General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
SPORTSBOOK REVIEW NEWSWIRES
Betfair suspends player account and debits €32,000 in premium fees
12/26/2010 12:49:50 PM
Betfair (SBR rating A) has charged a player €32,000 in premium fees. On December 2nd, the player's account was suspended. On December 15th, Betfair reopened the account after debiting the player's account for what it said was "suspicion of premium charges evasion". The player states that he has only bet in 150 markets over the last 4 months, and therefor should not have to pay the assessed fee. Betfair justified its seizure to the player by stating that he and four other accounts from his country made similar market bets. The player denies having any relationship with the other four account holders. Betfair responded to SBR's request for comment by stating the following:
Response from Betfair:
Unfortunately, as before, I am unable to comment on the specifics of any such case (though hopefully this won't lead to you to the conclusion that the players version is always true) where fraud may be an issue.
Some general points that may help you here though
We have a premium charge that is payable by a very small proportion of our customers. Some customers may try to avoid paying the premium charge by structuring their betting in a particular way. If we find a customer has tried to do this, then we deduct the relevant premium charge from their accounts in accordance with our terms and conditions. All those liable to the premium charge are made aware of these terms and conditions.
Betfair suspends player account and debits €32,000 in premium fees
12/26/2010 12:49:50 PM
Betfair (SBR rating A) has charged a player €32,000 in premium fees. On December 2nd, the player's account was suspended. On December 15th, Betfair reopened the account after debiting the player's account for what it said was "suspicion of premium charges evasion". The player states that he has only bet in 150 markets over the last 4 months, and therefor should not have to pay the assessed fee. Betfair justified its seizure to the player by stating that he and four other accounts from his country made similar market bets. The player denies having any relationship with the other four account holders. Betfair responded to SBR's request for comment by stating the following:
Response from Betfair:
Unfortunately, as before, I am unable to comment on the specifics of any such case (though hopefully this won't lead to you to the conclusion that the players version is always true) where fraud may be an issue.
Some general points that may help you here though
We have a premium charge that is payable by a very small proportion of our customers. Some customers may try to avoid paying the premium charge by structuring their betting in a particular way. If we find a customer has tried to do this, then we deduct the relevant premium charge from their accounts in accordance with our terms and conditions. All those liable to the premium charge are made aware of these terms and conditions.
Show More
Indeed, they can do what they like based on a "suspicion". In other words, they don't have to prove a thing. Hope the person takes good legal advice.
same thing happened to me not too long after the premium charge kicked in. only thing i was particularly bothered about was the account suspension for the 3 weeks or so of the investigation. was such a pain in the @rse that no one from the company would even speak to me about it, even when i told them that they were correct and they could take the money but kindly re-open my accounts. if the guy is genuine and can prove through ip address etc that he is unrelated to the other accounts then he should pursue the matter further. if not, then i would take the hit and move on.
They must have good evidence that the accounts are linked. Why are the accounts just reopened after the money is debited though, it's worth trying to avoid it if all you have to lose is a few weeks betting.
Coincidently I posted this on the tennis forum on 27 Nov. Could this be what this is?
Anyone noticed the strange patterns in game betting markets?
example Djokovic v Roddick
set 1 game 3
price traded
1.15 £6,000
1.50 £5,972
set 1 game 4
1.15 £6,402
1.30 £5,528
set 2 game 2
1.36 £10,000
1.61 £9,666
I first started noticing similar bets at wimbledon and I've seen them in all tournaments since. In an illiquid market a game or 2 away a bet is matched at a high price and then a few seconds later at a lower price.
I thought it was a bot messing up at first but when I've tried to anticipate it and put some bets up none get matched. When I've seen them being matched it happens instantly, like someone knows exactly when and where they will appear.
Another reason why it doesn't look like a bot messing up is that the markets are largely illiquid. So to get matched at a value price in such a lump and then to be able to lay off straight away is strange. And if it was a bot/someone making a mistake surely they would have noticed by now.
So possibly money laundering or premium charge avoidance?
Anyone noticed the strange patterns in game betting markets?
example Djokovic v Roddick
set 1 game 3
price traded
1.15 £6,000
1.50 £5,972
set 1 game 4
1.15 £6,402
1.30 £5,528
set 2 game 2
1.36 £10,000
1.61 £9,666
I first started noticing similar bets at wimbledon and I've seen them in all tournaments since. In an illiquid market a game or 2 away a bet is matched at a high price and then a few seconds later at a lower price.
I thought it was a bot messing up at first but when I've tried to anticipate it and put some bets up none get matched. When I've seen them being matched it happens instantly, like someone knows exactly when and where they will appear.
Another reason why it doesn't look like a bot messing up is that the markets are largely illiquid. So to get matched at a value price in such a lump and then to be able to lay off straight away is strange. And if it was a bot/someone making a mistake surely they would have noticed by now.
So possibly money laundering or premium charge avoidance?
If you're smart enough to have to pay the PC you should be smart enough to find a way to reduce it by "legal" means.
What a ridiculous concept, the idea that one has to be "smart" to pay the premium charge. 
I know a few people who have (not necessarily every week), none of whom I would put in that category. One or two I would say were reasonable at gambling, a couple of others have had very good (lucky) runs, and there is another who gets inside info on the odd occasion. So you have various ways you can get hit by this tax without being particularly clever. Do you pay it?
I don't pay it due to arbing. I accept that some people can get caught I was thinking more of people who made a regular profit but I accept your point that the innocent get caught in the crossfire
the player denies having relations with other players linked so therefore betfair must surly prove this link in court before taking such a large sum of money.
and i think the hole pc charge is probs against laws regarding companies which hold a monopally in the any market. oh i forgot betfair are registed as a bookmaker and not an exchange so have lots of compition lol betfair we love you !
and i think the hole pc charge is probs against laws regarding companies which hold a monopally in the any market. oh i forgot betfair are registed as a bookmaker and not an exchange so have lots of compition lol betfair we love you !
The fact remains that betfair can close accounts without reason, so the player can either accept the fact that betfair have stolen his money or he can lose his livlihood.Just like many others.
fwiw I'd like to see someone challenge the legality of it
fwiw I'd like to see someone challenge the legality of it
Yes, I'd say he would be a cert to win in court.
"Betfair justified its seizure to the player by stating that he and four other accounts from his country made similar market bets"
Well. Obviously case closed then, no possible way they could have been placed any other way, is there?
"Betfair justified its seizure to the player by stating that he and four other accounts from his country made similar market bets"
Well. Obviously case closed then, no possible way they could have been placed any other way, is there?
Geez I don't think I would want to face a jury with any of you guys on it.
You all seem to have made a guilty verdict on BF's actions on the basis of no evidence, apart from what you have read in the public press.
I would say that BF probably has a pretty high powered legal team and have been well advised that they have very good evidence to support their actions.
But again I don't really know that for a fact, so I won't say it must be true. BUt that doesn't seem to stop you all from saying that it musn't be true.
Once again, no I don't work for BF.
I just get sick and tired on the same old bashing of BF, whatever they do, good or bad, right or wrong .
You all seem to have made a guilty verdict on BF's actions on the basis of no evidence, apart from what you have read in the public press.
I would say that BF probably has a pretty high powered legal team and have been well advised that they have very good evidence to support their actions.
But again I don't really know that for a fact, so I won't say it must be true. BUt that doesn't seem to stop you all from saying that it musn't be true.
Once again, no I don't work for BF.
I just get sick and tired on the same old bashing of BF, whatever they do, good or bad, right or wrong .
Well froggy, you do seem to leap to their defence on a regular basis, so if someone did think you worked for betfair, they'd have good reason, wouldn't they?
Okay, I will try be fair. Where does it say in their rules that they can take money out of people's accounts if they have a SUSPICION that they MAY be trying to get around their tax?
I have had various experiences of them acting unreasonably, unfairly, outrageously and (not to me personally) unlawfully (with regards to certain incidents to do with poker) So for those reasons I'm perfectly willing to think the worst of them, okay?
Okay, I will try be fair. Where does it say in their rules that they can take money out of people's accounts if they have a SUSPICION that they MAY be trying to get around their tax?
I have had various experiences of them acting unreasonably, unfairly, outrageously and (not to me personally) unlawfully (with regards to certain incidents to do with poker) So for those reasons I'm perfectly willing to think the worst of them, okay?
the principle here is surely whether they can set their own standard of evidence, and surely the answer has to be no, they can't.
they're free to close the guy's account/ban him etc. but they clearly aren't free to take his money acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. taking the money on "suspicion" just won't cut it.
imo similar betting patterns don't necessarily prove anything. if I introduce someone to betfair and show them some stuff I do that works, they may well bet similarly to me. that doesn't make the accounts "linked".
unfortunately, BF seems to have a corporate culture whereby they see money held by them as in some way "theirs". it's not. it belongs to the customer, and if they want to take it they have to do so by transparent and legal means.
they're free to close the guy's account/ban him etc. but they clearly aren't free to take his money acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. taking the money on "suspicion" just won't cut it.
imo similar betting patterns don't necessarily prove anything. if I introduce someone to betfair and show them some stuff I do that works, they may well bet similarly to me. that doesn't make the accounts "linked".
unfortunately, BF seems to have a corporate culture whereby they see money held by them as in some way "theirs". it's not. it belongs to the customer, and if they want to take it they have to do so by transparent and legal means.
Viva
I think their legal eagles would have considered all these points.
The real point is that none of us know the true facts of the case, and so we're all just talking about a situation we know nothing about really.
You and others seem to think BF has a corporate culture of damn the customer and so think the worst of them always.
However many of us don't and get a mite tired of all the BF bashing we read on here.
But the forum is open to all opinions, your and mine.So bash on I suppose.
Bit pointless though in the final analysis , unless you want to instigate some form of class action against BF on this and all the other matters that seem to overly concern you.
Your ultimate option is really to quit the site entirely, which many of you seem reluctant to do, presumably out of self-interest.
I think their legal eagles would have considered all these points.
The real point is that none of us know the true facts of the case, and so we're all just talking about a situation we know nothing about really.
You and others seem to think BF has a corporate culture of damn the customer and so think the worst of them always.
However many of us don't and get a mite tired of all the BF bashing we read on here.
But the forum is open to all opinions, your and mine.So bash on I suppose.
Bit pointless though in the final analysis , unless you want to instigate some form of class action against BF on this and all the other matters that seem to overly concern you.
Your ultimate option is really to quit the site entirely, which many of you seem reluctant to do, presumably out of self-interest.
I think their legal eagles are probably hoping it never comes to court, actually.
your "quit the site" point's a bit infantile, tbh. the logic is, if you stay, you have no right to criticise, which I don't accept.
fwiw, I'm not solely critical of BF; some stuff they've done's improved things, particularly the changes to the PC system a year back. and I haven't paid PC since I figured (legitimate) ways round it. but that hasn't changed my opinion that its introduction was an act of bad faith.
your "quit the site" point's a bit infantile, tbh. the logic is, if you stay, you have no right to criticise, which I don't accept.
fwiw, I'm not solely critical of BF; some stuff they've done's improved things, particularly the changes to the PC system a year back. and I haven't paid PC since I figured (legitimate) ways round it. but that hasn't changed my opinion that its introduction was an act of bad faith.
Again Viva you think, but do not actually know.
Therein lies the problem with all this criticism of BF's actions, being mostly based on incomplete info.
I agree you have a right to criticise, but if you are ultimately continuously dissatisfied with the product that BF is supplying, then quitting the site is logical, but not, I suppose, if you're going to shoot yourself in the foot in doing so.
If you stay and criticise based on comprehensive knowledge always of the facts involved, then that's fine and acceptable. Otherwise it's just pointless and mean spirited sniping imo.
I emphasise imo.
Therein lies the problem with all this criticism of BF's actions, being mostly based on incomplete info.
I agree you have a right to criticise, but if you are ultimately continuously dissatisfied with the product that BF is supplying, then quitting the site is logical, but not, I suppose, if you're going to shoot yourself in the foot in doing so.
If you stay and criticise based on comprehensive knowledge always of the facts involved, then that's fine and acceptable. Otherwise it's just pointless and mean spirited sniping imo.
I emphasise imo.
i'd suspect they have their legal bods keeping a good eye on this as well. they took 3 weeks to re-open my accounts when it was blatantly obvious they were linked(wife, brother etc). after a few days i told them to take the money, just re-open my accounts please, yet it still took them ages. chances are they were gathering all the proof they needed in case of any potential legal challenge.
i would say however that the original poster's mate should take some form of legal action. its a significant amount of money and would set some form of legal precedent.
i would say however that the original poster's mate should take some form of legal action. its a significant amount of money and would set some form of legal precedent.
no, I don't "know" in the sense that I'm not party to their private legal discussions.
I do, however, know in the sense that unilaterally taking someone's money on the basis of "suspicion" (their word) is not something that is likely to withstand legal challenge anywhere, and any decent legal team would rather it wasn't challenged. ditto any half way competent PR department.
frankly FAFH, I think you may have spent too long in this and similar threads, as you seem to have reached a point of lashing out at anyone who expresses a critical opinion. if it p!sses you off as much as you say it does, post an opinion then stop obsessively reading/feeding the relevant threads.
I do, however, know in the sense that unilaterally taking someone's money on the basis of "suspicion" (their word) is not something that is likely to withstand legal challenge anywhere, and any decent legal team would rather it wasn't challenged. ditto any half way competent PR department.
frankly FAFH, I think you may have spent too long in this and similar threads, as you seem to have reached a point of lashing out at anyone who expresses a critical opinion. if it p!sses you off as much as you say it does, post an opinion then stop obsessively reading/feeding the relevant threads.
i think he,ll defo go to IBAS for arbitration see what comes of that first! and its then betfair will have to prove the link !
Well I don't trust a company that changes promotion rules halfway through a promotion so I'll side with the player here.
The reason Betfair assume a link is because so many people are trying to dodge the charge. Any condemnation of them?
No company can get this big and stay in touch with its core customers can it? Just unfortunate but the way it is.
"The reason Betfair assume a link is because so many people are trying to dodge the charge. Any condemnation of them?"
Nope, introduce a blatantly unfair charge and of course people will try and get around it. Not rocket science!
Nope, introduce a blatantly unfair charge and of course people will try and get around it. Not rocket science!
Betfair don't like winners. They are just taking money out of the system whereas struggling gamblers spread the cash around a bit more.
heynoodles, the issue here isn't whether the guy's guilty or not, it's a question of due process.
if BF emailed you and said we've noticed similarities with betting patterns on another account, we've taken £x out of your account, would you accept that that was that, case closed, even if they were wrong?
I don't believe there's anyone here who could honestly answer yes to that question.
if BF emailed you and said we've noticed similarities with betting patterns on another account, we've taken £x out of your account, would you accept that that was that, case closed, even if they were wrong?
I don't believe there's anyone here who could honestly answer yes to that question.
My take is..
They assume you are guilty. Presumably they still have a dedicated team looking in to people trying to dodge it and presumably this team are competent enough to be pretty certain they have found a link.
Some people get caught red handed and still deny it, so presumably they assume anyone denying it is lying!
I also think they know premium charge payers need them more than they need the pc-payer, so they play hard ball and keep the account suspended for a while to keep you on your toes (as with the bank man's post above - the most important thing for him was to be able to bet again).
Im not sure what due process you want? A polite email? (And they want to freeze the account at a point when it has the necessary funds).
They assume you are guilty. Presumably they still have a dedicated team looking in to people trying to dodge it and presumably this team are competent enough to be pretty certain they have found a link.
Some people get caught red handed and still deny it, so presumably they assume anyone denying it is lying!
I also think they know premium charge payers need them more than they need the pc-payer, so they play hard ball and keep the account suspended for a while to keep you on your toes (as with the bank man's post above - the most important thing for him was to be able to bet again).
Im not sure what due process you want? A polite email? (And they want to freeze the account at a point when it has the necessary funds).
due process would involve them not taking your money without you having the opportunity to argue your case before an independent party.
Fair enough but sounds expensive and hard to prove either way anyway. They say he stops betting and other accounts then do similar bets. He says he has no connection to the other accounts. Where do we go from there?
when will the legal action start against this unfair unjust and unethical tax start.
I think Sportsbook Review does a fantastic job helping punters to deal with the nefarious practices of some bookmakers and warning them off the rogues.
Given the huge number of customers of Betfair and the very few issues that have been raised on this site regarding this company, a reasonable person would conclude (correctly in my view) that Betfair is a company of great integrity and fairness.
But even the best companies sometimes do some bad things, usually though the actions of individual employees rather than as policy. None of us can know the true facts of this case, but we can all be grateful that there are people such as those at SBR that protect the punters and that even the best companies are not beyond their scrutiny.
Given the huge number of customers of Betfair and the very few issues that have been raised on this site regarding this company, a reasonable person would conclude (correctly in my view) that Betfair is a company of great integrity and fairness.
But even the best companies sometimes do some bad things, usually though the actions of individual employees rather than as policy. None of us can know the true facts of this case, but we can all be grateful that there are people such as those at SBR that protect the punters and that even the best companies are not beyond their scrutiny.
heynoodles - to an independent third party.
getting better wrote.
"Given the huge number of customers of Betfair and the very few issues that have been raised on this site regarding this company, a reasonable person would conclude (correctly in my view) that Betfair is a company of great integrity and fairness."
This opinion of BOtfair is so far from reality it could be described as psychedelic.
"Given the huge number of customers of Betfair and the very few issues that have been raised on this site regarding this company, a reasonable person would conclude (correctly in my view) that Betfair is a company of great integrity and fairness."
This opinion of BOtfair is so far from reality it could be described as psychedelic.
My friend has had a simple bot running for years, doing the same thing day in day out. A few months back it innocently matched some bets that could only be described as free money.
Then my friend gets an email from betfair investigations saying that her account has been investigated because it looks like she has been using it for passing funds between accounts and that if it happens again her account will be permanently closed.
At least they didn't suspend her account but it was still heavy handed and wrong. I don't know what she wrote in reply but she was rather annoyed by the false accusation and no apology.
Then my friend gets an email from betfair investigations saying that her account has been investigated because it looks like she has been using it for passing funds between accounts and that if it happens again her account will be permanently closed.
At least they didn't suspend her account but it was still heavy handed and wrong. I don't know what she wrote in reply but she was rather annoyed by the false accusation and no apology.
like i said he can go to the IBAS for arbitraion which is free and see what come of that before leagal action
Don't waste your time with ibas, their decisions are frequently flawed and not even binding on whoever is involved.
Fred, that sounds simmilar to what happened to a friend of mine! Looks like it wasn't an isolated example.
The one thing you can say without fear of contradiction is that BOtfair do not treat treat everybody equally.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539