BHQ Gambling Association

[tommy]

I'd just like to give a shoutout to Betr.

Not sure how many people follow tennis, or the next gen ATP tournament. But the next gen is a first to 3 sets match, but it's only first to 4 games each set, not the usual 6.

Betr had all their markets based on it being 6 games. Things like a player to have over or under 18.5 total games in the match (when it's not even possible for a player to get more than 18 games), over or under 36.5 total games in the match (when there can only ever be a max of 35), then great bets like this one, where taking the player to win and under 36.5 games was basically the same as taking them h2h, because they were the only 2 options that could ever win.

It was like this day after day. They only realised for the final game of the tournament, and no longer had the markets up haha.

Al up I had over 200 bets on the tournament (multi'd a lot of markets as well), all on the unders of course, and they actually paid them all out. They do however no longer like me, and other than minimum bet laws on racing, they won't accept any bets. It was worth it though.

View attachment 20337

Thanks for the hot tip you fucking asshole.

 

[OXY-351]

@OXY-351 do tell us how much you profited off this?

About $60K

 

[OXY-351]

Thanks for the hot tip you fucking asshole.

No dramas bud.

The issue would be that if too many people start betting on markets like that, they'll wonder what is going on, shut them down and most likely not pay out.

I also had a hot tip on who would win the brownlow, but let's not go in to that one ...

 

[Fozz]

About $60K

You prick, you're taking money from the pocket of Melbourne Storm players. That's another 60k Tripp will have to find a way to funnel to them.

 

[BooKhaki]

A number of punters who backed Gold Trip have had their account deactivated by Betr.

One got an email back saying they will not be able to get their winnings until they send an account activation request which has yet to be approved.

This company sounds very dodgy. They're currently under investigation by NSW Liquor and Gaming over some of their promotions.

If you want dodgy practices ....

A mate of mine created an account at SportsBet, deposited $1000 in to it and went about betting.

A few months later he ends up with about $2000 in there, and decided he'd withdraw $1000 so at least that covered his original deposit, and he'd keep betting with the remaining $1000.

SportsBet block his withdrawal, and say that they are refunding his original $1000 and closing his account. He asked why, and they said that he had deposited the initial $1000 in to his account via a source not in his name. Turns out he had used his wifes debit card to deposit, which he freely admitted to, but he didn't realise that was against the t&c's and if needed he could get his wife to sign something saying she was aware he used it and was ok with it.

They said they didn't care, he had violated their t&c's and they were giving him the original money back and closing the account. End of story.

You can't tell me that the instant he deposited that money, they wouldn't have known that it wasn't in his name (I'm guessing he would have even needed to put in his wifes name as the card holder as it wouldn't have even processed otherwise). Yet they let him keep betting until he attempts to withdraw. Something tells me had he lost his $1000, there wouldn't have even been a word said about it.

They're all dodgy pricks. That's why I take great delight in taking money off them.

If you're dumb enough to deposit into a betting account with someone else's money, you deserve to lose "your" winnings. Even dumber when you do it from the same device. As soon as you login to an account from a device that has logged into another account, it gets flagged immediately.

Where is the sympathy for the betting companies where a bloke uses a card without permission, loses 20k, and the bookies must refund it all? Don't see many comments there.

 

[OXY-351]

If you're dumb enough to deposit into a betting account with someone else's money, you deserve to lose "your" winnings. Even dumber when you do it from the same device. As soon as you login to an account from a device that has logged into another account, it gets flagged immediately.

Where is the sympathy for the betting companies where a bloke uses a card without permission, loses 20k, and the bookies must refund it all? Don't see many comments there.

Why can't a bookmaker know this as soon as the deposit is made though?

In the example I gave, the bookmaker clearly knew at some point that it wasn't his card (from the start, I'm not sure), so why did they wait until he attempted to withdraw?

So you're saying if he had lost money, they would have refunded it? I've never heard of that happening.

 

[BooKhaki]

Why can't a bookmaker know this as soon as the deposit is made though?

In the example I gave, the bookmaker clearly knew at some point that it wasn't his card (from the start, I'm not sure), so why did they wait until he attempted to withdraw?

So you're saying if he had lost money, they would have refunded it? I've never heard of that happening.

From my time in the industry, there are systems in place which alert when account access happens on one device for multiple accounts, those accounts that are accessed are generally linked. If the betting pattern indicates bonus abuse, that's where the bookies generally take action.

If someone makes a complaint that funds have been used by someone who isn't them, the money is refunded and the matter is referred to the Police for fraud.

 

[OXY-351]

From my time in the industry, there are systems in place which alert when account access happens on one device for multiple accounts, those accounts that are accessed are generally linked. If the betting pattern indicates bonus abuse, that's where the bookies generally take action.

I understand that, anyone logging to to multiple accounts at the one bookmaker on the same IP and/or device is asking for trouble.

But that's got nothing to do with the scenario I'm talking about. There was no multiple accounts, it was a single account funded by a card not in the account holders name. That is the exact reason they gave for not giving him his winnings.

The point is why did they wait until he attempted to withdraw winnings to say this. I doubt anything gets said about it if he doesn't win.

 

[tommy]

About $60K

You know your profile picture makes you look like more than a fucking asshole right?

 

[BooKhaki]

I understand that, anyone logging to to multiple accounts at the one bookmaker on the same IP and/or device is asking for trouble.

But that's got nothing to do with the scenario I'm talking about. There was no multiple accounts, it was a single account funded by a card not in the account holders name. That is the exact reason they gave for not giving him his winnings.

The point is why did they wait until he attempted to withdraw winnings to say this. I doubt anything gets said about it if he doesn't win.

Depositing money from a partners account is very common. until threatened with a fraud charge, it's a very commo way people think they can cheat the system. And it's even dumber to try and withdraw to your own account from an accounnt in someone elses name. `

 

[OXY-351]

Depositing money from a partners account is very common. until threatened with a fraud charge, it's a very commo way people think they can cheat the system. And it's even dumber to try and withdraw to your own account from an accounnt in someone elses name. `

I understand all of that.

But you either seem to be missing the point/question, or ignoring it.

From the moment the bookie accepted the deposit from a source not in bookmaker account holders name and allow the account to start placing bets, how can they really lose?

Either the account ends in profit, and they just say they are not paying the winnings as their t&c's were breached, and they will refund the original deposit. Or the account loses money, and they'll either pay the balance out, or refund the original deposit if the owner of the source choses to say it was fraudulently used (which I suspect in the vast majority of cases, like you say when people are just trying to cheat the system, people aren't going to say that their partner, mate, kid etc committed fraud)

And is it really fraud if they owner of the source has given you permission to use that source? Sure it might be against the t&c's of the bookmaker and the card issuer, but it is actually against the law?

If the bookmakers were really worried about "fraud", they'd stop the account from betting the moment they knew it was funded from a source not in the account holders name, which they should be able to do well before months down the track when someone attempts to withdraw some winnings. So in that respect, no, I don't have much sympathy for them the times they have to refund genuine fraud cases. I'm sure they're not being lax on these initial checks knowing that they will lose long term out of it.

 

[BooKhaki]

I understand all of that.

But you either seem to be missing the point/question, or ignoring it.

From the moment the bookie accepted the deposit from a source not in bookmaker account holders name and allow the account to start placing bets, how can they really lose?

Either the account ends in profit, and they just say they are not paying the winnings as their t&c's were breached, and they will refund the original deposit. Or the account loses money, and they'll either pay the balance out, or refund the original deposit if the owner of the source choses to say it was fraudulently used (which I suspect in the vast majority of cases, like you say when people are just trying to cheat the system, people aren't going to say that their partner, mate, kid etc committed fraud)

And is it really fraud if they owner of the source has given you permission to use that source? Sure it might be against the t&c's of the bookmaker and the card issuer, but it is actually against the law?

If the bookmakers were really worried about "fraud", they'd stop the account from betting the moment they knew it was funded from a source not in the account holders name, which they should be able to do well before months down the track when someone attempts to withdraw some winnings. So in that respect, no, I don't have much sympathy for them the times they have to refund genuine fraud cases. I'm sure they're not being lax on these initial checks knowing that they will lose long term out of it.

That's the point, it's designed so the bookies don't lose. The book has T&C's for a reason, and the people who generally have this happen to them breach them in the most obvious way. From my experience, if old 75yr old Bob used his wifes card to deposit because that's the only card they have, the winnings will be paid, and then Bob will get a call saying he can't use that card anymore, and told how he can deposit via other means.

It's really black and white in the T&C's, and every threat about going to the ombudsman is laughed at. You agree to only deposit with your money, and withdraw to bank accounts in your name. Police threats of fraud charges really only come into it when a person calls in and disputes deposits into his account, saying it wasn't him or someone had his phone etc That's when we asked about Police complaints for fraud etc And 99% of the time that's quickly declined.

Some accounts do get banned instantly. But some are let go if there isn't a history of silly buggers. It creates a win/win situation for the book, which customers agree to when they sign up.

 

[OXY-351]

That's the point, it's designed so the bookies don't lose. The book has T&C's for a reason, and the people who generally have this happen to them breach them in the most obvious way. From my experience, if old 75yr old Bob used his wifes card to deposit because that's the only card they have, the winnings will be paid, and then Bob will get a call saying he can't use that card anymore, and told how he can deposit via other means.

It's really black and white in the T&C's, and every threat about going to the ombudsman is laughed at. You agree to only deposit with your money, and withdraw to bank accounts in your name. Police threats of fraud charges really only come into it when a person calls in and disputes deposits into his account, saying it wasn't him or someone had his phone etc That's when we asked about Police complaints for fraud etc And 99% of the time that's quickly declined.

Some accounts do get banned instantly. But some are let go if there isn't a history of silly buggers. It creates a win/win situation for the book, which customers agree to when they sign up.

Cheers.

No wonder a lot of people have dim views of bookmakers though. Hardly the most ethical of business to be in (not talking about individual workers, but the industry as a whole).

 

[BroncosFever]

I understand that, anyone logging to to multiple accounts at the one bookmaker on the same IP and/or device is asking for trouble.

But that's got nothing to do with the scenario I'm talking about. There was no multiple accounts, it was a single account funded by a card not in the account holders name. That is the exact reason they gave for not giving him his winnings.

The point is why did they wait until he attempted to withdraw winnings to say this. I doubt anything gets said about it if he doesn't win.

Withdrawing would've triggered them to take action. It's not really a logical way to look at it if you think that had he have lost it wouldn't have been an issue because eventually at some point, he probably would have won. When the financial department needs to verify the card and they can't because it's not his card, that's the problem. They wouldn't need to verify it unless he were trying to withdraw. They would need to verify his account but not the card, until as I said, a withdrawal was requested.

When you signup to any bookie you first need to verify yourself in general, then if you deposit via a debit/credit card you need to verify that too, before you can withdraw. They all operate like this, it shouldn't be a sudden shock to anyone.

It's not something they can tippy toe around and think "yeah nah mate, you're right, we understand it's your wife's card", it's federal legislation.

 

[OXY-351]

Withdrawing would've triggered them to take action. It's not really a logical way to look at it if you think that had he have lost it wouldn't have been an issue because eventually at some point, he probably would have won. When the financial department needs to verify the card and they can't because it's not his card, that's the problem. They wouldn't need to verify it unless he were trying to withdraw. They would need to verify his account but not the card, until as I said, a withdrawal was requested.

When you signup to any bookie you first need to verify yourself in general, then if you deposit via a debit/credit card you need to verify that too, before you can withdraw. They all operate like this, it shouldn't be a sudden shock to anyone.

It's not something they can tippy toe around and think "yeah nah mate, you're right, we understand it's your wife's card", it's federal legislation.

I've signed up to a fair mount of bookies and have a reasonable understanding of how they work.

I'm not arguing about the t&c's or the legislation in regards to having to fund the account from a source in the account holders name, my point is if they really wanted to, they could change their process to verify the card (or whatever the source of the funds is, may not be a card) when the deposit occurs (or as soon as practicable). Why do they need to wait until a withdraw is attempted? The ones that do only seem to do it this way because it's advantageous for them and they may not have to pay out any potential winnings, which is dodgy and deceptive imo.

 

[BroncosFever]

I've signed up to a fair mount of bookies and have a reasonable understanding of how they work.

I'm not arguing about the t&c's or the legislation in regards to having to fund the account from a source in the account holders name, my point is if they really wanted to, they could change their process to verify the card (or whatever the source of the funds is, may not be a card) when the deposit occurs (or as soon as practicable). Why do they need to wait until a withdraw is attempted? The ones that do only seem to do it this way because it's advantageous for them and they may not have to pay out any potential winnings, which is dodgy and deceptive imo.

It would be a time management thing and the law states must be verified before withdraw, what's the point of verifying if they aren't in a position to withdraw?

I think even if you it were your business you'd run it the same way

 

[BooKhaki]

I've signed up to a fair mount of bookies and have a reasonable understanding of how they work.

I'm not arguing about the t&c's or the legislation in regards to having to fund the account from a source in the account holders name, my point is if they really wanted to, they could change their process to verify the card (or whatever the source of the funds is, may not be a card) when the deposit occurs (or as soon as practicable). Why do they need to wait until a withdraw is attempted? The ones that do only seem to do it this way because it's advantageous for them and they may not have to pay out any potential winnings, which is dodgy and deceptive imo.

OK picture this. You sign up to a bookie on Melbourne Cup morning, keen to get some bets on. But they say you can't bet until the card is verified, maybe come back and try on November 18th.
You're also not taking into account the "smart" cheaters, who use their missus card but put down their name, so the bookie needs to verify with the bank who actually owns the card.

The bookie isn't being deceptive, they clearly state in the T&C's you can only deposit from a card in your name. It's the punters who are being deceptive and get caught.

You're putting 10mins thought into a problem that's had thousands of hours of work into improving, and thinking your simple solution will fix it all, when it won't.

 

[OXY-351]

It would be a time management thing and the law states must be verified before withdraw, what's the point of verifying if they aren't in a position to withdraw?

I think even if you it were your business you'd run it the same way

Because if they haven't met the t&c's they are never going to be in a position to withdraw any net winnings, so why allow someone to keep betting?

Yeah I probably would, because it would be in my favour. Doesn't make it right.