Limit rules: a good way to fool people

**casasdeapostas.info** · 19 February 2018, 1:37 pm

recently I had two problems with two of my visitors, who wrote me asking for help

The biggest problem was a guy who placed two large bets on a sports site and won something like 30K, then this site voided his winnings because (according to them) "He couldn't place more than X on this bet, and this information was on the bet slip".

But they never prevented him from betting two times on the same market and it's nowhere on their terms and conditions that a customer can't place two times the same bet with the same limit.

Well.. I tried to resolve the problem with the bookie but they really didn't want to pay. And they have Curacao license, which is basically the same as nothing, and they're not really worried about their reputation.

But similarly, we see lots of casinos that write this rule on their T&C "When you have a active bonus, you can't place a bet more than X euros".

My question is: why don't they simply prevent people from placing this kind of bet? It's pretty simple to do this, it's a little bit of programming but nothing special.

My guess is that this rule is a good excuse when they need to refuse large payments to a player.

What do you think?

**wolfie** · 19 February 2018, 2:03 pm

Some casinos do prevent you from betting too much with bonus money. I think Slots Million is one of them.

I fully agree with you. The sad part is, that would this player have lost the bet, this bookie would have had no problem at all to take both his bets, even if they were not allowed.

I guess some casinos and bookies see it as easy money.

**Breakout Affiliates** · 20 February 2018, 1:38 pm

The house always wins. Simple.

**Former Member 14** · 20 February 2018, 3:10 pm

If the player/punter loses when playing a prohibited bet/wager does the casino sportsbook return their bets? Hell no... This clause is only used when said player/punter wins. And yes, some casinos have preventative measures in place to stop a player breaching said bet term(s). Those that don't, well... you can join to dots to why they haven't got this safeguard in place.

**TheGooner** · 20 February 2018, 4:33 pm

Of course the sports bettor wasn't fooled or tricked - They saw the limit when their bet was restricted to a specific amount - and thought they could find a way around it ... It didn't pay off and now they want to pretend ignorance?

I DO take the OP point that the system COULD / SHOULD have some way to look at previous bets and calculated a customers exposure ... But as a systems guy I know that this is a far trickier to do this - as the punter could easily include the match in a parley/combo as well - make it tough to automatically detect.

I'd expect a big brand to be better set-up to detect this - but not many of the small curacao brands

And I also take Wolfie / AussieDave's points that a losing bet probably still ends up losing with nothing said.

-----

So what have we learned ...

1/ When we see a bet limit - stick to it. Tell your readers in your preview for this site in BOLD LETTERS.

2/ This bookie is probably selectively choosing which bets to void.
Unfortunately the OP has not told us which bookie this was. Why?
Please name the bookmaker.

**DaftDog** · 20 February 2018, 9:43 pm

Originally Posted by Breakout Affiliates

The house always wins. Simple.

According to some programs this is not always true.

**Former Member 14** · 20 February 2018, 10:10 pm

Originally Posted by TheGooner

Tell your readers in your preview for this site in BOLD LETTERS.

Point in question, there are a number of casinos who have both "bet limit" and minimum slot game requirements (when a bonus is in play). The most notorious for these fu-clauses are Rival white labels. While I agree the onus is on the punter, adding a "bet limit" to a review will hopefully help those players/punters who don't read the T&C's. Hence, that's an excellent suggestion

**PlayHunter** · 22 February 2018, 5:19 am

Hey Folks,

I don't know the exact T&C's of the bookie, but to me seems not right from any angle I look at this story !

So, for a fact the punter did placed 2 bets: his 1st bet was within the allowed limits, and with his second bet arguably (will detail on this later) tried to circumvent a limit imposed by the bookie pet the said game.

First thing comes to my mind is, why the bookie does not pay the punter half his money (remember the first bet was won within the imposed limits !) ? To me this rings bells that the bookie might have not paid even if there were no dispute at all ! (Like those casinos which try everything to never pay players.)

This is like a casino player won a massive amount of money (say 300-500k) which will be paid in installments spread over a couple of years (at 10,000 per month or 5,000 per week whatever) and the player is patiently waiting for his money to come without touching his casino account. Then all of a sudden payments stop and the player is told that his money were confiscated due to inactivity (you know those terms most casinos have about inactivity, right ?) ! Well no, the player respected the casino's T&C's when he won the big money, right ? So any further breach of the T&C's shall not affect his past winnings (which the casino didn't finished to pay) !

And the second thing that comes to my mind, is did the punter really breach the bookies T&C's ? -- Given the fact that he was not prevented from betting multiple times (two) on the same match and was nowhere in bookies T&C's that a punter can't place multiple times the same bet with the same limit, I'd say he broke no terms at all !

Why was there a limit you may ask ? -- Simple, because in sports the odds are dynamic and frequently change ! So say the limit was the for odds 2.25 for the placed bet, say 9k euro. OK, that means that after the punter placed the maximum allowed bet, the limit and / or the odds for the very same bet were subject to re-evaluation and eventually change in the very next few seconds until the second bet was placed. So the next bet might have been accepted for a smaller bet limit or for different odds (likely lower than 2.25, continuing with the initial example I gave) !

How I read that max bet rule, I am telling from my own experience: in sports, bet limits and odds do change within seconds. That's why max bet limit !

And if I try to think at this case from the bookie's perspective, that there was indeed the honest intent to prevent any punter to place a bet higher than X euros per the said market, then, as several others pointed above, the implementation was poor. So poor that it has no hanging to not pay the man: OK, preventing this by system auto-detection could be cumbersome in certain situations (when the punter try to veil his bet in a combo -- although this was not the case, and most of the guys don't do that because it means extra risk) for some smaller operations.

But certainly, no matter how smaller bookie you are, you can spell in your own T&C's that "placing multiple bets in order to try and circumvent a displayed max allowed bet is forbidden and by breaching this term the punter will have his / her eventual winnings confiscated in case the said bet wins".

And as far as I know, most bookies follow this rule ! Failing to do that bare minimum, take the lose on your chin, pay the daring punter and update your T&C's accordingly so that a similar case will not repeat !

Keep it Safe,
PlayHunter

**Vargoso** · 25 February 2018, 3:11 pm

It seems a pretty shady history, but according to some work I have done for Casino industry, Terms and Conditions are a MUST, because lots of online casinos has pretty bad terms against the users. We know, the house will never loss, but sometimes T&C are prepared not only to make the house win but to make the player loss more. It is ok to win money, this is a business right? But come on, make a player feel robed is not cool, but for some sites is a rule.

**Breakout Affiliates** · 27 February 2018, 12:55 pm

Originally Posted by DaftDog

According to some programs this is not always true.

True true, so "The house has been statistically proven to win an unfair number of times. Somewhat Simple but probability and stats make it clear that it isn't really THAT simple."

**wonderpunter** · 27 February 2018, 1:01 pm

Originally Posted by Breakout Affiliates

True true, so "The house has been statistically proven to win an unfair number of times. Somewhat Simple but probability and stats make it clear that it isn't really THAT simple."

Some programs make every player a winner, literally thousands of lucky players that win and never come back to deposit ... maybe we should put a list of the luckiest casinos to play at?

**Former Member 14** · 27 February 2018, 6:11 pm

Originally Posted by wonderpunter

Some programs make every player a winner, literally thousands of lucky players that win and never come back to deposit ...

Surely your not inferring that some casinos, and sportbooks etc., cook-the-books!

**salis010** · 6 December 2018, 2:35 pm

The practice is downright unfair even from a consumer protection perspective. These players maybe can seek recourse with the consumer protection agencies of the country in which the company of this gaming operator is incorporated. However if its Curacao the chances are slim

Also I notice it is not uncommon for Curacao licencees not to include the name of the company running the business; a true shame.

Thread: Limit rules: a good way to fool people

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Limit rules: a good way to fool people

The Following User Says Thank You to casasdeapostas.info For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to wolfie For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Breakout Affiliates For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Former Member 14 For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to wonderpunter For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions