1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

I want my 2.1 Million back please Mr Hill...

Discussion in 'Casino Industry Discussion' started by Slotster!, Feb 14, 2008.

    Feb 14, 2008
  1. Slotster!

    Slotster! I predict a riot. CAG

    Occupation:
    al Hazard
    Location:
    Location, Location!
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    "You let me back in, even though I excluded myself - so I want my losses back"

    If this guy wins, it'll set the most alarming precedent the gambling industry has ever seen...
     
    4 people like this.
  2. Feb 14, 2008
  3. winbig

    winbig Keep winning this amount.

    Occupation:
    Bum
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I'm not sure how this will play out, but here in PA they have it clearly outlined, but under review.


    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  4. Feb 14, 2008
  5. GaryWatson

    GaryWatson Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Marketing Consultant
    Location:
    Europe
    Very interesting. He has declared himself unfit to judge his own impulses, the site has accepted. its like a junkie looking for help. All the bonus issues on Casinomaister indicate a lack of interest until it comes to paying out. They get flagged but his would have been obvious. Not many people bet 10k+ on the outcome of an event. I consider Hills negligent. He was a high roller & they were happy to keep him but they accepted his reason of insanity
     
  6. Feb 14, 2008
  7. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    How many times have we seen on this forum alone instances where Will Hill CRM has been found inept and/or disorganised, ignoring player emails and the like? Hopefully this issue will focus their minds on a general improvement of that part of their operations.

    This guy did exclude himself for the 6 month "cool off" period, and it was accepted by a Will Hill official. Then the guy goes off and opens a new account....but using his own name and details. Will Hill's systems should have picked that one up, and it's an area where I think they may be vulnerable.

    This fellow put a huge amount of money through Will Hill so you would assume he would be flagged in some way beside being self-excluded - at one stage he was betting GBP 30K a time, and he lost GBP 300K plus on a golf game bet.

    He must have been a red hot greyhound trainer to have amassed that much money to splash around at age 25 (he started in 2005)

    I wonder how much he won in those big-spender bets?
     
  8. Feb 14, 2008
  9. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It doesn't make it clear whether this relates to online, or phone and betting shop action.

    When it comes to excluding "bonus abusers", the online industry seems to have an incredibly sophisticated method of looking at SEVERAL "indicators". The result seems to be that the net is cast so wide that many "innocent" gamblers get tangled up with "bonus abuse".

    IF this was an online account, or even a phone account under similar terms, then this gambler could have one HELL of a case, but not how he thinks.

    IF he had created what seems to be "multiple accounts", then he may well have fallen foul of terms that would have lead to any winnings being confiscated, in which case, ALL bets in the duplicate account are void, and he should receive back his "depost", just as those complainants did in the forum when WillHill online threw them off the online site for "bonus fraud".

    His legal team would need to show evidence of what happens to WINNERS who circumvent the systems, INCLUDING "self exclusion". There was one incident on this forum where a player who had opted for self exclusion got back into his casino account several times, but in the end, he WON, and enough to put him back ahead overall. However, at this point, the casino decided to confiscate these winnings after repeatedly letting him LOSE while supposedly self excluded witout taking ANY action, other than offering him more promotional offers.

    I doubt the courts will allow the industry to both defend voiding bets when punters win after fooling self exclusion, yet decide that LOSING bets should stand as it was the punter's responsibility to get treatment for his problem and not place any more bets.

    Lastly, had this punter consistently WON with these bets, he would have been permanently excluded by WillHill (and long before winning 2Million); the big bookies CAN, and DO operate a tight system when it comes to keeping out those clever punters who consistently beat the bookies.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Feb 14, 2008
  11. GaryWatson

    GaryWatson Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Marketing Consultant
    Location:
    Europe
    Im on the assumption it is phone betting




    he closed it again and this is when he was offered what's known as "self exclusion"

    Although the guy had an obvious problem. I dont think he deserves it all back. Im no lawyer but I think in the civil courts he will get a % back or an out of court settlement. He doesnt deserve it all back. with all his inside information I bet he though he was going to get some easy money. In a way it is pure greed & many people will think he got what he deserved.

    Yes they would eventually ban him if he won too much but they should also have ensured he stayed blocked when he requested it. I think both parties have to share the blame for this
     
  12. Feb 15, 2008
  13. winbig

    winbig Keep winning this amount.

    Occupation:
    Bum
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I have to agree with the argument being if he were to win, would he have gotten his money? ....probably not.

    But, the case being, he shouldn't have been able to place the bet at all, so I think he should get his money back. They told him flat out that he could bet again - in 6 months. Those 6 months hadn't passed, so they shouldn't have taken the bet in the first place.
     
  14. Feb 15, 2008
  15. Pocketdiggers77

    Pocketdiggers77 Gamester

    Occupation:
    Systems Analyst
    Location:
    On Top of Old Smokey
    This guy is a douche. Gee I might have a problem. I bet $700,000 on a golf tournament. Take your losses like a MAN and move on.

    If this were in the US he would win or they would settle out of court. Hell you can blame gambling/murder on your meds and win. I hope the UK's legal system puts this guys where he belongs.

    PD
     
    2 people like this.
  16. Feb 15, 2008
  17. GaryWatson

    GaryWatson Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Marketing Consultant
    Location:
    Europe
    I totally agree with that. He is grown up enough to make his own decisions in life & I would hate to see UK going down the road of Suing for everything. It has already started following the US, but in lesser extremes. On the other hand, he still has a case & its a bit of a sticky one. Sounds as if he is in major debt & willing to look a douche to get something back. If he loses, william hills wins, if he wins, Ladbrokes wins, then he loses. It is a shame but I hope reality slapped him in the face and he gets over it
     
  18. Feb 16, 2008
  19. tristan727

    tristan727 Banned user - violation of <a href="http://www.ca

    Occupation:
    credit manager
    Location:
    London
    For someone who's supposedly been a multi-millionaire greyhound trainer, it's very odd that googling him you can only find one link in the 1st 5 pages, to anything that doesn't relate to this story - apparently one of his dogs came 3rd in a 2006 derby. What's the trainer %fee of a 3rd place in a dog race? 200?

    The only clever thing he's doing is tapping into this country's complete lack of moral compass & responsibility - the lefties will gladly take up arms for him as they love the blame culture, and use this to shoot holes in the gambling industry.
     
  20. Mar 12, 2008
  21. Slotster!

    Slotster! I predict a riot. CAG

    Occupation:
    al Hazard
    Location:
    Location, Location!
    Surprise surprise...

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  22. Mar 12, 2008
  23. aodat2

    aodat2 Senior Member PABnononaccred PABnoaccred2 PABaccred2

    Occupation:
    I have a job
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Wow... I can't believe what I am reading.

    I do believe that the judge is a little too much to ask him to pay for the legal costs considering the fact that he has already lost the case and did not even have money to go on with the case to begin with. He BORROWED the money to get his case to court.

    That's kinda a harsh thing that the court actually ordered him to pay the legal costs. He's already lost everything and now the judge is making him lose even more? Either the judge is sick or the judge is just being a little too much to ask him to do that. After all, Will Hill ain't any small player here. They are HUGE to say the least. They have lawyers working for them anyways. I'm sure they incurred not much extra cost on this and asking that guy to pay about 300,000k+ pounds is totally gonna ruin him totally.
     
    1 person likes this.
  24. Mar 12, 2008
  25. 1819

    1819 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    retired athlete
    Location:
    ny,nj,fla
    why shouldnt he have to pay his own legal fees? who should pay taxpayers? he lost millions gambling then files a frivilous lawsuit and someone else should pay? no way. i think the judge sent a message. you play. you pay. he ruined himself.
     
  26. Mar 12, 2008
  27. aodat2

    aodat2 Senior Member PABnononaccred PABnoaccred2 PABaccred2

    Occupation:
    I have a job
    Location:
    Malaysia
    I think you got me wrong on this... I agree that he should pay his own legal fees but the Judge wanted him to pay Will Hill's legal fees as well. Read the article, it's written in there. He has to pay about 300k+ for Will Hill's legal fees. That's the part that got me. The judge could rule in Will Hill's favor and I'll still be happy but this poor guy basically is dead in a hole and the judge practically handed him a shovel and gun asking himself to dig his grave and then shoot himself dead.

    That's what really got me, not the part where he lost or has to pay his own legal fees.
     
    2 people like this.
  28. Mar 12, 2008
  29. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    I have not seen any indication that he was on legal aid. In that case, if he cannot make enough money from gambling, the people who lent him money and possibly his lawyers as well will lose out. I presume that WH's lawyers were smart enough to ask for security for their costs.
     
    1 person likes this.
  30. Mar 12, 2008
  31. silcnlayc

    silcnlayc Just one more spin pleez! CAG MM PABnonaccred PABaccred

    Occupation:
    IT Director of Operations
    Location:
    Left Hungary
    I agree he should pay Will Hill's legal fees. He brought the suit and it cost Will Hill this much to exonerate themselves..just as in any lawsuit...you lose , you pay both sides..it's only fair to the one trying to defend themselves against frivilous lawsuits such as this..

    Why should the Plaintiff get off with paying a measly few hundred pounds for his lawsuit when it cost another to defend themselves quite a bit more?

    Anyone filing frivilous lawsuits should have to pay all fees, not just his own.
     
  32. Mar 12, 2008
  33. 1819

    1819 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    retired athlete
    Location:
    ny,nj,fla
    i read the article. he should have to pay. why should w.h. have to pay to defend themselves? he could have saved himself a ton of money by not trying to blame someone else for his problems. now maybe he'll go get a job and learn the value of a buck as he pays w.h. legal fees. i do feel for people with problems, believe me alot of my money goes toward people who need help. i do not have sympathy for people who blame everyone else especially here in america where blaming someone else for your problems is the norm not the exception.
     
  34. Mar 13, 2008
  35. cheekymonkey

    cheekymonkey Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Loser
    Location:
    Back at my mums
    The guy has given WH enough already FFS. I mean, isn't 2 million quid enough?

    They can EASILY afford to pay their own fees 1000's times over, but no - they want to save every stinking penny. Makes me sick.

    F**k em, the greedy b******s.

    Anyway, what goes around, comes around. :D
     
  36. Mar 13, 2008
  37. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    I don't know why I wrote gambling, I meant greyhound training.
     
  38. Mar 14, 2008
  39. suzecat

    suzecat Dormant account CAG MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    California
    Does GB law have appeal rights or if you lose, it sticks?

    Edit: nevermind.........read the article........Brits are cool!
     

Share This Page