Do we think the people of Ewinner just woke up one day and happen to find this? I think they knew it for awhile allowing the players to continue betting. Then kept getting beat on WAGERS that they Accepted.
You do not hear things like this from the top tier books often. I think because they do the right thing. They pay and then kick the players out. WWTS is offering a 20% bonus. Do we assume that there are No bonus schemes going on there? Never hear about it.
You do not hear things like this from the top tier books often. I think because they do the right thing. They pay and then kick the players out. WWTS is offering a 20% bonus. Do we assume that there are No bonus schemes going on there? Never hear about it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scoob:
General - What kind of message would that send to the scammers? Basically you are saying they can circumvent the limits as long as they want until they get caught with the only penalty being they give back the bonus. If that is the way these situations continue to be handled they will keep happening more and more. There has to be a penalty for doing this more severe than simply losing their bonus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly, Scoob.
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, conmbined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.
General - What kind of message would that send to the scammers? Basically you are saying they can circumvent the limits as long as they want until they get caught with the only penalty being they give back the bonus. If that is the way these situations continue to be handled they will keep happening more and more. There has to be a penalty for doing this more severe than simply losing their bonus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly, Scoob.
The "pro-scammer" approach to the multiple-account scams that McIrish and The General have advocated provides zero incentive to the multiple account scammers to cease and desist.
If they do it without getting caught (which I'm sure 90% of them do), great ... they've got many extra $$$$ in bonuses (which they don't rightfully deserve), and higher effective betting limits.
If by chance they get caught and lose only the bonus, they really lose nothing, since the bonus was not supposed to be their's anyway. They have no downside, and no reason to stop. Heads I Win, Tails I Break Even.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, conmbined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.
It seems that parties on both sides of this dispute agree that there are legitimate situations where multiple account holders (roomatesw, friends, etc.) will use the same computer with the same IP AND there are illegitimate situations where one guy is intentionally exceeding the limits and/or "bonus whoring" by holding multiple accounts.
Bottom line, if the player can prove that the accounts are held for different people (ids confirming the real names of the holders of the accounts) then the book should pay. This of course does not prove that one person is NOT controlling all the accounts but it seems like the fairest way to do business.
If the ids are real and the accounts have multiple holders and the book took the action how can it be disputed that the book shouldn't pay UNLESS it has a rule of one IP per player unless given permission to do otherwise?
The books need to RUN THEIR FVCKING BUSINESSES!!! If they have a problem with the fact that one person can register and bet for their friend and brother and mother and sister from one IP and they do not like it then make a rule against it AND create some sort of system that monitors the IPs for this type of activity. Until this happens there will continue to be disputes and books will risk future business if they take bets and decide to stiff based on suspicion after a player has won and requests payouts that seem excessive.
I am willing to bet that this guy was exceeding limits BUT the book took the action AND he did it using the accounts of real people who are willing to provide IDs to get the money. I do not see where Ewinner could even remotely deny payment to "Stud" without concrete proof that he violated some rule.
Bottom line, if the player can prove that the accounts are held for different people (ids confirming the real names of the holders of the accounts) then the book should pay. This of course does not prove that one person is NOT controlling all the accounts but it seems like the fairest way to do business.
If the ids are real and the accounts have multiple holders and the book took the action how can it be disputed that the book shouldn't pay UNLESS it has a rule of one IP per player unless given permission to do otherwise?
The books need to RUN THEIR FVCKING BUSINESSES!!! If they have a problem with the fact that one person can register and bet for their friend and brother and mother and sister from one IP and they do not like it then make a rule against it AND create some sort of system that monitors the IPs for this type of activity. Until this happens there will continue to be disputes and books will risk future business if they take bets and decide to stiff based on suspicion after a player has won and requests payouts that seem excessive.
I am willing to bet that this guy was exceeding limits BUT the book took the action AND he did it using the accounts of real people who are willing to provide IDs to get the money. I do not see where Ewinner could even remotely deny payment to "Stud" without concrete proof that he violated some rule.
[/QUOTE]
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, conmbined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.[/QUOTE]
________________________________
I never even knew Patty boy was on my side.. He never outright came out and said it. He just never commented on it. But if that's true, Thanks patty boy. Hey, you make sure you give me a call if you're ever in Montreal Patty boy, 2 Habs tickets on me pal.. And I'm even throwing in the 2 hot dogs and 2 beers for you.. One of each for each intermission between periods.
You will love hockey here. It's nothing like you've ever seen.. You haven't watched a real hockey game live, till you've seen one in the greatest hockey city in the world.. MONTREAL.. It will be an event you will never forget as long as you live. Not like what you see in Tampa Bay when you watch the Bolts. You will be around 21,000 loud knowledgeable hockey fans..
.
By the way, McIrish, your stance on this matter, conmbined with the Sick Gambler "trial", is a large part of the reason why you've alienated so many long-time Rx posters ... but you continue to brush it off as "Rx-Haters" holding some sort of grudge.[/QUOTE]
________________________________
I never even knew Patty boy was on my side.. He never outright came out and said it. He just never commented on it. But if that's true, Thanks patty boy. Hey, you make sure you give me a call if you're ever in Montreal Patty boy, 2 Habs tickets on me pal.. And I'm even throwing in the 2 hot dogs and 2 beers for you.. One of each for each intermission between periods.
You will love hockey here. It's nothing like you've ever seen.. You haven't watched a real hockey game live, till you've seen one in the greatest hockey city in the world.. MONTREAL.. It will be an event you will never forget as long as you live. Not like what you see in Tampa Bay when you watch the Bolts. You will be around 21,000 loud knowledgeable hockey fans..
