Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
johnn
09 Apr 17 11:31
Joined:
Date Joined: 14 Oct 02
| Topic/replies: 5,311 | Blogger: johnn's blog
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/authors/the-judge/punters-fury-after-bookies-refuse-10186793

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 36
By:
GEORGE.B
When: 09 Apr 17 11:40
Yeah, they're giving the money to the comp runner-up instead, who is?

Aye, I'll believe them...
By:
Ramruma
When: 09 Apr 17 11:49
Using IP addresses to identify shared accounts is absurd because (a) they are shared via NAT and (b) no domestic ISP hands out static addresses. It is the sort of amateurism you'd expect from an outfit who'd not noticed the account was using someone else's debit card.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 09 Apr 17 11:51
So with their theory of "multiple accounts on the same IP", are they effectively saying anyone who has placed a couple of bets in different accounts (mates around your house on the same wifi), on the same IP address are allowed a refund to all losing bets as they wouldn't pay out on winning ones?
By:
Swardean
When: 09 Apr 17 11:54
They cannot have it both ways, if they are voiding her winning entry, they should also void any other losing bets made over the last year from the same IP.
By:
RyanWe
When: 09 Apr 17 11:57
It just gets more embarrassing for the books by the day.
By:
GLASGOWCALLING
When: 09 Apr 17 12:00
   “They also refused to give me a reference number so I could refer it to IBAS, the independent betting adjudication service. I am heartbroken. Please help.”


   surely any reputable company would not have any objections this.?
By:
GLASGOWCALLING
When: 09 Apr 17 12:01
* to this.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 09 Apr 17 12:05
Swardean 09 Apr 17 11:54
They cannot have it both ways, if they are voiding her winning entry, they should also void any other losing bets made over the last year from the same IP.


Also anyone else who has done the same thing throughout the country IMO. Be nice if a few thousand emails went in asking for their money back due to this!
By:
handtorofe
When: 09 Apr 17 12:14
Disgusting treatment they should now refund all accounts where players have more than one account from the same IP address.
By:
lil
When: 09 Apr 17 12:19
utter vermin sky bet are
By:
lil
When: 09 Apr 17 12:23
the runner up is most likely shinners
By:
EastLower Gooner
When: 09 Apr 17 12:28
Filthy from skybet.
By:
Joist
When: 09 Apr 17 18:54
lol
By:
dave1357
When: 10 Apr 17 00:42

Apr 9, 2017 -- 6:14AM, handtorofe wrote:


Disgusting treatment they should now refund all accounts where players have more than one account from the same IP address.


Think it was a free competition, so somewhat pointless

By:
lcredd
When: 10 Apr 17 12:45
"By receiving multiple entries from the same customer, there has been a breach of our Pick 7 game’s terms and conditions..."

Did she enter the Pick 7 game more than once with different usernames? If so then it's cheating - I'm assuming you can only enter once as it's a free competition.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 10 Apr 17 15:33
Presumably the refund point was regarding all losing bets to be refunded to all accounts if it can be shown that more than one account holder has been using the same IP address.

I'm also assuming that more than one person with that IP address bets with Sky bet and regarding the competition, hers in her name only was the winning entry.

Plus if say more than one person over the course of time has sat at a particular computer in an Internet cafe and placed bets with Sky bet, are they seriously not going to honour any winnings based on nothing more than several people having used that same computer having the same IP address when placing their bets?

As long as each person using the same IP address genuinely has a different name, bank card, e-mail address and mobile number, so can be shown to be different people and not one person trying it on with multiple accounts then why does it even matter how many people use that same IP address?
By:
dave1357
When: 10 Apr 17 16:22
It was a competition not a bet, perhaps one entry per household?  I'm not saying that I agree with their decision but there isn't any grounds for saying that losing bets should be refunded.

I think the woman should be allowed to go to IBAS as whether the entry was free or not, it is still gambling as far as the Gambling Act is concerned.
By:
Trident
When: 10 Apr 17 16:31
£10,000 to a multi billion pound company Skybet is pennies I hope she takes them to court.
By:
Trident
When: 10 Apr 17 16:31
Dont bet with them
By:
Trident
When: 10 Apr 17 16:32
Ive very surprised they haven't payed out. Its very bad PR for such a small dividend to them.
By:
cardenden
When: 10 Apr 17 16:50
everyone should boycott   them
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 10 Apr 17 16:51
Yeah I appreciate that it was a competition but it seems that they are treating it as a multiple entry from the same customer based on the IP address, whereas if any entries have been with different names but the same IP address or even just hers, but others from the household or even family and friends not even living there have at times placed bets using that same IP address, then shouldn't any of their losses be refunded if Sky bet's policy seems to be only one account holder can use that IP address?

I also know of punters who have had their Sky bet accounts closed due to their partner or other family member living at the same address also having an account with them, so if they are suggesting that only one person from each household can have an account and they verify this via their IP address, then surely they have to refund any losses from anyone else who registered with them after the initial account holder.
By:
cardenden
When: 10 Apr 17 16:51
im closing my account straight away
By:
dave1357
When: 10 Apr 17 16:58
I also know of punters who have had their Sky bet accounts closed due to their partner or other family member living at the same address also having an account with them, so if they are suggesting that only one person from each household can have an account and they verify this via their IP address, then surely they have to refund any losses from anyone else who registered with them after the initial account holder.

I would imagine these would be suspected arbers/bonus abusers?  There is also the possibility that someone in the house is a problem gambler or cheats at poker.  Have you any evidence of winning bets not being paid or voided?
By:
carrot1960
When: 10 Apr 17 17:10
Be interesting to see who opened the first account from the address , and if betfair are anything to go by only they should get any promotions.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 10 Apr 17 17:56
I also know of punters who have had their Sky bet accounts closed due to their partner or other family member living at the same address also having an account with them, so if they are suggesting that only one person from each household can have an account and they verify this via their IP address, then surely they have to refund any losses from anyone else who registered with them after the initial account holder.

I would imagine these would be suspected arbers/bonus abusers?  There is also the possibility that someone in the house is a problem gambler or cheats at poker.  Have you any evidence of winning bets not being paid or voided?


How they get away with calling anyone an "arber" nowadays is complete nonsense and how anyone falls for it anymore is pretty poor. There is just no liquidity on here until the off, and all their software would not let them be bigger than here anyway. I would bet 1.01 they have voided winning bets in the past with the reason "the same IP address being used in multiple accounts". Most won't contact the media etc and basically get told they won't get paid and bullied out of making any complaint.

Slybet tried it on with a mate of mine a few years ago, he placed an acca with a few football teams and then a special of "phil taylor to win every tv tournament in 20**" and they had a list of the tournaments. The football came in so he had all the darts to run. Taylor won the first 3 but then the 4th one wasn't actually on the tv so he rang them up. The price of 16/1 (I think at the time), was amended manually to 12/1 which he accepted. This was all put on his statement online fine. Taylor won the rest of them and they tried voiding the bet. I got Laying Like Maria on here to get involved who used to fight the punters corner when basically conned out of winnings, and he got paid in full. He donated a sum to a charity that LLM asked him to do.
By:
Ramruma
When: 10 Apr 17 18:00
I would imagine these would be suspected arbers/bonus abusers?  There is also the possibility that someone in the house is a problem gambler or cheats at poker.

Perhaps but in that case, Skybet should have noticed that before she won and simply declined her entry. It would take all of 30 seconds to tie up every single Sky account with the IP address it last used (and technically it would be bloody stupid but the point is that it is not hard).

Really the whole thing is an absurd fuss over £10k. Short of physically throwing a doctor off an overbooked airliner, it's hard to see how they could have messed up the PR more for a trivial sum.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 10 Apr 17 18:04
Arbers aren't doing anything fraudulent though and I've never really understood what the bookies' problem is with doing so and again surely only bonus abuse is the same person claiming the bonus multiple times, as opposed to more than one person doing so from the same home/IP address.

In all honesty I can't personally say I have any experience of winning bets not being paid out by Sky bet but then again I only have limited knowledge of how they treat everyone else, compared to first or second hand knowledge of how they treat me or people that I know.

What I find a little odd though is these shared IP issues only ever arise when somebody has a decent win, which makes me wonder are bookies aware if it from the beginning but are happy to monitor accounts and then conveniently disregard their own rules when it suits them if these accounts are losers, or once someone has a decent win do they comb through everything just to see if there's any way they can get out of having to pay out?
By:
JML
When: 10 Apr 17 18:13
Good point ima_mazed66

No chance of Skybet refusing bets from a problem gambler because of
IP issues.
By:
dave1357
When: 10 Apr 17 18:44
What I find a little odd though is these shared IP issues only ever arise when somebody has a decent win, which makes me wonder are bookies aware if it from the beginning but are happy to monitor accounts and then conveniently disregard their own rules when it suits them if these accounts are losers, or once someone has a decent win do they comb through everything just to see if there's any way they can get out of having to pay out?

This is by and large irrelevant to the matter at hand and as you admit you have no evidence of books refusing to pay bets for IP issues.

There definitely is a culture of books taking deposits and then demanding ID verification on withdrawal, if that is the kind of thing you are driving at.

I don't disagree that, on the face of it, Sky have behaved deplorably.  The only point I'm making is that this was a free to enter competition and not a bet that was voided.
By:
TheGoddess
When: 10 Apr 17 18:58
Skybet 100% correct in my opinion.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 10 Apr 17 19:06
Yeah I understand what you are saying (although don't agree that my previous point that IP issues only arise after a big win, is irrelevant) but the point being made is if they are avoiding paying out with this competition on the basis of more than one person using that particular IP address, then why are they not refunding any bets lost on that same particular IP address to anyone who is not the initial person to use it?

They can't say they don't allow multiple users of that IP address whenever someone wins, yet at the very same time keep any losses from multiple users of that same IP address. Isn't that a case of wanting the best of both worlds?
By:
dave1357
When: 10 Apr 17 19:14
They can't say they don't allow multiple users of that IP address whenever someone wins, yet at the very same time keep any losses from multiple users of that same IP address. Isn't that a case of wanting the best of both worlds?

There aren't any losses, it was a free competition. 

You haven't any produced evidence at all that Sky have voided any winning bets made with account holder's funds.  Unless you do so our conversation is at an end.
By:
Joist
When: 10 Apr 17 21:20
The competition and a bet with Sky Bet operate under different terms and conditions and therefore the Sky Bet implications on the account are largely irrelevant for this issue imo.

The competition terms state pretty clearly that any evidence of one person controlling multiple accounts will be disqualified. For practical reasons, I expect that this term can only be checked retrospectively when a winner is identified, in the same way that betting companies verify your identity on withdrawal generally rather than on deposit. She had 4 accounts under the same IP that all entered within a couple of minutes of each other. If you're an employee of Sky Bet checking out the validity of the competition winner, are you not flagging that as suspicious?

There's a ridiculous amount of paranoia about betting companies imo.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 10 Apr 17 22:09
There is a ridiculous amount of paranoia regarding some books as some do whatever they can to not pay out if they think they can get away with it. There have been countless threads on here where Freds haven't paid a punter, yet when court is threatened he pays up, Corals have lied and lied to me on a case a few years ago (and had all the screenshots to prove it) and then paid up, Sky have have tried to welch on my mate who was 100% in the right and was paid when a letter went in to take them to court. Then we also have some of the books voiding bets, but only tell the customer after the bet has won, books taking away offers without telling the customer (BOG etc).

Do I trust the books - some I do yes, and some I never would.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 10 Apr 17 22:12
You do realise don't you dave1357 that threads can evolve and not always have to stick rigidly to the initial opening point made?

Assuming you are not on a wind up, I've mentioned the word "competition" several times in the thread so am fully aware this money "won" here was via a competition and not a bet, but the point I and others have made several times but you keep missing is that if (key word there) the basis for denying the competition winner her money is that others have used the same IP address and they only allow one IP address to be linked to one account only, then presumably in some cases (may even in hers too) additional users other than the original user of that same IP address are very likely to have had previous losses from other actual bets, having used that same IP address.

If as is almost certain that is the case for any of their customers, then surely they have to refund those losses. It has nothing to do with whether anyone has been denied winning bets or not, considering they should have been denied to even bet at all if the same IP address ruling applies.
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com