Is this player entitled to a payout?

[MichaelBluejay]

I’m writing to ask for the community’s opinion on whether a player is owed a payout.

I run an affiliate website where I advertise an online casino, and I offer to mediate in case a visitor clicks over to it from my site, plays there, and has a problem they can’t resolve with the casino. It’s exceedingly rare that I get a complaint from a player, but I just got one. *I intend to take it up with the casino, but before I do I’d like to understand what the community thinks would be normal and proper in this situation, hence this request for feedback. Here are the details of the case:

SHORT SUMMARY: *Player opened two accounts for sports betting (I don't promote that, but the casino I advertise offers it), deposited $1274 total, withdrew $2k total, had a $16k balance left when the casino called and said that having two accounts violates their rules, and confiscated all his funds.

LONGER VERSION:
Player opens an account last year for sports wagering and deposits $250, grows it to $6000, makes no withdrawals, and then has a problem with the site limiting his bets to $5, $10, or $20, or else say that the wager was waiting for approval. *Player calls Support repeatedly, and they repeatedly deny that they’re intentionally limiting his action, saying instead that there’s some glitch with his account that they’re trying to fix. After several calls with no resolution, on one such call the player tells them, “While you work on fixing the issue, I’ll open a new account, then I’ll use the original account once it’s fixed.” The agent makes no objections.

Player then opens a second account, deposits $1000, receives a bonus of $500, and grows the account to $5000+. *He then notices the original account is working, so he switches back to using that one exclusively. *He grows that original account to ~$10,000, and withdraws $2000. *He regrows it to about $10,500 by Dec. 2014, at which point he says the casino calls and says that their terms say only one account per player, cancels both accounts, and confiscates all the funds in both accounts (about $15,800).

DISCUSSION:
The casino's terms state:

“Single Account Access. *You are permitted to open only one (1) Account. *Only one account is allowed per household. Multiple accounts held by the same individual are subject to immediate closure and we reserve the right to seize any funds gained AS A RESULT OF HOLDING MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS [emphasis mine].”

My feelings:

(1) At the time he opened the second account, he had $6k in the first account. *None of that amount was the result of his having two accounts, because he didn’t yet have two accounts. *Since he later withdrew $2k from the first account, he seems entitled to get the other $4k from that account, at a minimum.

(2) According to the terms, the casino can seize only the funds *gained* from holding multiple accounts, not the original deposits. *He made no withdrawals from the second account, so it seems they should let him withdraw the $1000 he deposited, at a minimum.

(3) I can understand an operator prohibiting multiple accounts so that users don’t get multiple bonuses, or collude in poker, but I’m not sure for what other reason they would, and it doesn’t seem that this player benefited from having multiple accounts, except for the second bonus, which the casino could certainly simply subtract from his balance before returning it.

What do you all think? How much, if any, should this player receive back, assuming that he relayed the particulars accurately?

 

[winbig]

The issues I see are:

1) Did he take a bonus with the original account, as he did with the 2nd one? Was the 2nd account eligible for a bonus - IE: Non SUB/1st deposit bonus?
2) Hindsight is 20/20, but why didn't he have the rep open a 2nd account for him right then and there, and have the funds transferred over to the new account?
3) Again, hindsight, but he should have gotten this in writing instead of dealing with it over the phone. Even if the CSR was silent about his statement of opening a new account, that doesn't mean it was allowed. Although somewhat unethical, the CSR had no commitment to tell him the downfalls of opening a 2nd account.

Personally, I don't think he has a case in regards to the 2nd account. Though at the very least, he should have his deposits refunded from it. As far as the 1st account goes, I don't believe they have a right to confiscate any winnings from it. But then again, their T&C do say that they can/will seize funds from both accounts in this event....

 

[rena35]

The agent made no objection to opening a second account. IMO player should get paid . Hire better support agents .

 

[winbig]

The agent made no objection to opening a second account. IMO player should get paid . Hire better support agents .

That subject has been discussed here many times in the past, and every casino manager's response has been that they're not bound to decisions/statements made by their customer support staff. They always fall back on what's written in the T&C.

 

[silcnlayc]

As for laws across the land.....verbal contracts are superseded in all disputes by the four corners of a WRITTEN contract. A WRITTEN contract (rules and regs) nullifies any verbal or silent agreements. So what the law says is you cannot have 2 contracts to abide by. If it is written, that one is the ONLY one that one must go by. When verbal or silent, it holds no strength and cannot be used.

I am not a lawyer, and this is NOT legal advice, only experience, but I have been in many of my own court cases due to my employment and KNOW how judges rule. Be careful when depending on CS verbal communications......their answer will not stand up anywhere in the four corners of our world if there is written rules (T&C"S).....

I haven't been to a court case of my own that verbal has taken precedence over written in 30 years. JFYI.....

1. Player took bonus on account #1
2. Player took a bonus on account #2 T&C's broken not once, but TWICE by taking a bonus and opening a new account

Why would anyone jeopardize funds in one account to open another except for greed? Reason I say this is because player did not have bonus removed from NEW account knowing this was already not allowed, which made it doubly wrong. So, all in all....too many wrong choices when knowing the T&C's.

Player was wrong......

.

 

[elrudo]

This player deserves all consequences of the smallprint from the casino/sportsbooks Terms & Conditions.

He has deliberately signed up for a second account at the sportsbook to circumvent bet limits, took a second signup bonus, possibly under an other affiliate than for his initial account, and has agreed to the Terms and Conditions at least twice.

 

[snotter999]

In my opinion he should be allowed to withdraw any winnings in his first account that were won before he opened a second account.

Second account was just stupid and he should lose that cos the T&C's clearly say it is not allowed.

Why did he not open an account somewhere else.
Sounds like he is good at his sports bet!

 

[dunover]

Common-sense. ANY experienced punter knows that multi-accounting (for whatever reason) and taking a bonus on the subsequent accounts is asking for trouble, regardless of bonus on the original account.

That was his big mistake.

He should have his winnings voided and original deposit on account#2 refunded. As is standard practice across the industry.

Account#1 CAN be shut under the terms and of course they can use discretion here given the circumstances but needless to say will not as keeping the winnings on account#1 saves them a liability.

I don't know the site here but a fair site would do what I suggest above and then allow account#1 to remain as before so he is free to play and withdraw his existing balance.

Am I the only one who thinks he may have been 'led' here? Wins, then all of a sudden his bets are limited or have to be pre-approved. This is down to an 'error' (BS IMO) so he's encouraged to break terms and that means he forfeits all his winnings without the site looking rogue......Mmmmm

 

[KasinoKing]

I agree with everyone else - the player has no case.

The book was limiting his bets - and yet he went back to the same place to open another account?
How can someone who sounds really clever at betting, have so little common sense?

KK

 

[winbig]

I agree with everyone else - the player has no case.

The book was limiting his bets - and yet he went back to the same place to open another account?
How can someone who sounds really clever at betting, have so little common sense?

KK

I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing and is spinning it around in his favor. I'd bet the sportsbook would have a completely different version of what really happened. If you can turn a 3 figure deposit into 5 figures not once but twice, you have plenty of common sense.

 

[BMWSTACK]

Multi Account Void

Only way that one is worked out is a long term customer that blows lots of money, but seeing they were limiting bets and not working with him, doesn't sound like a VIP.

Voiding the win is best option for casino with a short term winning player.

 

[SPOPPLE]

Anyone who has even gambled occasionally (someone who can turn hundreds of dollars into a 5 figure number in a few months on sports bets isnt an occasional gambler) knows that multiple accounts are not allowed, its often one of the first things in T&C and you will see it pop up in emails and when you make new accounts. In my opinion the casino should do as follows, find out if the original issue with the first account was that he had had his bets limited (seems almost definite), if so he should have his funds from the first account sent to him and any deposits made from the second account refunded, he had a bonus on the second account regardless and even though the issue should have been resolved, it wasnt yet he breached the rules by making a new account and then again by taking another bonus. He needs atleast his main account balance given to him, his second account deposits and if his original issue was the casinos fault he should atleast get 50% of his second account although he violated a few of the rules it would have been partly the casinos fault.

 

[winbig]

Anyone who has even gambled occasionally (someone who can turn hundreds of dollars into a 5 figure number in a few months on sports bets isnt an occasional gambler) knows that multiple accounts are not allowed, its often one of the first things in T&C and you will see it pop up in emails and when you make new accounts. In my opinion the casino should do as follows, find out if the original issue with the first account was that he had had his bets limited (seems almost definite), if so he should have his funds from the first account sent to him and any deposits made from the second account refunded, he had a bonus on the second account regardless and even though the issue should have been resolved, it wasnt yet he breached the rules by making a new account and then again by taking another bonus. He needs atleast his main account balance given to him, his second account deposits and if his original issue was the casinos fault he should atleast get 50% of his second account although he violated a few of the rules it would have been partly the casinos fault.

Yea, but they thing is, they were limiting his action. Most bookies I know that do this do it for a very good reason. It's not like they had a system-wide problem of nobody being able to bet more than $20 a line. Even he said that he was told "it's a problem with your account." They simply didn't want his action, and he should have recognized this and went elsewhere.


We're not hearing the whole story here, I'm afraid.

 

[hedgehok]

I can see it's an accredited casino here (RTG), so the procedure should be:

1) Try your luck with mediating yourself
2) If no agreement can be done contact the relevant igaming rep here
3) If there is still no agreement (or no response) player shall submit a PAB (Pitch-a-bitch)

I wish you all the best with your complaint, however as far as i can see chances are sim. Still - best of luck. You might retrieve some money.

 

[winbig]

? Unless I missed it, the sportsbook in question was never named.....

 

[vinylweatherman]

The problem here is that the sportsbook repeatedly lied to the player about the problem being a "technical glitch" that they were looking into, so I can't really have that much sympathy for them when a player only takes the action of opening a second account after the sportsbook had repeatedly failed to "address the technical glitch". Where the PLAYER went wrong was in not withdrawing the 6K in the "glitched" account at the same time as giving up on it.

I do not buy any of this BS "you can't rely on what CS tells you" because the CS agent is the interface between customer and provider, and if the provider wants to cut cost to the bone by hiring poorly trained CS staff they should accept the consequences when said CS agents screw up.

In law, verbal contracts DO hold the same weight as a written one, and this is widely used when contracts are made over the phone or the internet as part of modern commerce. It's the business world that wanted this law so that they didn't have to keep posting stuff out to customers to sign and then send back, which of course meant lost sales as customers had all that time to reconsider what might have been a rash decision made over the phone or on a website.

This sportsbook also benefitted from this law as the original contract was "signed" through the use of a tick box online; I very much doubt they posted a written contract out to the player to be signed and sent back.

In this case, it seems they are not even enforcing the terms that the player signed up to, as it has been pointed out that the first 6K in the first account did not fall under the provisions, so the sportsbook has broken it's own terms, so if we reciprocate the argument, the player should be allowed to confiscate the entire assets of the sportbook provider over it's breach of it's own terms.

Whilst the player did very well, unless there is any evidence to show that the bets were somehow the result of inside information, match fixing, or taking advantage of some other loophole that could be used to allow the player to place a bet after the result is already known, the bets should stand.

Sportsbooks shouldn't really lose out as they dynamically adjust the odds as bets come in to the system so that overall they retain their edge.

Arguing that the player "should have known the sportsbook was lying about a glitch" is the same as saying a player "should have known the casino was lying about not having rigged their slots" when they have complained about a very bad run. It's a concept that opens a Pandora's box of conspiracy theories that would be to the detriment of the industry. What happens when an accredited operators genuinely does have a glitch that gives the impression that they have actually limited players in some way, or changed a "set in stone" slot to a lower RTP? Teaching players that they should be able to tell whether the casino is lying or genuinely has the issue opens up the problem that such a glitch could seriously damage the reputation of an operator or software. We already have the problem that a significant minority of players have become convinced that online games in general are "rigged" to rip them off when they are doing too well, and it's often a tough job to convince them that they are seeing nothing more than the manifestation of the RNG combined with a deceptively high variance game.

If an operator is limiting a players' bets, just bloody well say so!, don't try to pretend it's a glitch etc. If you have just "bloody well said so" to a player, they can't then pretend otherwise. If necessary, just freeze the account and send them the balance and a "don't come back" email.

Now, whatever this operator does, it remains tarnished as "untrustworthy", and players should also be aware that they don't like winners, they will be lied to then screwed over. Losers of course can expect the red carpet treatment.

 

[chayton]

I don't think the player has a case to get paid. Even IF the player is telling the truth about the phone call, the fact that support 'didn't object' doesn't mean that that they agreed or they were giving permission to do it. It's possible that they didn't hear, or they thought the player was talking about opening an account somewhere else. But it's moot anyhow, like others have said, the printed terms trump anything some person may or may not have said on the phone anyhow.

 

[winbig]

Even if verbal contracts were just as binding as written ones - how are you going to prove one was ever entered into, especially over the phone? I seriously doubt they record the conversations.

 

[MichaelBluejay]

This is not a legal question

It's interesting to me that some of you are answering in legal terms. But that wasn't my question. What I asked was, "Is the player entitled to a payout?" I didn't ask, "Does the casino have legal grounds to deny the payout?", or "Does the player have legal grounds to demand the payout?" Rather, I was interested in whether the community agrees that seizing 100% of the funds was unfair or not, and if so, how much should be returned to the player.

This isn't the first time I've asked a question somewhere and the answers were significantly to mostly in legal terms, like about what each side might be able to get away with in court. It's disappointing to me that many seem to think mostly to only in those terms. I wonder if it's an American thing.

Many of you stuck to the ToS (which say no multiple accounts) to make your case that the player deserves nothing, but ignored the fact that the ToS says more specifically that funds gained *as a result* of having multiple accounts could be seized, though, according to the player, the casino seized the entirety of the first account, which had a sizable balance before the second account was ever opened. Now, perhaps you think that it's still fair game for the casino to seize the earnings he had before he ever had a second account, for some reason, but if so, that wasn't mentioned.

In any event, I think that I've received all the useful replies I'm going to receive, so I'm ready now to ask the casino for their side of the story. Thank you very much to everyone who shared their opinion on this issue.

 

[winbig]

It's interesting to me that some of you are answering in legal terms. But that wasn't my question. What I asked was, "Is the player entitled to a payout?" I didn't ask, "Does the casino have legal grounds to deny the payout?", or "Does the player have legal grounds to demand the payout?" Rather, I was interested in whether the community agrees that seizing 100% of the funds was unfair or not, and if so, how much should be returned to the player.

This isn't the first time I've asked a question somewhere and the answers were significantly to mostly in legal terms, like about what each side might be able to get away with in court. It's disappointing to me that many seem to think mostly to only in those terms. I wonder if it's an American thing.

Many of you stuck to the ToS (which say no multiple accounts) to make your case that the player deserves nothing, but ignored the fact that the ToS says more specifically that funds gained *as a result* of having multiple accounts could be seized, though, according to the player, the casino seized the entirety of the first account, which had a sizable balance before the second account was ever opened. Now, perhaps you think that it's still fair game for the casino to seize the earnings he had before he ever had a second account, for some reason, but if so, that wasn't mentioned.

In any event, I think that I've received all the useful replies I'm going to receive, so I'm ready now to ask the casino for their side of the story. Thank you very much to everyone who shared their opinion on this issue.

My 1st reply was non-legal, in which he should get his deposits back on the 2nd account and all the funds back from the first account

 

[Simmo!]

IMO:

1) The first account woud be paid in full by a reputable operator.
2) The second account would normally just have deposits refunded and winnings confiscated.

If the player has a chat transcript that shows he said he was going to open a 2nd account and there was no objection, I think he might have a slim case if he went down a legal route myself. However, standard practice as everyone has pointed out doesn't allow this so I think it would be futile.

It would be reasonable to expect to receive back everything that was legitimately accrued from the first account prior to the 2nd account being opened and deposits from the 2nd account. A sportsbook that doesn't do this is of questionable repute in my opinion.

 

[babyjoker]

as an experienced sports gambler, me and a friend noticed our max bet amounts were being reduced on the sport we win on alot and immediately indentified we were winning too much for the bookies liking, what did we do? We went to another bookie and bet there, the thought of opening another account to get a new players limits at the SAME place seems obsurd, let alone taking a new player bonus on the account lol

I have no idea how they should deal with it but it seems very odd that an intelligent capable gambler would risk there bankroll in that manner, it's a gamble that you will more often lose than win.

 

[gokkie]

Imo the player should have asked for a written permission from the casino which states he is allowed to open a second account to play on untill the 'problems' on his first account are fixed.
However why not open a new account at another casino. If the player is in any way experienced, he should be with a balance of over 15k, it is a big mistake to open a second account. Why take the risk???? This what I really do not understand at all...

From the info so far, I think he should get refunded the winnings on his first account before he opened te second account. Everything won on both accounts after he opened the second account should be voided, only deposit returned.

 

[winbig]

If the player is in any way experienced, he should be with a balance of over 15k, it is a big mistake to open a second account. Why take the risk???? This what I really do not understand at all...

one word: greed...he took the (apparent) SUB on the 2nd account...$500 worth..

 

[partyhummel]

management is always responsible for actions (or non actions) of the staff!!!!

reputable companies take responsibility for their staff. which means - if the player can prove the non complaint of support staff about opening a new account BECAUSE THE CASINO WAS HAVING ISSUES(!!!) - then the casino would have to pay. acceptable was a reduction of the balance at the second account in relation deposit to bonus because it was granted as a mistake i guess.

One man one word. if a casino redpresentative (and support staff represents the casino!) cantbe hold responsible for the actions they can trick and betray players however they like.

btw - i am very interested in the name of the company in this case...