Discriminations?

[ugaboga]

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.

Again this is totally different. They are limiting the punter on ALL markets. Not on one specific event. They are simplying doing this because he is winning. This is far from honourable bookmaking.

Bet365 is known for these cheap tactics, please read player reviews here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Let's look at some examples from the above link:

After losing over $4,000 to them, they cut my limits from $750 down to a maximum of $37.50 (95% decrease in limits) depriving me of any chance of winning my money back. I have read several reviews that Bet365 cuts limits if you are winning too much but I have NEVER heard of any sportsbook TAKING YOUR MONEY and then cutting your limits by 95%. There is no justification for what Bet365 did and when I emailed them about it, I got a response back 3 days later saying the trading manager thought my business wasn't going to be profitable in the future.

If you did the above in any Australian licensed jurisdiction, you'd be in big problems with the gaming commission.... It's simply not right. I don't know how anyone can argue for the bookmaker.

These guys do whatever they want. You lose to them and they are happy - you win a couple of times and they close your account. I expect a lot more than that from an A+ site like Bet365. They in fact do not close your account they simply reduce you bet limit to $5 which has the same effect.

Anyway, please read the link above as you will find many similar reviews of their activities.

Kaszino is not the first person. (Btw, I had also experienced the same at Bet365 in 2003 before moving elsewhere)

Now I have been involved in traditional bookmaking in Australia, legislated in NSW. The same limit on all events applies to everyone. You cannot selectively target one person, because he is winning. You would find the same regulation when dealing with all Australian bookmakers. I think all jurisdictions should have similar regulation. If someone is able to beat the book, good on him, he shouldn't be punished because of this and have eventually have nowhere to play.

 

[Sissy]

Concerning online bingo, I have always wondered how the sites can offer such huge sign on bonuses for "first time depositors", accept their deposits without question and then in the event of this winner requesting a cashout, their accounts are frozen and sometimes closed due to "bonus abuse/duplicate accounts" sometimes falling under a "risk management " reasoning.

The sites accept very little information for membership. Few, if any, require any of the information you use to fund with as "conditions of acceptance for membership". This information is all taken AFTER you obtain membership as you attempt to or do deposit. Then , in the case of a win leading to a withdrawal request the sites are requesting even MORE information such as copies of elec. bills, passports, bank account numbers etc. (according to solid documentation I have read).

In my opinion only , it seems the sites are using the "risk management & bonus abuse" rules to their advantage. If they were to screen new players , take their funding information and check their ip's FIRST, there would not be any reason to close accounts with monies being owed or to close accounts they deem "duplicate". There are many who never heard a word about duplicate accounts the entire time they were depositing, but ONLY after they request a withdrawal.

I believe what it all boils down to is that online players are getting more educated about how the game is run and why. This in turn, brings these players to ask questions and the industry does not like being questioned. I cannot help but look at this online gambling as a choice thing. If one decides they have no problem with the rules, by all means PLAY... but if you do have a problem with the rules, you should not be punished by speaking out about it.

I also feel the actions of closing an account because a player posted on a public forum is using that player as an example to other players who may be considering posting their thoughts or issues. Yes they can do it, but I just do not agree with it. (with due respect to everyone's opinions). I also believe that any issues concerning complaints at ANY online gambling site would never hit the public forums, if the management of said sites would strive or at least attempt to accomodate the players questions and/or issues.

 

[Simmo!]

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

LOL. Well, you are stopping someone from posting their opinion in one specific place. But it doesn't stop them from posting it somewhere else on the web, just not on your property.

You can't go writing what you think on someone else's shop window in town - so is that censorship?

It makes me laugh when people go off to other forums squealing that they are being "censored" when they are kicked off a message board. Ninety nine times out of a hundred they were kicked for the way they presented their opinion, flaming or general disrespect for someone else. That's not censorship, thats sense-or-ship! I wouldn't kick someone off my own forum (I dont actually have one by the way) for stating an opinion (unless it was really offensive), providing it was presented in a respectful way to me as the owner of said forum and to it's other posters and readers.

So no it's not censorship IMO.

Regarding the OP, yes it is discriminatory, no it's not censorship, and IMO, yes they are quite within their rights to do that - and they should be allowed to discriminate because there are viable alternatives available for the unwanted customers.

 

[lojo]

I see Sissy's point that closing an account for speaking out could seem like a fear tactic, 'look what we did here, keep your mouth shut or else..' I also think it is an indication of rogue behavior, or at least it makes my ears stand up and my eyes open. It is with in a businesses right to close an account for any or no reason; but they should be forthright about it after the fact.

That's not censorship, thats sense-or-ship!

Excellent, I love it!

And I agree, Simmo, it is a forum owners complete right to ban or limit or restrict access; it's their forum. But were I to be banned from here simply for not agreeing with some of Bryan's positions, it would be a matter of good riddance both ways. I've never seen him do any such thing - but if he chose to it would certainly be well within his rights. And I wouldn't harbor any ill will We both know he could, in all good conscience, ban me at any time for some of my past behaviors and no one would slight him for it. I sure wouldn't.

One reason I enjoy and respect this forum so much is that healthy, respectful debate is not quashed, but encouraged, and there are no signs up saying, 'just don't disagree with a moderator' or someone whoes been around longer than you

 

[happygobrokey]

cool thread

 

[lojo]

cool thread

thx happy,

Weigh in on OP, if you please... i haven't formed a well informed opinion yet.

You know words distract me, so..... but way in, please?!?

 

[happygobrokey]

i don't agree with discrimination.

but i do recognize businesses' rights to protect themselves by refusing certain customers.

i think it should be black and white. either they let you play with all the rights of any player, or they ban you outright. none of this "not allowed to collect bonus" or "wagering increased for a,b,c countries" or "players from a must play in the currency of a".

imagine the prices for an all-you-can-eat buffet were proportional to the diner's weight. not fair at all.

or if you were allowed to enter the theatre, but you had to sit in the negro section and pay twice as much to get in. just not fair.

i think businesses should be allowed to exclude anyone because they are a real or perceived threat, either to the business itself or to the people on the premises.

what's not right is if the arbiter of the business would exclude a person or view them as threatening due to some biological or regional characteristic, or to inflict any special penalties on such people.

hope i said that clearly. i don't want to start rambling.

 

[SlotsWizard]

What I'd like to know is, what have the Israelites and Danes figured out that the rest of the world hasn't? Have they cracked the roulette RNG and are cashing in with multiple accounts by printing up fake ID's and utility bills?

Or is the problem that there are not enough IP addresses to go around, thus making it look like multiple players are coming from the same IP address?

The fewer gray areas to a gambling site's rules and actions, the better. I respect the right of any business to refuse customers as long as it follows documented procedures... but reducing someone's betting limits to prevent them from breaking even would be a big no-no.

 

[GrandMaster]

What I'd like to know is, what have the Israelites and Danes figured out that the rest of the world hasn't? Have they cracked the roulette RNG and are cashing in with multiple accounts by printing up fake ID's and utility bills?

During the golden age of bonus hunting there was a programme on Danish TV that explained how to make money off the online casinos, and the casinos were hit pretty badly.

If you search for Israel and fraud here, you will find some examples, a lot more than you would expect just based on the population of the country.

 

[happygobrokey]

program airs on tv, then all danes are earmarked and banned.

website goes up promoting whoring, and the casino actually pays the host for the advertising.

they want players from whoreywhorewhore.com and will pay the site to get them traffic. but they don't want players who watch danish public tv, players that the casino doesn't have to pay any affiliate for getting.

the tv show gave free advertising when it aired, but only to those watching and thus inspired a low relative number of people. the whoring sites give step-by-step instructions to anyone visiting the site anytime, and the casinos need to pay out every time people are referred there from the whoring site. yet the casino approves of whoring sites but won't let anyone from the country airing the tv show partake. unfair and dumb.

 

[dealer wins]

Very interesting thread.

Regarding limits in casinos or sportsbooks, I think that it is unfair to severely limit some players and not others. (I cant understand why they would want to do this as any wager has a built in profit for the casino???)

And as for banning people because they are members of a forum, well thats justs just a sign of a rogue operator IMO.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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?

They CAN do this, but customers have the right to challenge this later. Because of abuse of this system, which was to allow businesses to control problems on their premises, the remedies can be quite severe and the burden of proof is on the BUSINESS to prove that there were valid grounds related to protection of the premesis, public order, etc.
The abuses were that some places had a secret "no blacks" type of policy, and they would turn away black people, or indeed any minority group they didn't like, but didn't have to say why at the time. Eventually, groups discriminated against figured out the bans were based merely on race, religion, etc rather than valid criteria, and took action through the courts and parliament. Because of this, anti-discrimination laws were considerably strengthened, and rather than the complainant having to prove they were discriminated against because of race, religion, gender, etc, it is now up to the business to PROVE the grounds for discrimination were OTHER than this, and were reasonable at the time they were applied.
Online casinos have it easy, they can discriminate on ANY grounds, and can even allow someone access and "mug them" when the leave. Because of the nature of online businesses, it is far harder to take legal action and sue for damages.
If online casinos were subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as land establishments they would tighten up entry procedures, and ensure they had enough information at the outset to decide whether an individual was a risk to the business, they would certainly not just ban whole races or regions.
The law also covers indirect discrimination, this means it is not allowed to create criteria which are far harder for one ethnic group to comply with than another without VERY good reason.

If a Nigerian walked into a London casino, and was told he coudn't play simply for being Nigerian, there would be hell to pay for the casino operators, but online casinos do this all the time for various regions.

As for that Danish TV program, this looks like a bogus reason. It was quite some time ago, and bonus rules have been changed such that the methods would not work now. There are far better bonus abuse methods on the internet, and this is available to the whole world, but we don't see the whole world being banned because of this.
There are clever players the world over, not just the Danes or the Fins. casinos already have methods to deal with this on an individual basis, and so don't need to ban whole countries.
Playtech have gone a step further, by banning certain ethnic groups at the software level, this would be ripped to shreds by a European court (not that Playtech would want to be in that juristiction - share listing does not count), as such customers DON'T have the option to get a better deal at a different Playtech outlet. In the US this would come under anti-trust laws, and the same applies in the EU, just the legal procedures are different. Microsoft sought to prevent PC users being able to access competing software, and were told that because they had a near monopoly with the OS, they had to allow proper access to "secrets" such that competing brands of browsers, media players, office software, etc could design their products with the same ability to work seamlessly with Windows as their own products do (This is a LEGAL definition, but we all know this means that competing companies must have the same access to the ability to screw up your PC as Microsoft does with it's own products).

Casinos that register for EU regulation may find their policies in this regard face legal challenges once online gambling is seen as more mainstream. There are a few pressure groups that make pre-emptive complaints even before consumers realise they are facing illegal discrimination.

 

[PookiePoodle]

Great discussion! In my own experience, I have not had a problem with being banned for any reason from an online bingo. They will ban you from a site for chat that puts down the site. I dont blame them. If you are runnig an online bingo and someone has a problem with you, it should be handled through support. When a player goes into the players chat and rants about how they have been done wrong, I think the site has every reason to ban them. Personally when I am trying to enjoy a bingo game, the last thing I want to read in chat is a person going on and on about the sites shortcomings. I really do not believe they ban for posting in a forum, but they do ban for going on in their own chatroom. I watch the forums for what people think of a site, and take the information and decide for myself. Once they post in a sites chat, I dismiss them as a disgruntled player who has probably abused the rules and regs of the site and need a lot more offering of proof that the site is in the wrong. Just my opinion, but I have played online bingo since 1995 or so, and I have been around the block more than once.