes more often, based on the last period's betting. There were no wagering limits that I knew of; the bookie was good for any bet made and I don't even want to know where the money went or came from:eek2: It may be different for a regulated online shop and if their book can only handle $x, then it should certainly be in their right to limit bets... but they should limit them across the board, not handicap a sharp punter... that is fixing the odds and not fair in my opinion.

Bonus restrictions: It is, imo, any businesses right to offer any or no incentives to any or no customers. But it isn't 'fair'. All customers should receive the same offer as a baseline. Special offers for individuals would be acceptable, but not regions or nations. Nor should regions or nations be precluded from 'baseline' offers. If Nigerians represent a significant percentage of frauds, the 'application' process should take this into consideration (with all applicants treated equally) and the administrative costs absorbed or spread out.

Closing accounts due to criticism or simply membership of a forum: This was documented at a cyberbingo.com site - the Corporate spokesperson denied it, chat was later posted that 'proved' the allegation. It isn't known if it is policy, or mid-management brainfart, or CS mistake as they have stopped responding. There were also issues of non-payment so the BPU admin has filed a complaint with the licensing authority in Antigua... but I digress.
I'm of the opinion that any site can serve or not serve whomever they please. But it should also be common knowledge so that players who disagree can vote with their dollars and expose what they consider an unfair practice wherever and however they choose to.

Being banned from a forum for opposing opinions, rendered respectfully, would indicate a rogue forum to me. Of course it is the moderator's right to control access, but such a forum would be practically useless except as a propoganda tool, or cult setting.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
Does a restaurant have the right to tell a guest without any reason, you cannot enter and eat here?
Does a shop have the right to tell a customer without any reason, you cannot enter and buy here?
Does a casino have the right to tell the player without any reason, you cannot play here?

Yes, in the US any business can do these things. If they discriminate based on race, creed, religion, or disability there are civil rights laws to remedy it. But in general, as a business owner, I may reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
 

kaszino

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Location
Hungary
And how can they decide on which base they discriminated the customer?
What is the difference if you discrimate somebody on race and what if you do it on his face which you do not like?

In Hungary it is different. If you run a business you cannot reject anybody without reason.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
And how can they decide on which base they discriminated the customer?
What is the difference if you discrimate somebody on race and what if you do it on his face which you do not like?

In Hungary it is different. If you run a business you cannot reject anybody without reason.


If I felt you had discriminated against me because I was disabled there would be one process (americans with disabilities act) if I thought it was because I was white I would contact a lawyer, the american civil liberties union, or the federal civil rights commission and make a complaint... it may or may not go to arbitration or court, but if a judge found merit in my claim, I would sue civilly for damages and a jury would decide based on the evidence. In an extreme case it may be possible that of criminal charges could be filed. And if they recieve any federal funding they could lose that funding. Complicated, but those who may be discriminated against here have access to legal remedies.

Please note I agree with your assertion: Limits should be across the board, not bettor by bettor. But your only remedy may be to place your bets at one of the places Ugaboga suggested that don't limit individuals just because they are sharp or lucky.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
And how can they decide on which base they discriminated the customer?
What is the difference if you discrimate somebody on race and what if you do it on his face which you do not like?

In Hungary it is different. If you run a business you cannot reject anybody without reason.
You have stated this once before without backing it up with any references. Would you please respond to my questions at https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ed-my-betting-imit.21115/?highlight=insurance
 
Top