Will this effect multiple accounts at sister casino's?

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
Here is an article that was sent to me today.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Reading between the lines it seems to me that the only implication is that these folk who have lost their money all had accounts at more than one of these sister sites.

What potential implications could any investigation have on folk who have multiple accounts at slot slot/sports betting sites and could new guidelines be introduced for the benefit of customers?
 

Nicola

Closed Account
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Location
Malta
What a mess, can see the UKGC getting involved and fining them for not being clear on their terms!

Sports and racing aside, their casinos have lots of complaints including bonuses not being credited and MG errors all the time.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
The old 'spirit of the bonus' or pseudo 'bonus abuse' FU clauses. Unless it specifies that a player may NOT claim bonuses at more than one site, they should officially complain and ask during the process what specifically constitutes such.
 

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
What a mess, can see the UKGC getting involved and fining them for not being clear on their terms!

Sports and racing aside, their casinos have lots of complaints including bonuses not being credited and MG errors all the time.

How do these sites manage to obtain a licence in the first place?

If they can only cite the abuse clause without being able to justify why that clause came into effect then they must of omitted to clearly state anything about sister sites re bonuses and multiple betting on the same event.
They don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

Lets hope us punters benefit from the outcome of this
 

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
The old 'spirit of the bonus' or pseudo 'bonus abuse' FU clauses. Unless it specifies that a player may NOT claim bonuses at more than one site, they should officially complain and ask during the process what specifically constitutes such.

What is so damning is that they have not even given him his deposits back despite promising they would do.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Normally, players would have had to walk away because the bookie controls the money and used to be offshore. However, this "industry standard" approach could backfire on the industry because this is one of the big horse racing events in the UK, and this is a mass non payment of legitimate bets based on rather vague terms which would probably fall foul of UK consumer protection laws. If that wasn't bad enough, the Mirror has gotten hold of this, and it's tabloid headline news. The PR for the bookie industry is going to be very bad indeed because on the face of it, these are 4 bookies that took a hit because the favourites did rather well, which is not an uncommon occurrence, but normally the big bookies have enough reserves to ride out such a storm, and know that they will recoup the money later on. This is the first time that bookies have first stalled by saying there were delays in making the payments, and then deciding to mass renege on winning bets without there having been anything raised about the results on the course, such as a steward's enquiry of a failed doping test.

There have been previous incidents, but they have been down to allegations of match fixing, and payments on bets have been delayed and only voided once the governing body of the sport involved has cast doubt on the validity of the outcome.

This will reflect badly on ALL bookies, not just these IOM registered ones.

Ideally, these punters should push all the way to taking the firms to court for their winnings, and if the Mirror gets behind them (as it will, because it sells papers to run with a cause for the lowly consumer) they will all realise that this is what they should do.

The downfall of Hoover was helped largely by the newspapers taking on the cause on behalf of customers who got ripped off. The fact that Hoover botched the free flights promo by making it economically viable to buy an appliance and bin it and STILL save money on the flights is what lead to the eventual meltdown. Hoover didn't get saved by the "promotional abuse" argument back then, and the negative PR generated by them trying to renege on the free flights offer dealt a fatal blow to the company as it went bust under the strain of dealing with the aftermath, whilst most customers eventually got their free flights.

Bookies may find that a loss of trust from punters makes this a rather expensive move for the industry, and they will be under considerable pressure to honour valid winning bets unless they can come up with something much better than the vague letter they have sent out. They must have taken a very big hit in order to resort to such a drastic and dangerous measure, so maybe they lost so much to punters that they are in danger of going under and not being able to pay a much wider range of winning bets.

If the Mirror has this, the Mail and Express should also get hold of it, and it may even end up being covered by the more erudite rags, where it will make waves in financial circles, and where the UKGC may have to take the matter more seriously.
 

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
Normally, players would have had to walk away because the bookie controls the money and used to be offshore. However, this "industry standard" approach could backfire on the industry because this is one of the big horse racing events in the UK, and this is a mass non payment of legitimate bets based on rather vague terms which would probably fall foul of UK consumer protection laws. If that wasn't bad enough, the Mirror has gotten hold of this, and it's tabloid headline news. The PR for the bookie industry is going to be very bad indeed because on the face of it, these are 4 bookies that took a hit because the favourites did rather well, which is not an uncommon occurrence, but normally the big bookies have enough reserves to ride out such a storm, and know that they will recoup the money later on. This is the first time that bookies have first stalled by saying there were delays in making the payments, and then deciding to mass renege on winning bets without there having been anything raised about the results on the course, such as a steward's enquiry of a failed doping test.

There have been previous incidents, but they have been down to allegations of match fixing, and payments on bets have been delayed and only voided once the governing body of the sport involved has cast doubt on the validity of the outcome.

This will reflect badly on ALL bookies, not just these IOM registered ones.

Ideally, these punters should push all the way to taking the firms to court for their winnings, and if the Mirror gets behind them (as it will, because it sells papers to run with a cause for the lowly consumer) they will all realise that this is what they should do.

The downfall of Hoover was helped largely by the newspapers taking on the cause on behalf of customers who got ripped off. The fact that Hoover botched the free flights promo by making it economically viable to buy an appliance and bin it and STILL save money on the flights is what lead to the eventual meltdown. Hoover didn't get saved by the "promotional abuse" argument back then, and the negative PR generated by them trying to renege on the free flights offer dealt a fatal blow to the company as it went bust under the strain of dealing with the aftermath, whilst most customers eventually got their free flights.

Bookies may find that a loss of trust from punters makes this a rather expensive move for the industry, and they will be under considerable pressure to honour valid winning bets unless they can come up with something much better than the vague letter they have sent out. They must have taken a very big hit in order to resort to such a drastic and dangerous measure, so maybe they lost so much to punters that they are in danger of going under and not being able to pay a much wider range of winning bets.

If the Mirror has this, the Mail and Express should also get hold of it, and it may even end up being covered by the more erudite rags, where it will make waves in financial circles, and where the UKGC may have to take the matter more seriously.

Very good points Mr Weatherman.
As this guy who's case is highlighted only made relatively small bets I can only presume that he is known personally to someone connected to the newspaper because if they where hit big then he was no prime example.
My concern is more about the so called bonus abuses that the regular slots punter get stung with after they have tried to cash out a big win. I presume any new legislation will be just as valid for those?
I guess that online gambling of all types will be watching closely
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Very good points Mr Weatherman.
As this guy who's case is highlighted only made relatively small bets I can only presume that he is known personally to someone connected to the newspaper because if they where hit big then he was no prime example.
My concern is more about the so called bonus abuses that the regular slots punter get stung with after they have tried to cash out a big win. I presume any new legislation will be just as valid for those?
I guess that online gambling of all types will be watching closely

It's possible that this will have wider impact as they are using the old "If in the view of management ................ we reserve the right to confiscate winnings". This kind of arbitrary action is not lawful under UK consumer protection laws, and thus can be challenged by a consumer by going to court. Betfair tried this before the UK regime came into being, and where the confiscation took place from Betfair's UK licenced bookie site, having been transferred there by the casino player, they folded whenever a UK player made a serious effort to take Betfair UK to court for allowing the money to be removed from their bookie account. UK players who left the money in the offshore casino, or tried to withdraw directly from the casino, were not so fortunate.

The current situation is that the Cheltenham winnings were confiscated from a UKGC regulated betting account, so the same procedure that defeated Betfair should also defeat these bookies, unless they are willing to risk allowing such cases go to court where they might lose and open the floodgates that would outlaw this "In the absolute discretion of management" confiscation approach for good.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This quote from the Daily Mail shows how this storm began to brew.

Last month it was reported the bookies racked up Cheltenham losses of £60million in total as punters backed winners in unprecedented numbers all week, including the much-fancied Don Cossack in the Gold Cup.

In was called the ‘worst Cheltenham results in recent history’ for bookmakers'.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
The old 'spirit of the bonus' or pseudo 'bonus abuse' FU clauses. Unless it specifies that a player may NOT claim bonuses at more than one site, they should officially complain and ask during the process what specifically constitutes such.

I posted a warning about this last night. For what its worth, they refuse to state what the bonus abuse was, and also refuse to show the terms for the individual offers that people took up. The question was asked to Fun88 before Cheltenham about them being linked and live chat said they weren't connected in any way, they were separate companies and as long as you didn't hold an account with Fun88 you were ok to open an account.

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

electronictonic

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Location
UK
Here is an article that was sent to me today.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Reading between the lines it seems to me that the only implication is that these folk who have lost their money all had accounts at more than one of these sister sites.

What potential implications could any investigation have on folk who have multiple accounts at slot slot/sports betting sites and could new guidelines be introduced for the benefit of customers?

This is not surprising, Bookmakers have been closing down winning accounts for years man!
they just give the same old shit of you being a liability they cannot afford then close your account, or you go to put a bet on say £50
and it rejects it..but says you can have 50p instead.

Bet£3.65
Ladcrooks
JokeaCorals
Boyleonmyarsesports
Betdicktor

etc etc


there's a bloke that has been highlighting this behaviour by bookies on Twitter

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

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The big difference here is that they are not paying out on bets already accepted, rather than limiting future bets and banning accounts (which regulators and the courts would not have a problem with).
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I posted a warning about this last night. For what its worth, they refuse to state what the bonus abuse was, and also refuse to show the terms for the individual offers that people took up. The question was asked to Fun88 before Cheltenham about them being linked and live chat said they weren't connected in any way, they were separate companies and as long as you didn't hold an account with Fun88 you were ok to open an account.

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

This is the kind of evidence that would support a court claim made by any player denied their winnings based on any argument that the 4 companies are connected.

We have seen the same bullshit from Everymatrix, reps coming here to state that they are not connected in any way with other Everymatrix casinos, but suddenly they are VERY connected when it suits the casino. We had the high profile debate between Fenix and Hello casinos, and because Fenix had gone semi rogue, Hello rep was gave assurances that there was no connection whatsoever, but they got caught out when someone spotted a slip up from their CS that showed they were pretty tightly connected, and when it comes to self exclusion, they are so connected that they are joined at the hip.

It'll be the same with these 4 bookies. They don't mind a mug punter losing over 4 accounts with them rather than one account with them and 3 accounts with competing firms like Ladbrokes and Paddy Power. Their tune soon changes when punters WIN over 4 accounts with them, rather than with just the one.
 

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
This is the kind of evidence that would support a court claim made by any player denied their winnings based on any argument that the 4 companies are connected.

We have seen the same bullshit from Everymatrix, reps coming here to state that they are not connected in any way with other Everymatrix casinos, but suddenly they are VERY connected when it suits the casino. We had the high profile debate between Fenix and Hello casinos, and because Fenix had gone semi rogue, Hello rep was gave assurances that there was no connection whatsoever, but they got caught out when someone spotted a slip up from their CS that showed they were pretty tightly connected, and when it comes to self exclusion, they are so connected that they are joined at the hip.

It'll be the same with these 4 bookies. They don't mind a mug punter losing over 4 accounts with them rather than one account with them and 3 accounts with competing firms like Ladbrokes and Paddy Power. Their tune soon changes when punters WIN over 4 accounts with them, rather than with just the one.

As of yesterday it appears that only one firm has put their heads above the parapet to answer a few questions. 138.com have at least softened their stance and refunded deposits,which is a start.
I have a feeling that this case will see the implementation of changes for the better :)

Situation monitored

The Gambling Commission confirmed on Saturday it is closely monitoring developments while pointing aggrieved punters to follow the complaints procedures laid out by the firms, who are all licensed by the commission and subscribe to the Independent Betting Arbitration Service (IBAS).

It also revealed the firms had made contact on Tuesday, before contacting affected customers. A commission spokesperson said: "They did alert us to a problem as they saw it and on Friday afternoon we started to get calls from concerned punters.

"We are monitoring the situation very, very carefully but would remind punters we have no power to get their money back but can impose a range of sanctions putting conditions on the licence, with revoking any licence the very last step."

'Unusual activity'

The Racing Post could not reach representatives of the firms on Saturday but Garth Kimber, chief executive of Xela Holdings, which owns 138.com, was quoted by local media.

He told IOMToday: "Following unprecedented volumes and unusual activities during the Cheltenham racing festival, the company has followed our regulator-approved procedures and terms and conditions, and reviewed activity deemed suspicious.

"All payments were processed for accounts not deemed to be under investigation and all payments have now been processed for those accounts reviewed and found not to have been in breach of our terms and conditions.

"For those accounts where the terms and conditions have been breached, account holders have been informed, the company has processed a refund of deposits, voided all bets (winning and losing) and closed the accounts."
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Considering all the companies are separate then how can one person speak for more than one of them

Today [Saturday] Garth Kimber , chief executive officer of TGP Holdings Ltd said: ‘In response to speculation and comments on forums and in the press about certain brands TGP Europe Ltd would like to clarify our actions

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

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
Considering all the companies are separate then how can one person speak for more than one of them

Today [Saturday] Garth Kimber , chief executive officer of TGP Holdings Ltd said: ‘In response to speculation and comments on forums and in the press about certain brands TGP Europe Ltd would like to clarify our actions

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

There is an issue with transparency and integrity within the online gaming industry when it comes to sister sites. It is immoral,unethical and probably unlawful to state they are then are not associate with other sites dependent on what position suits their agenda.
There should be more clarity in law.
 

jasonuk

Experienced Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Location
UK
I remember a month ago we had a thread talking about whether Matched Betting was a scam or not. Given it's popularity over the past year, it seemed inevitable that the collision between value-takers and the bookies would happen, and an event as big as Cheltenham could tick all the boxes.

A number of the high-street names had been taking aggressive action to try and weed out the value-takers and exclude them (either promotionally or entirely) before Cheltenham, in the hope they could offer (or appear to offer) the juicier promotions to their more profitable customers - one of the biggest culls being Paddy Power days after merging with Betfair, who went on to advertise heavily on TV that "even the great unwashed" could get their Money Back promotion at Cheltenham (spoiler: they couldn't!).

Likewise, each year some of the smaller operators decide they want a bigger piece of the pie - TGP enters stage left.

A quick scan of their promotions and you can see the problem - multiple substantial free bets (e.g. £30 for £120+ staked, £25 for £70+ staked :eek:) each day with no minimum odds requirements (so includes all the short-priced favourites :eek:). Add in a substantial influx of new "customers" to take advantage of them, a very unstable website and a large number of short-priced winners... and the rest writes itself.

If they have been exploited as much as the limited news coverage suggests, not only could they be on the hook for an abnormally high percentage of short-price winners, but also an extra 15-20% on top. The solvency questions are natural when a small operator is suddenly short six, seven or even eight figures!

While we have seen numerous sites invoke the 'spirit of the bonus' FU clause in the past, a blanket cancellation of legitimately accepted bets might be new ground and I can see this getting very messy - not only for TGP but for the wider industry.

I'm intrigued why they are pushing to refund deposits so quickly - I can understand that withheld winnings would be breach of contract, could withheld deposits (e.g. due to lack of funds) be considered fraud?

--

Interesting aside: TGP Europe Limited (the site behind 138.com, 12Bet and Fun88.co.uk mentioned in the article) and TGP Games (the provider behind the 89.60% "Red Phoenix Rising" slot available on Betfair Macau) appear to be one and the same group of companies.
 
Top