Interesting case: Bet365
- Thread starter HawkWing
- Start date
As per usual, regardless of whose money it was, they were happy to pocket the 25K, under the assumption the bet would be a loser.
But when it comes to pay-out time, its a different story. Its time to play the fraud card.
This particular aspect of bookmaking is one of the most rank and hypocritical.
If the money placed was fraudulent, that should be the case when the bet is placed, not when the bet is a winner.
But when it comes to pay-out time, its a different story. Its time to play the fraud card.
This particular aspect of bookmaking is one of the most rank and hypocritical.
If the money placed was fraudulent, that should be the case when the bet is placed, not when the bet is a winner.
Last edited:
A related (but far less serious) issue I have is with bookies who demand proof of identity before they'll release funds. They're only too happy to accept deposits with no such proof, no doubt expecting the entire amount will be lost.
I've seen this story elsewhere but haven't seen anything that says what the "reasonable grounds" that lead Bet365 to suspect fraud might be. Would be great to see this get to court and Bet365 forced to pay up
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've seen this story elsewhere but haven't seen anything that says what the "reasonable grounds" that lead Bet365 to suspect fraud might be. Would be great to see this get to court and Bet365 forced to pay up
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
archie
Senior Jockey
Sorry but that's not my experience. Possibly because of the level at which I bet, I've just withdrawn £200 from Bet365 in 30 seconds flat. There was a clear notification that the maximum withdrawal was £20k.
Half the discussions on here are about how to put one over on bookies. Why is anyone remotely surprised when they have defence systems? If her case was legit, she'd be the first student in history to have the odd £25k to put on this sort of bet. If she's the front for Slim & co (or similar), they will know the rules right down to the smallest of print. It may be that they know the rules better than Bet365 themselves, in which case good luck to them. Whatever, it's almost impossible that she's anything other than a figure-head and, in the end, it will be the vast majority of £10 to £50 punters who pay the price.
Half the discussions on here are about how to put one over on bookies. Why is anyone remotely surprised when they have defence systems? If her case was legit, she'd be the first student in history to have the odd £25k to put on this sort of bet. If she's the front for Slim & co (or similar), they will know the rules right down to the smallest of print. It may be that they know the rules better than Bet365 themselves, in which case good luck to them. Whatever, it's almost impossible that she's anything other than a figure-head and, in the end, it will be the vast majority of £10 to £50 punters who pay the price.
No it will be compulsive gamblers and those that play online games that pay the price.Never had you down as a bookmaker apologist.Why did they accept the bet if they were going to refuse payment-morally wrong.
archie
Senior Jockey
I imagine that that will be part of the defence. At the moment we only have the 'student' story so maybe take a pull and let it work itself out?
Should have mentioned it's only some bookies who seem to need ID. In the last year or so TitanBet and Netbet have been the culprits
Others like Skybet and Bet365 release funds quickly enough
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,632
I don't think I've ever been asked for ID to make a withdrawal, and I've withdrawn thousands over the years.
S
SlimChance
Guest
A few things.
1. There was a flaw in the Bet365 system that allowed permed multiples and you could check the max bet you were allowed. Bet365 did not accept the bet as sjuch, it was a failure of their risk system. No one had previously been stupid/greedy enough to place a £25 perm on a 19yo account before.
2. The firm involved were banking on a horse from a 16 runner Irish handicap in a stable now notorious for cheating/gambles
3. It would not be possible for bookmakers to KYC every customer at the point they open an account. I've had accounts where I've done my brains and the bookmaker has chased me to verify the account
4. It's quite possible this bet was places using a bookmaker IP address
5. If this goes to court the student is going to have to perjure herself, you're no longer "getting one over on the bookmakers" when it goes to court.
6. It is fairly well known in betting circles who was behind the bet although some guessers have been way off when checking their story with me. I hope the arrogant **** doesn't get paid. Bet365 have shut down on the back of this. He's ruined Xmas for everybody.
7. Had he not been so greedy and stakes 5k he'd have spent the 250k by now. Rule number 1 of betting is make sure you get paid. This bet was ridiculously arrogant and was done to prove "his brilliance" and not to win money. Ego doesn't pay.
1. There was a flaw in the Bet365 system that allowed permed multiples and you could check the max bet you were allowed. Bet365 did not accept the bet as sjuch, it was a failure of their risk system. No one had previously been stupid/greedy enough to place a £25 perm on a 19yo account before.
2. The firm involved were banking on a horse from a 16 runner Irish handicap in a stable now notorious for cheating/gambles
3. It would not be possible for bookmakers to KYC every customer at the point they open an account. I've had accounts where I've done my brains and the bookmaker has chased me to verify the account
4. It's quite possible this bet was places using a bookmaker IP address
5. If this goes to court the student is going to have to perjure herself, you're no longer "getting one over on the bookmakers" when it goes to court.
6. It is fairly well known in betting circles who was behind the bet although some guessers have been way off when checking their story with me. I hope the arrogant **** doesn't get paid. Bet365 have shut down on the back of this. He's ruined Xmas for everybody.
7. Had he not been so greedy and stakes 5k he'd have spent the 250k by now. Rule number 1 of betting is make sure you get paid. This bet was ridiculously arrogant and was done to prove "his brilliance" and not to win money. Ego doesn't pay.
Last edited:
You obviously know a lot more about it than me but as a general point bookmakers seem very happy to open accounts and leave you back losers over a period of months without mentioning KYC-trying to make the first withdrawal seems to be the default first mention of KYC.
S
SlimChance
Guest
I don't really see a problem with it. Paypal and banks are as bad if not worse. People seem to forget that bookmakers need to follow stringent money laundering laws, its not aimed to just **** off winning punters.
dvds2000
Gone But Not Forgotten
You need to blame the UKGC/Goverment for that. It can't be money laundering until there is a withdrawal, so they don't bother checking until then, nor do they have to.
No one would open accounts if they had to go through KYC before placing a bet. there are a couple of casinos that will block accounts if they haven't done KYC within 48 hours, but thats a choice rather than a requirement.
The reason some bookmakers don't seem to do KYC checks on customers is that they will do it electronically (check your credit files, there will be entries from bookmakers if you have made a withdrawal). If the company is based outside the UK its much less likely they will be able to do it that way.
Surely it would be good business practice to insist that the KYC process be completed within a month or 6 weeks.I have no doubt that a high percentage of people who try to make a withdrawal and get the runaround with KYC go on tilt or just blow the balance of the account.I know it's not related but I asked betfair to take away the ability to reverse withdrawals from my account and they said it wasn't possible and they only had the facility because customers had asked for it-they suggested timing out for 24 hours but they can take 48 hours to process a withdrawal.I believe we should have some kind of fair go legislation for punters like they do in Australia to cut out all the cheap tricks that bookmakers use.
can someone explain why...
'But rather than pay up, bet365 has withheld the sum as well as Miss McCann’s initial stake of £24,960.'
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/08/exclusive-teenager-takes-bet365-court-1m-won-horse-races/
'But rather than pay up, bet365 has withheld the sum as well as Miss McCann’s initial stake of £24,960.'
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/08/exclusive-teenager-takes-bet365-court-1m-won-horse-races/
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,012
If they think it is a potentially fraudulent transaction, they're perhaps compelled to hold onto the stake until it's proven otherwise?
dvds2000
Gone But Not Forgotten
Of course they do, and that should answer why they don't insist on it being done. The UKGC could change that, but they are toothless the majority of times.
I guess that gets to the point that grates. That if the bet was lost, there would be no case, no report, and Bet365 would be very happy with the whole situation. It appears that it has to be a winner before the investigation of fraudulent activity.
S
SlimChance
Guest
This point gets argued for every betting dispute from the punter having a late bet in the shops to this current case but it's irrelevant. Bet365 refused to pay me €3k a few years ago because I broke their terms and conditions. Rule number one of betting is make sure you get paid. The people behind this bet have been very greedy and very oblivious to the T&C that they accepted when they opened the account. They won't be paid.
Last edited:
Did you get your stake returned?
I agree about the details in this case re the greediness.
However, I dont agree that 'these are the rules' is a valid reason why the current rules shouldn't be looked at and changed. I'm guessing that it will take a legal case to force a change.
As with the 'late off' bets, they are deliberately one-sided. Not sure if its rule number 1, but for all bets that punters can't win from, they shouldn't be able to lose from. I dont believe that bet365 would have refunded the 25K had the bets lost.
S
SlimChance
Guest
But whether you win or lose doesn't matter. Colin has already pointed out that the KYC process is only required when you make a withdrawal. Had I lost all my bets I'd have been none the wiser. I'm sure they will get the £25k back but are we not all missing the point here. This greedy syndicate are going to get this girl to perjure herself on the stand. This goes way above and beyond getting one over those pesky bookmakers, it's criminal activity.
Had they won £250k they would have it spent by now. They were too greedy and forced Bet365 to use terms and conditions that they would not use in any other case. That's why they have them, to protect themselves for an orchestrated plot.
Last edited:
That's fine. But I disagree. It shouldnt matter whether you win or lose. Its a glaring anomaly in the KYC measures that you can launder as much money you want (in theory) until you want to withdraw. Whether the bets are winners or losers should be irrelevant. The rationale why KYC measures arent in place when you first register dont stand much scrutiny. I dont mind bookmakers protecting themselves and can choose whatever KYC measures they wish to put in place. The idea that bookmakers are happy to accept bets as long as they lose is not, in my view, done in any good faith.
If I nephew got hold of my credit card and laptop and made some wildly inappropriate bets (out of character with my standard) and lost 25K Im sure that bet365 (rightly) would dismiss my claims for the money to be returned. If bet365's KYC measures are inadequate, they should amend them.
If I nephew got hold of my credit card and laptop and made some wildly inappropriate bets (out of character with my standard) and lost 25K Im sure that bet365 (rightly) would dismiss my claims for the money to be returned. If bet365's KYC measures are inadequate, they should amend them.