General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I have been looking into this whole fraud and 'abuse' prevention systems used in a new light since all the Cambridge Analytics stuff in the news. With GDPR fast approaching personal data protection is more important than ever.
It appears that a consortium feed device information into a central system. The devices are linked if you log into the same account from a different device or a different account from the same IP etc. It is more complicated than that but the algorithms link devices and the group are given an ID.
All members of the consortium can add information to the central database if a device group ID is linked to fraud or 'abuse'.
This means that when you sign up for something new if that device is known to other members of the consortium can immediately know if that device is linked to fraud or 'abuse'.
This kind of seems ok if people are committing fraud. i.e. stealing money off bookmakers, chip dumping, colluding etc. There are still questions in my mind over sharing information essentially about people claiming it is the device. Ultimately surely it is about the user(s) of the device not the device itself. A device does not commit fraud, a user does.
But I notice the term 'abuse' is also used. I notice 'Arbitrage Betting' is one of the tags under 'misconduct'. Another tag under 'Cheating' is 'Trading Restriction'. Does this mean if one bookmaker tags a device group ID as committing arbitrage other bookies can see this? The person behind the device has not broken the law or even the terms of service of the bookie so how can it be ok for that information to be shared?
It appears that a consortium feed device information into a central system. The devices are linked if you log into the same account from a different device or a different account from the same IP etc. It is more complicated than that but the algorithms link devices and the group are given an ID.
All members of the consortium can add information to the central database if a device group ID is linked to fraud or 'abuse'.
This means that when you sign up for something new if that device is known to other members of the consortium can immediately know if that device is linked to fraud or 'abuse'.
This kind of seems ok if people are committing fraud. i.e. stealing money off bookmakers, chip dumping, colluding etc. There are still questions in my mind over sharing information essentially about people claiming it is the device. Ultimately surely it is about the user(s) of the device not the device itself. A device does not commit fraud, a user does.
But I notice the term 'abuse' is also used. I notice 'Arbitrage Betting' is one of the tags under 'misconduct'. Another tag under 'Cheating' is 'Trading Restriction'. Does this mean if one bookmaker tags a device group ID as committing arbitrage other bookies can see this? The person behind the device has not broken the law or even the terms of service of the bookie so how can it be ok for that information to be shared?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5
|
By:
Yep, this has been common for quite a while now.
Most major books have used or use the system currently, 365 have their own in house system. But it essentially works off the same kind of software. The good news is, most of these users are now dumping the system in terms of restricting accounts as they are worried about potential bad press etc as the industry come under more scrutiny in the coming years. IMO, it won't be used by anyone soon enough, also most clued up punters know the ways to beat it now aswell. |
|
By:
Under the Data Protection Act we really should be able to see what information is linked to devices we own.
If companies can link devices to people and see another named bookmaker has flagged a device as 'arbitrage betting' and 'trading restriction' then surely we should be able to see that information about us. For instance we have right (for a small fee) to see what credit rating companies have on us and who wrote what on our profile. The same should apply here. Its amazing how much the tech companies have got away with in the past. |
|
By:
paddy power use an american system called threatmetrix
|
|
By:
some books have t&c stating along these lines A player will not be considered a recreational customer where there is evidence that a series of bets, placed by individual customers on the same outcome, are linked through a referring website or forum, messaging service, arbitrage alert system or betting system.
|
|
By:
"some books have t&c stating along these lines A player will not be considered a recreational customer"
Why is someone being punished for placing same bets on same player? If all bets are lost, then customer looses money. These days Its like e-racism. Companies want some customers, some they dont. It has nothing to do with cheating but with being a winner. Gambling Commission should even the field, but they are too busy. 10 years since first tax was introduced on Betfair and they still have not come back to us with any improvements! There are very fer places where everyone is treated same. Unfortunately in UK Pinnacle are not operating so not in the UK apart from exchanges. Happy Easter Gambling Commission! |