Bovada denied payout for using Wizard's basic strategy

This is five years old, but I just came across it.

According to Gambling Grumbles, Bovada denied a player a payout in 2017 for various reasons, including that she used "the Wizard of Odds system" (i.e., the basic strategy table).

That’s old now, but even ignoring the WoO comment (and I’m not even sure what was meant—I also notice the verbatim response from Bovada is not included.) you still have multiple people playing on the same IP address (if they were at her house) so that’s going to be a violation, generally.

This from Bovada:

Quote:

6.7 "Betting Syndicates". A player or group of players working together in any fashion (also known as a "syndicate"), to receive either eCash winnings or activity bonuses or otherwise, may only have one Account in total, and any redundant Accounts will be consolidated into the one Account. An administration fee may be charged and payouts refused for each redundant Account, in our sole discretion. All wagering transactions in redundant Accounts are subject to reversal at our sole discretion. We also reserve the right to forfeit the principal of any wager placed in an attempt to defraud or exploit the house of any bonus and/or non-bonus monies, whether a player does this on their own or in collusion with other players or other sportsbooks.

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation.

Also:

Quote:

3.2 Single Account Access. You are permitted to open only one (1) Account. Only one account is allowed per household. Multiple accounts held by the same individual are subject to immediate closure and we reserve the right to seize any funds gained as a result of holding multiple accounts. Furthermore you shall not permit another person to access the Website or Software via your account without the express permission of Bovada.

It might not technically violate the rule above, but it does seem such behavior may break the betting syndicate rule if they were all playing from the same place and all took the bonus.

Quite frankly, while I don’t know, it sounds like they might have been a multi-accounting online casino AP playing bonuses they thought were good who was being pretty lazy to use the same device and IP for all of them, but maybe not. I don’t know why they’d admit to using WoO for anything, for one thing.

Of course, had this person signed up through here, then they could have reported the issue as Bovada is WOO APPROVED and that process would have occurred. I don’t know what the results would have been, but this person certainly wouldn’t have had snarky comments made at them from the same people who purport to want to help them.

Finally:

Quote:

3.7 Access Credentials. You may log in to your Account using your email address. You must treat your user email address and password as confidential and not disclose any part of them to anyone else. We have the right to disable any user Account, password whether chosen by you or assigned by us, at any time, if in our opinion you have failed to comply with any of the provisions of these Terms of Service. You are responsible for ensuring that no one else (particularly but without limitation those who may share your internet connection) is able to make use of your Account (or email address) and password and you shall be responsible for all transactions that take place on your Account whether or not you knew or consented to such transactions taking place.

If they were using the same device, then it’s hard to say they didn’t have access to one another’s accounts. It also mentions that nobody who shares your internet connection should be able to make use of your account.

So, if you have multiple accounts on the same device…I mean, come on!!!

Maybe whoever it was will see this thread and respond, but I think it was an online AP who got a little careless. A few friends just dying to play online blackjack, specifically, using the same bonus, playing the same way, whose families don’t want them to know they are playing online?

have any of you ever read any of the wizard's patents?

Quote: Mission146

That’s old now, but even ignoring the WoO comment (and I’m not even sure what was meant—I also notice the verbatim response from Bovada is not included.) you still have multiple people playing on the same IP address (if they were at her house) so that’s going to be a violation, generally.

This from Bovada:

Quote:

6.7 "Betting Syndicates". A player or group of players working together in any fashion (also known as a "syndicate"), to receive either eCash winnings or activity bonuses or otherwise, may only have one Account in total, and any redundant Accounts will be consolidated into the one Account. An administration fee may be charged and payouts refused for each redundant Account, in our sole discretion. All wagering transactions in redundant Accounts are subject to reversal at our sole discretion. We also reserve the right to forfeit the principal of any wager placed in an attempt to defraud or exploit the house of any bonus and/or non-bonus monies, whether a player does this on their own or in collusion with other players or other sportsbooks.

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation.

Also:

Quote:

3.2 Single Account Access. You are permitted to open only one (1) Account. Only one account is allowed per household. Multiple accounts held by the same individual are subject to immediate closure and we reserve the right to seize any funds gained as a result of holding multiple accounts. Furthermore you shall not permit another person to access the Website or Software via your account without the express permission of Bovada.

It might not technically violate the rule above, but it does seem such behavior may break the betting syndicate rule if they were all playing from the same place and all took the bonus.

Quite frankly, while I don’t know, it sounds like they might have been a multi-accounting online casino AP playing bonuses they thought were good who was being pretty lazy to use the same device for all of them, but maybe not. I don’t know why they’d admit to using WoO for anything, for one thing.

Of course, had this person signed up through here, then they could have reported the issue as Bovada is WOO APPROVED and that process would have occurred. I don’t know what the results would have been, but this person certainly wouldn’t have had snarky comments made at them from the same people who purport to want to help them.

Finally:

Quote:

3.7 Access Credentials. You may log in to your Account using your email address. You must treat your user email address and password as confidential and not disclose any part of them to anyone else. We have the right to disable any user Account, password whether chosen by you or assigned by us, at any time, if in our opinion you have failed to comply with any of the provisions of these Terms of Service. You are responsible for ensuring that no one else (particularly but without limitation those who may share your internet connection) is able to make use of your Account (or email address) and password and you shall be responsible for all transactions that take place on your Account whether or not you knew or consented to such transactions taking place.

If they were using the same device, then it’s hard to say they didn’t have access to one another’s accounts. It also mentions that nobody who shares your internet connection should be able to make use of your account.

So, if you have multiple accounts on the same device…I mean, come on!!!

Maybe whoever it was will see this thread and respond, but I think it was an online AP who got a little careless. A few friends just dying to play online blackjack, specifically, using the same bonus, playing the same way, whose families don’t want them to know they are playing online?
link to original post

Ok, but will Bovada stop taking deposits and action when they detect such a rule violation?

Doubtful. It’s never a problem until the player wants to cash out, which is slimy at best.

Patents? Not that I know of.

GamerFreak,

I don’t disagree with that. If the casino is letting the players, even if AP, load up on accounts knowing they won’t be paying.

On the other hand, what I actually more suspect is that Bovada didn’t know because Bovada didn’t look and only looks into things (as with most other online casinos) when it’s time to pay. This is evident even with state-regulated online casinos in the USA.

Deposits accepted immediately, payouts subject to verification, because they don’t care about your account until then.

Quote: heatmap

have any of you ever read any of the wizard's patents?
link to original post

That seems a bit of hijack. PM me if you want to buy any of them.

Quote: Mission146

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation. link to original post

Maybe because the overwhelming majority of players aren't APs and aren't aware that multiple accounts on the same IP would be frowned upon?

Bovada's ToS doesn't even specifically prohibit multiple accounts on the same IP anyway. It says one account per household, and a visiting friend isn't a household member. As Gambling Grumbles noted, there's no violation here.

Really, are we really expecting players to read pages and pages of tiny-type ToS, and then deduce (because it's not specifically spelled out) that a friend playing on their own separate account at your house could result in winnings being forfeited? I wouldn't know that multiple people playing on the same IP was problem if I weren't working in the industry. I can't see how most players would be expected to know this.

In addition to not actually violating the ToS, GG also says that one reason Bovada denied winnings was that the player was simply using basic strategy! That should be alarming.

Thao's account, with $9500, was seized. Thao is out $4000 in deposits and $5500 in winnings.

"Thao told us that Bovada is refusing to pay her because (1)she played blackjack using the "Wizard of Odds" system (which is actually just the standard recommended system for the best chance of success at the game) and because (2) she allowed some friends to use her laptop to open their own accounts and play." -quoted from Gambling Grumbles

So, a player claims to have been injured, reportedly for two reasons.

1. The first alleged reason (using the WOO BJ system), if true, is unacceptable. Perhaps she was using Wizard's counting system, and not just the basic strategy? Usually that is not possible with online poker because of frequent reshuffles. This claimed grievance should be of interest to the operators of the WOO site.

2. Allowing other people to open their own accounts, with their own deposited funds, on your laptop and IP address was apparently not specifically called out as unallowable in Bovada's rules (see Mission's post above.) Thao was playing blackjack, which has no possibility of collusion between online players. So why was this called a rules violation and grounds for seizing her $9500 in funds? Bovada has fattened its accounts and Thao, who claims to be a long-time customer of theirs, was financially injured. This has an ugly look to it

This is why some gamblers avoid playing on online casinos - because the online casinos can refuse to payout your funds, thereby putting the burden on you to wage a long exhausting fight to recover said funds -with a fairly low chance of success. While this gambler grievance is not verified (and probably is no longer verifiable) and is unclear on several points, I find it disturbing. I see no reason to dismiss this grievance story and assume that Bovada righteously seized Thao's $9,500. My opinion of Bovada is affected.

Running an online casino is not the only dirty business in the world, but it certainly does seem to be one of them.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Mission146

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation. link to original post

Maybe because the overwhelming majority of players aren't APs and aren't aware that multiple accounts on the same IP would be frowned upon?

Bovada's ToS doesn't even specifically prohibit multiple accounts on the same IP anyway. It says one account per household, and a visiting friend isn't a household member. As Gambling Grumbles noted, there's no violation here.

Really, are we really expecting players to read pages and pages of tiny-type ToS, and then deduce (because it's not specifically spelled out) that a friend playing on their own separate account at your house could result in winnings being forfeited? I wouldn't know that multiple people playing on the same IP was problem if I weren't working in the industry. I can't see how most players would be expected to know this.

In addition to not actually violating the ToS, GG also says that one reason Bovada denied winnings was that the player was simply using basic strategy! That should be alarming.
link to original post

Really?

I know it doesn't specifically say IP addresses, but it says everything but that. Besides, what do you think is more likely: That someone was trying to AP the bonuses and decided to play on behalf of some friends, or alternatively, that these friends wanted to come over and use this person's laptop to play Blackjack, specifically, because they didn't want their family members to know they were playing Blackjack?

If the latter, then why did it need to be from that person's device, anyway? Wouldn't it be enough to go to literally anywhere else with internet access and play from there on some laptop? Also, I know how to delete browsing history, which causes me to assume any internet user does.

The player, apparently, admitted to using WoO Basic Strategy while in the act of play. It also seems to be implied that they got the strategy on how to play the bonus on WoO, as well, but maybe not.

Do I think that's enough for a no-pay on its own? Absolutely not. Would I tell the casino I did that? Hell no! Do I think Bovada has enough between that and multiple players playing the same promotion, on the same game, using the same device? Well, short of actual video evidence, which would be impossible to come by, I don't know what more circumstantial evidence you would want Bovada to have. They also have a rule against syndicate play on multiple accounts, which is what this event would have looked a hell of a lot like.

Was this person an advantage player in the professional sense? I don't think, but they are extremely sloppy if they were. Was this person trying to AP the casino? That's my conclusion.

Hopefully, this person learned a lesson and is still beating the EV out of promotions to this day! I definitely have a tendency to side with the players, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to say Bovada didn't have enough circumstantial evidence, and certain admissions, to justify their decision on the grounds of bonus abuse.

Quote: gordonm888

Thao's account, with $9500, was seized. Thao is out $4000 in deposits and $5500 in winnings.

"Thao told us that Bovada is refusing to pay her because (1)she played blackjack using the "Wizard of Odds" system (which is actually just the standard recommended system for the best chance of success at the game) and because (2) she allowed some friends to use her laptop to open their own accounts and play." -quoted from Gambling Grumbles

So, a player claims to have been injured, reportedly for two reasons.

1. The first alleged reason (using the WOO BJ system), if true, is unacceptable. Perhaps she was using Wizard's counting system, and not just the basic strategy? Usually that is not possible with online poker because of frequent reshuffles. This claimed grievance should be of interest to the operators of the WOO site.

2. Allowing other people to open their own accounts, with their own deposited funds, on your laptop and IP address was apparently not specifically called out as unallowable in Bovada's rules (see Mission's post above.) Thao was playing blackjack, which has no possibility of collusion between online players. So why was this called a rules violation and grounds for seizing her $9500 in funds? Bovada has fattened its accounts and Thao, who claims to be a long-time customer of theirs, was financially injured. This has an ugly look to it

This is why some gamblers avoid playing on online casinos - because the online casinos can refuse to payout your funds, thereby putting the burden on you to wage a long exhausting fight to recover said funds -with a fairly low chance of success. While this gambler grievance is not verified (and probably is no longer verifiable) and is unclear on several points, I find it disturbing. I see no reason to dismiss this grievance story and assume that Bovada righteously seized Thao's $9,500. My opinion of Bovada is affected.

Running an online casino is not the only dirty business in the world, but it certainly does seem to be one of them.
link to original post

Meh. A state regulated casino would have done the same thing, except maybe would have refunded the deposit. Of course, their terms also tend to be a bit more clear.

I think the WoO thing was a poor thing for Bovada to point out and they probably thought that it strengthened their case, even though it was unnecessary. On the surface, just having so many people play from one device looks like what they call a, "Syndicate," in their terms, and gives a clear impression of probable bonus abuse.

Like I said, I hope the affected party learned their lesson and is pummeling the EV out of positive promotions to this day.

And, on that note, there will soon be an article that, partially, consists of multi-accounting tips. The article is already done (it was super easy) so will be published any day.

Quote: Mission146

What do you think is more likely: That someone was trying to AP the bonuses and decided to play on behalf of some friends, or alternatively, that these friends wanted to come over and use this person's laptop to play Blackjack, specifically, because they didn't want their family members to know they were playing Blackjack?
link to original post

We'll never know, and that's a problem. It's entirely plausible that the player is telling the truth, that she didn't violate the ToS as written, but had her winnings seized anyway.

It's bad enough that online casinos just guess as to whether players violated the terms. Worse is that players aren't properly warned of the risk. Burying the requirement deep in pages and pages of tiny-type terms doesn't cut it, especially when an honest player doesn't actually violate the terms and *still* has their funds seized, like this player, assuming she's telling the truth.

If casinos are going to be so flippant about seizing funds, then there needs to be a separate checkbox to warn players on signup that they risk seizure for multiple accounts on the same device or IP. Or give players the option to not use bonuses so they don't risk funds seizure. I wrote about that here.

Quote: Mission146

I don't know what more circumstantial evidence you would want Bovada to have.

What I want is for Bovada (and other online casinos) to properly warn players so that innocent players don't wind up having their funds seized. And by "innocent", I mean players who weren't doing bonus abuse (i.e., signing up multiple accounts for themselves), and who simply had multiple people playing in the same household, or on the same device, each on their own different accounts.

Quote: Mission146

If the latter, then why did it need to be from that person's device, anyway? Wouldn't it be enough to go to literally anywhere else with internet access and play from there on some laptop?

Oh come now. It would also be "enough" to play at a friend's place you were already visiting. If you weren't a bonus abuser it wouldn't occur to you why that would be a problem.

Bonus abuser is too broad of a term. They should spell out exactly what bonus abuse is.

I have no doubt there was something more going on than just some innocent "my friends were using my computer at my house to play on their accounts" I

Either way, they should still pay the account balance and then ban the player's accounts they believe are involved.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Mission146

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation. link to original post

Maybe because the overwhelming majority of players aren't APs and aren't aware that multiple accounts on the same IP would be frowned upon?

Bovada's ToS doesn't even specifically prohibit multiple accounts on the same IP anyway. It says one account per household, and a visiting friend isn't a household member. As Gambling Grumbles noted, there's no violation here.

Really, are we really expecting players to read pages and pages of tiny-type ToS, and then deduce (because it's not specifically spelled out) that a friend playing on their own separate account at your house could result in winnings being forfeited? I wouldn't know that multiple people playing on the same IP was problem if I weren't working in the industry. I can't see how most players would be expected to know this.

In addition to not actually violating the ToS, GG also says that one reason Bovada denied winnings was that the player was simply using basic strategy! That should be alarming.
link to original post

And yet you still prominently display them on your website with a boastful review and profit as an affiliate.

I see nothing wrong with being a casino affiliate, but if you yourself think Bovada wronged someone perhaps you should take a moral stand and remove their banner from your website.

I don't know what I would do myself in this situation if I was an affiliate of theirs.

(I doubt he can see this since he probably has me on block)

(Quotes of MichaelBluejay's responses to me are clipped to remove my previous responses to him)

Quote:

We'll never know, and that's a problem. It's entirely plausible that the player is telling the truth, that she didn't violate the ToS as written, but had her winnings seized anyway.

It's bad enough that online casinos just guess as to whether players violated the terms. Worse is that players aren't properly warned of the risk. Burying the requirement deep in pages and pages of tiny-type terms doesn't cut it, especially when an honest player doesn't actually violate the terms and *still* has their funds seized, like this player, assuming she's telling the truth.

If casinos are going to be so flippant about seizing funds, then there needs to be a separate checkbox to warn players on signup that they risk seizure for multiple accounts on the same device or IP. Or give players the option to not use bonuses so they don't risk funds seizure. I wrote about that here.

We will never know, in the strictest sense of the word, nor will Bovada. I grant you that, but in terms of circumstantial evidence and admissions, you couldn't ask for more.

I'll always be an advocate for the players, but that doesn't mean that casinos must automatically be in the wrong. I actually also wrote a WoO page that explored various terms and conditions that players should know, and interestingly enough, Bovada was my example casino:

https://wizardofodds.com/online-casinos/guide-for-bonus-terms-and-conditions/

Anyway, I grant that there's a lot that we don't know here. For one thing, we've only read the player's side of this issue, and even in their telling, it doesn't look particularly good for them. There are also a lot of other unknown factors, so I don't know what Bovada should or should not have done.

Anyway, I'd be in favor of a separate check box, which I think some casinos do have. At least, they make you check something that said that you have read and understood the Terms & Conditions, sometimes, but there's nothing that is going to make a person physically read them.

That said, my article will soon be out as to how to do multi-accounting in a way that makes getting caught less likely.

Honestly, when you look at this situation and you have multiple people, "Friends," plural, all playing from the same device---what does that look like to you? You don't have any money on the line in this thread, so unlike the player, giving an honest answer won't hurt you. To me, it looks like you're getting the people in, probably giving them a cut of the action and then playing all of the accounts yourself. That's typically how this would be done if you were extremely lazy about it.

Quote:

What I want is for Bovada (and other online casinos) to properly warn players so that innocent players don't wind up having their funds seized. And by "innocent", I mean players who weren't doing bonus abuse (i.e., signing up multiple accounts for themselves), and who simply had multiple people playing in the same household, or on the same device, each on their own different accounts.

I'm not opposed to both clearer terms and a separate checkbox illustrating those important terms.

I think another crucial piece of information that wasn't included in the player's reporting is the disposition of these other accounts, or how many other accounts there were; I would think that might play a hand in Bovada's decision. Hypothetically, if all of these other accounts played the bonus profitably (and were paid) such that this person still ended up ahead even after having the funds from their own account withheld, then I find Bovada's decision more defensible.

If the other accounts all lost money, or the sum of all accounts is net negative, then I think you could make a case that Bovada could at least refund the deposit (as a good will gesture) and then ban all accounts associated with this device. We also don't know how many, 'Friends,' there were. We know that the poster used the plural, 'Friends,' so the number of accounts goes a long way to how believable this person's story might be.

The Gambling Grumbles complainant states that one of their friends lost all of their money, which means the other ones must have won, one would assume. That being the case, I'm curious how many, 'Friends,' there were since no number was ever put on it.

Two friends who want to play Blackjack and don't want their families to know about it and I am already skeptical. What if the total number of other accounts was ten? Twenty? We don't know and we're only getting the player's accounting of events, which, I reemphasize, already smells a lot like AP work. This person knows ten people who want to play Blackjack, specifically and can only do so if they come over and use this person's laptop?

Quote:

Oh come now. It would also be "enough" to play at a friend's place you were already visiting. If you weren't a bonus abuser it wouldn't occur to you why that would be a problem.

That's true. If I weren't a bonus abuser, I also wouldn't be running any number of my friends on the same bonus, all playing Blackjack and all using the same strategy.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Mission146

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation. link to original post

Maybe because the overwhelming majority of players aren't APs and aren't aware that multiple accounts on the same IP would be frowned upon?

Bovada's ToS doesn't even specifically prohibit multiple accounts on the same IP anyway. It says one account per household, and a visiting friend isn't a household member. As Gambling Grumbles noted, there's no violation here.

Really, are we really expecting players to read pages and pages of tiny-type ToS, and then deduce (because it's not specifically spelled out) that a friend playing on their own separate account at your house could result in winnings being forfeited? I wouldn't know that multiple people playing on the same IP was problem if I weren't working in the industry. I can't see how most players would be expected to know this.

In addition to not actually violating the ToS, GG also says that one reason Bovada denied winnings was that the player was simply using basic strategy! That should be alarming.
link to original post

And yet you still prominently display them on your website with a boastful review and profit as an affiliate.

I see nothing wrong with being a casino affiliate, but if you yourself think Bovada wronged someone perhaps you should take a moral stand and remove their banner from your website.

I don't know what I would do myself in this situation if I was an affiliate of theirs.

(I doubt he can see this since he probably has me on block)
link to original post

That is a very valid point, although he claimed to have blocked me, as well.

:Hint, Hint, Mission:

Okay...here you go.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Mission146

So, if they were all playing from the same device, which I assume Bovada gathered via the IP (otherwise, why would you ever admit that!?), then that’s going to be a violation. link to original post

Maybe because the overwhelming majority of players aren't APs and aren't aware that multiple accounts on the same IP would be frowned upon?

Bovada's ToS doesn't even specifically prohibit multiple accounts on the same IP anyway. It says one account per household, and a visiting friend isn't a household member. As Gambling Grumbles noted, there's no violation here.

Really, are we really expecting players to read pages and pages of tiny-type ToS, and then deduce (because it's not specifically spelled out) that a friend playing on their own separate account at your house could result in winnings being forfeited? I wouldn't know that multiple people playing on the same IP was problem if I weren't working in the industry. I can't see how most players would be expected to know this.

In addition to not actually violating the ToS, GG also says that one reason Bovada denied winnings was that the player was simply using basic strategy! That should be alarming.
link to original post

And yet you still prominently display them on your website with a boastful review and profit as an affiliate.

I see nothing wrong with being a casino affiliate, but if you yourself think Bovada wronged someone perhaps you should take a moral stand and remove their banner from your website.

I don't know what I would do myself in this situation if I was an affiliate of theirs.

(I doubt he can see this since he probably has me on block)
link to original post

That is a very valid point, although he claimed to have blocked me, as well.
link to original post

Quote: AxelWolf

Bonus abuser is too broad of a term. They should spell out exactly what bonus abuse is.

(snip for relevancy to reply)
link to original post

Highly agree. For example, I have shunned all online casinos, so while I see bonuses advertised, I have no idea what behaviors constitute bonus abuse, and therefore could commit abuse through ignorance. (Don't worry, I'm still shunning online casinos)

Here's another thing that bothers me about the T&C: multiple players from the same IP is verboten and/or one account per household. AYFKM?

Let's posit a family. Mom, Dad, adult son who won't move out. Mom defends son, Dad wants him gone, fight has reached toxic levels. (not my family, but I do know several in this predicament)

Dad does online gambling to escape the stress. Coincidentally, son is doing the same to get enough cash to move TF out, although he loves all the free room and board. Mom decides to take some of her mad money and try to raise FU money when she divorces Dad. Very few semi-reputable online casinos agree to deal with US customers. So, this family all happens to establish accounts with the same one (arguendo, Bovada).

Everyone in the house plays on the house's internet connection, thus the casino records all play as coming from the same IP.

If I read their rules correctly, what these three adults are doing is against the T&C. All of them have accounts at the same online casino. All of them are playing from the same IP. They may all have their own computers, but Bovada has no way of telling that unless they incorporate the CPU serial in the transaction, which I find unlikely.

Yet, to comply with the T&C, Bovada practically mandates that each player announce to the family the fact that they gamble online, and they have an account at Bovada, and that nobody else can have an account there. I find that requirement by any online casino pretty darned audacious and intrusive.

State licensed and regulated casinos also, at least all the ones I have looked at, have the one account per household provision.

It's mainly to prevent this exact thing: Bonus abuse.

Online casinos attempt to thwart APs from multi-accounting and beating the tar out of their promotions, several times over. This is a long established fact. One of the measures that these casinos take, I would argue rightly so, is to prevent multiple people from the same household or IP, pursuant to their T&C's, from having multiple accounts. Again, the same is true with state-regulated casinos.

The thing to understand, not that it's necessarily true with as many offshores as it used to be, is that many of these new member promotions are absolute layups. Perhaps more importantly, many of the online casinos that offer these layup promotions with solid strategic (or, sometimes, simply safe) play KNOW that their promotions are beatable. The promotions are designed to be beatable, and for those who don't play in a profitable way, are designed to give people a pretty good chance at being profitable anyway.

Personally, the casinos that irritate me the most aren't the ones with sets of terms and conditions that they, God forbid, enforce. I mean, God forbid that a business make its own rules for the way people conduct themselves on their own property, right? No, what irritates me is the casinos that will dress up promotions as being extremely strong, but sometimes, those promotions are not mathematically beatable, as in, the player is expected to lose money even playing them optimally.

That's when I get ticked off because the player would actually be better off to simply deposit and play with no bonus. At least the could cash out whenever they wish if they did that. Instead, players get locked into playthrough conditions on certain promotions that could never have been +EV to begin with.

Of course, the casinos that offer mathematical layups absolutely know they are offering mathematical layups. Their hope is, in very broad terms, twofold:

A.) That players will fail to play profitably, or fail to cash out without getting greedy and losing at -EV, anyway.

B.) That the players who do play profitably will stick around and make new deposits, eventually playing at -EV.

It is players in the above two categories that make these opportunities even possible. With the proper amount of work and discipline, players could avoid falling into either one of those two categories, and if all of them did, the casinos would lose money and close or, less than that, the casinos would stop offering promotions.

In the meantime, they try to strike a balance between offering promotions that they KNOW some people are going to come in and pummel, but making enough on the other players to more than cover it. Allowing AP's free rein to do basically whatever the hell they wish would make the balance difficult, if not impossible, to maintain, hence the cat and mouse game.

Of course, the better the promotion, the more likely the promotion to draw in players who will fall into one of the top two categories. Categorically refusing to accept that a casino should be allowed to take AP countermeasures, particularly against multi-accounting, or effective multi-accounting, means that the promotions would have to be made worse, if they could even be profitable at all. That would be a net negative for APs, although, it might help certain players who would often be better off not to have to have signed up in the first place.

If you want to play the game, then it's important to understand the rules. If you want to break the rules, then it's important to know how to do so whilst going as long as possible without getting caught.

Quote: BillHasRetired

Here's another thing that bothers me about the T&C: multiple players from the same IP is verboten and/or one account per household. AYFKM?

Actually, Bovada's terms do *not* ban multiple players from the same IP, just from the same *household*. The player's friends weren't in the same household. Bovada is pointing to a different part of the T&C, about one account per person. Bovada's position is that all the accounts were really the player's account.

But yeah, I understand your objection, because it's mine as well: Innocent players (those who aren't setting up multiple accounts for themselves) can easily get snared. Casinos need to either state the risk up front on signup with a separate checkbox, or allow players the option of forgoing bonuses so they don't risk having their winnings seized.

Quote: Mission146

I mean, God forbid that a business make its own rules for the way people conduct themselves on their own property, right?

You're really good at missing the points. As I've said ad nauseam, but which you've essentially ignored, nobody reads multiple pages of tiny-type ToC, and no one can be expected to. Also, since accusations of multiple accounts (and denial of such) is a common problem, that particular item needs to be a separate checkbox on signup (or even better, give players the option to forgo bonuses so they don't risk having their winnings seized). The best you could say for that was that you "wouldn't oppose" such a checkbox. Wow, how gracious of you. Maybe you also "wouldn't oppose" things like free speech, fair trials, due process, etc. (rather than insisting that they're essential).

Quote: Mission146

If you want to break the rules, then it's important to know how to do so whilst going as long as possible without getting caught.

If you're talking about the player who's the subject of this thread, then you're making an accusation without knowing whether it's true.

Yeah, the player didn't mention how many accounts we're talking about, but apparently neither did Bovada, or I expect Gambling Grumbles would have mentioned it. GG also notes that Bovada took over a week to reply, and implies that they didn't provide much info. Back when Bovada allowed me to mediate (like GG), I seem to recall that my experience was similar with the one case I inquired about.

(Quote clipped to remove quote in quote as well as responses not directed to me)

Quote:

You're really good at missing the points. As I've said ad nauseam, but which you've essentially ignored, nobody reads multiple pages of tiny-type ToC, and no one can be expected to. Also, since accusations of multiple accounts (and denial of such) is a common problem, that particular item needs to be a separate checkbox on signup (or even better, give players the option to forgo bonuses so they don't risk having their winnings seized). The best you could say for that was that you "wouldn't oppose" such a checkbox. Wow, how gracious of you. Maybe you also "wouldn't oppose" things like free speech, fair trials, due process, etc. (rather than insisting that they're essential).

You're really good at feigning ignorance. Virtually every online-facing company, of any kind, not just casinos, has various Terms and Conditions regarding their E-Commerce that customers could, at least in theory, be held accountable to. Just because people do not read them does not mean that they do not exist. Most such Terms and Conditions include multiple pages of tiny type T&C's, this is nothing new.

I have already stated that I would not be opposed to a separate checkbox. I hope that casinos start implementing such and it becomes an industry standard.

I don't know what you want beyond that, unless you think I have sole authority to demand that they start doing it. I will immediately fly to wherever and demand that Bovada start doing this, if that makes you happy. You will simply need to pay for my travel costs as well as $50 an hour. Short of that, I don't know what you want from me.

Most casinos do give ways for players to refuse bonuses, although, those would normally be found in the Terms and Conditions, which is another good reason to read them.

Look, T&C's are structured so that people won't read them fully; I absolutely grant you that point. Indubitably. Most often, even if someone did want to read them, they start with the Terms on top of the page that would almost never be relevant to the player, such as copyright and shizz. CTRL + F would be my recommendation for people, that way you can look for keywords in the T&C's and jump to those sections.

I'm not saying that it's perfectly fair, but I am saying it is what it is, for the time being. The Terms are there to be read.

I also notice that you do not seem to dispute it looks a lot like bonus abuse in the Bovada case, as long as we are on the topic of people missing points.

Quote:

If you're talking about the player who's the subject of this thread, then you're making an accusation without knowing whether it's true.

Yeah, the player didn't mention how many accounts we're talking about, but apparently neither did Bovada, or I expect Gambling Grumbles would have mentioned it. GG also notes that Bovada took over a week to reply, and implies that they didn't provide much info. Back when Bovada allowed me to mediate (like GG), I seem to recall that my experience was similar with the one case I inquired about.

I'm not accusing them of anything; I've already said that I don't know, though I do find their account difficult to believe, and potentially damning, even if I did believe it.

In general, if someone wants to break the multi-accounting rules, then it is important to know how to do so without getting caught. It's a casino rule; not a law. I've broken multiple accounts rules, why wouldn't I have? You usually don't get caught, but sometimes you do, and you take your hits when it happens.

Did Gambling Grumbles talk to Bovada? I'd honestly be interested in knowing how many accounts. Two other accounts and the story becomes plausible, ten and the story is absolutely BS. Taking over a week to reply is not unusual, is Bovada beholden to reply to GG within a certain timeframe?

Anyway, no need to take a snarky tone. Besides, I'm just as good at it as you are, so it wouldn't be as fun as usual for either of us.

Quote: Mission146

You're really good at feigning ignorance. Virtually every online-facing company, of any kind, not just casinos, has various Terms and Conditions regarding their E-Commerce that customers could, at least in theory, be held accountable to. Just because people do not read them does not mean that they do not exist. Most such Terms and Conditions include multiple pages of tiny type T&C's, this is nothing new.

This is as far as I read, because you're either intentionally deflecting or you just don't get it, but either way that means we can't make any progress here.

Of COURSE every site has pages of tiny type T&C's. You say that as though you've made some sort of point. The difference between them and online casinos is that casinos have a big gotcha that can snag players that the players wouldn't expect. (Me and my wife can't both have our own accounts?!) Most of us agree to all T&C's w/o reading b/c there's nothing there that's unexpected. Absolutely not the case with online casinos.

I've filled out lots of intake forms at doctors' offices. I assent to lots of paragraphs of tiny type, but for the things they really want me to know (like they're gonna charge me if I no-show or cancel w/o sufficient notice), they call them out and have me initial those things SPECIFICALLY. The offices are smart enough to know that most people aren't going to read every word, and certainly smart enough to not penalize patients who didn't. They call out the special parts that the customers really need to know about. Online casinos should be no different.

Your insistence that players should be expected to read pages of tiny-type T&C to avoid this gotcha is unreasonable, ESPECIALLY because EVEN IF an honest player had read them, they would STILL get screwed by the casino, because they didn't actually violate the terms. Scenario in which a player has friends sign up on her laptop, and each person truly has a separate account funded by them (as the player in this case claims): Read pages and pages of tiny-type T&C, see prohibition against multiple accounts per household (no problem, friends are not part of household), see prohibition against multiple accounts per player (no problem, player has only her personal account), then gets winnings confiscated for violating T&C, even without violating T&C. T&C did NOT say "no multiple accounts per device" nor "no multiple accounts per Internet connection". How's your precious T&C working now?

It's almost as if these casinos didn't have the best interests of their customers in mind.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

This is as far as I read, because

This is as far as I read, because you did not read all of my previous post.

Quote: billryan

It's almost as if these casinos didn't have the best interests of their customers in mind.
link to original post

Name one casino that does.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

This is five years old, but I just came across it.

According to Gambling Grumbles, Bovada denied a player a payout in 2017 for various reasons, including that she used "the Wizard of Odds system" (i.e., the basic strategy table).
link to original post

Oh, I get it now.

This whole thread was a setup; very nice!

You're a Webmeister affiliated with a competing family of websites, though yours looks like a GeoCities page circa 1997, so I suspect you saw that I was somewhat critical of CM over the deal with the Switzerland player and wanted to set me up for a gotcha so you could prove just what a good little player advocate you are.

Here's where you messed up:

1.) You picked one where the player is, quite probably, actually an AP.

2.) You picked one where, even if the player wasn't a multi-accounting AP, the player looks like a multi-accounting AP.

3.) You picked one, defying all logic, that specifically relates to the ONLY casino that you directly advertise for, despite the fact that we have several WoO approved casinos.

4.) I don't deal in intervening between players and casinos.

5.) If I did deal in intervening between players and casinos, then I wouldn't say shizz like, "You could have had a decent Christmas. But that was your choice."

You really want to tell me that the two things are equivalent? I've never even spoken to the player who is the subject of this thread, as far as I know, and you have two online casino AP's in here telling you that it looks a lot like AP.

So, yeah, as AxelWolf and BillRyan asked, will you be killing Bovada on your site? I mean, if you think this issue is just a travesty, I guess you should. You're in a position to make that call. As you're directly talking to me, it occurs to me that one of us owns a website promoting Bovada and the other doesn't.

Anyway, now that I think I have figured out your angle on this one, I'm probably done talking to you in this thread. Cute play. I'll see you in some other thread somewhere else when you come in to drop a gratuitous Easy Vegas link for whatever cross-traffic that gets you, despite the fact that you own a competing website and are also affiliated with CM, another competing website.

All of that because I was slightly critical of the way that CM talked to the player. This never really was a discussion. What a waste of time.

Oh well, you have demonstrated, once again, why there is no faith in humanity for me to lose. Also, you gave me an article idea, so I guess writing that made me some money; Thanks for that part, I guess.

You even liked my post about CM detailing the events in the other thread as a cover play! Brilliant!

Ok, you got me. Nice job. I've still probably got the right of it on this Bovada issue, also, Bovada is still on your website. I do not own a website.

Also, the Switzerland player actually DID READ the Terms and Conditions, something that you seem to want to claim nobody does, and that player's country was NOT on the restricted list. That's a little bit of a difference as a country is either on the restricted list, or it's not.

My online sports books made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to me that it was one account per household. When I first started this journey, my wife, without first telling me, also signed up for an account. She was going to do it to have fun, in no way planning bonus abuse or anything like that. I was making a lot on that site, and got scared I’d not be paid! I asked her to close the account which she did before making a bet. She graciously did. But how effing ridiculous it is that she cannot make her own account because her husband has one! Also, her two adult children live with us and I had to tell them they couldn’t open an account, either!

Since this post is already too long, I’ll add an analogous story about medical informed consent.
When admitted for ‘same day surgery’ upon admission the patient was given a 10+ page, small type, consent form! The admitting nurse handed it to the patient, and showed the patient where to sign and the dozen or so places where to initial. Like I’m aware of the privacy policy, the payment policy, what your patient rights are, the teaching policy, etc…. that I’ve been given the opportunity to ask and have questions answered, etc…. If you were to actually read it, and ask reasonable questions, it’s an hour. But in reality it was just handed to the patient who was told to ‘sign here’.
If I remember correctly one of the forms had the word ‘bailment’ in it! In the insurance section. We are a pretty educated bunch here. How many know what bailment means?

Those forms LITERALLY, and figuratively, are not worth the paper they are printed on

Quote: SOOPOO

My online sports books made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to me that it was one account per household. When I first started this journey, my wife, without first telling me, also signed up for an account. She was going to do it to have fun, in no way planning bonus abuse or anything like that. I was making a lot on that site, and got scared I’d not be paid! I asked her to close the account which she did before making a bet. She graciously did. But how effing ridiculous it is that she cannot make her own account because her husband has one! Also, her two adult children live with us and I had to tell them they couldn’t open an account, either!
link to original post

It’s all selectively enforced. They aren’t banning losers.

How many sports book betters are young 20’s college kids living in multi-tenate housing?

It’s not dissimilar from verbose and subjective traffic laws. If the police want to pull you over, they can just follow you and find a reason.

Online books/casinos will create stupid rules that a ton of people unknowingly violate, and continue to allow them deposit until they decide they don’t want to pay out.

Bovada and most sites could detect multiple accounts coming from one IP and flash a message to the users of both accounts within seconds alerting them that they are potentially running afoul of the TOS. They don't have to free-roll the multiple accounts, they choose to do this.

Don't regulators have to approve the TOS? I think regulators should create a list of offenses that are easily detectable and mandate warnings at first and then suspensions until things get sorted out, but never seizure of funds for something that is preventable by the sites. The casinos should never be allowed to free roll players.

I get instant warnings when the site thinks I have left my state. These are provided because the law and regulators require them to police player location. I have also been blocked from playing because a Xserver was running on my computer. I also got blocked because my OS mangled process names when I had two versions of the same innocuous binary in my process table. The IT folks at these sites know how to block play instantly and how to alert customers to the reason.

They choose to allow profitable customers to violate TOS forever and seize funds of accounts that are doing exactly the same rules infractions.

It would be easy to wag the finger of shame at Bodog/Bovada over this. As I've said in the Pepsi thread, if somebody makes an offer, they should stand by it. However, what Internet casino doesn't reserve and invoke the right to seize player funds and close their account over alleged "bonus abuse"? (Do I put the question mark inside or outside the closing quote?).

Am I a hypocrite? Yes. I've made good money from the industry that does this. However, I have said all along that Internet gambling, especially when lightly or completely unregulated, is a cat and mouse game. Not to blame the player, but to maximize your longevity you can't be too greedy.

Quote: Wizard

It would be easy to wag the finger of shame at Bodog/Bovada over this. As I've said in the Pepsi thread, if somebody makes an offer, they should stand by it. However, what Internet casino doesn't reserve and invoke the right to seize player funds and close their account over alleged "bonus abuse"? (Do I put the question mark inside or outside the closing quote?).

Am I a hypocrite? Yes. I've made good money from the industry that does this. However, I have said all along that Internet gambling, especially when lightly or completely unregulated, is a cat and mouse game. Not to blame the player, but to maximize your longevity you can't be too greedy.
link to original post

Outside of the quotes, as you did, because the question mark applies to the entire sentence. Were the quote itself asking a question, such as, “Is Bovada at fault?”, then it would go inside because the rest of the sentences isn’t asking a question. Also, the sentence hadn’t yet concluded.

Linked elsewhere, but also pertinent to this thread.

The main draw for this article is tips for multi-accounting at online casinos to try to go longer without being caught:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/sometimes-the-online-casino-is-wronged/

Quote: Mission146

Linked elsewhere, but also pertinent to this thread.

The main draw for this article is tips for multi-accounting at online casinos to try to go longer without being caught:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/sometimes-the-online-casino-is-wronged/
link to original post

I have read many TOS agreements and never saw one saying you could not use a strategy chart. I have seen many bans on using AI or bots. These AI/bot prohibitions seem mostly directed at poker players. I have seen BJ games that give an accurate strategy chart in the Help section for the game. I doubt they can ban you from using their own Help section.

Chargebacks and withdrawals by hackers are the biggest threats an online casino risk team faces. Multi-accounting is also a problem, but it is one they have a lot of tools to detect.

Playing both sides of a game is one area where casinos shouldn't care from a pure EV standpoint. However, it is a big temptation for mutli-accounting players. By playing both sides, you reduce your total capital requirements. I never play both sides. In fact, I usually want to produce a lot of variance as this is one of the traits of the casino's most desirable players. I am in it for the long haul, and it would be silly for me to break the rules and get banned for something as meaningless as a slight reduction in variance. That said, almost every roulette player makes opposing bets routinely. Most sports bettors make partially offsetting bets like first-half and final score bets on opposite sides. I am sure new players get extra scrutiny, but I doubt they have the resources and tools to look at a fraction of my play. I make over 50,000 wagers per month at some sites.

(Duplicate post deleted by me, quote clipped to remove quote-in-quote)

Quote: Mental

I have read many TOS agreements and never saw one saying you could not use a strategy chart. I have seen many bans on using AI or bots. These AI/bot prohibitions seem mostly directed at poker players. I have seen BJ games that give an accurate strategy chart in the Help section for the game. I doubt they can ban you from using their own Help section.

Chargebacks and withdrawals by hackers are the biggest threats an online casino risk team faces. Multi-accounting is also a problem, but it is one they have a lot of tools to detect.

Playing both sides of a game is one area where casinos shouldn't care from a pure EV standpoint. However, it is a big temptation for mutli-accounting players. By playing both sides, you reduce your total capital requirements. I never play both sides. In fact, I usually want to produce a lot of variance as this is one of the traits of the casino's most desirable players. I am in it for the long haul, and it would be silly for me to break the rules and get banned for something as meaningless as a slight reduction in variance. That said, almost every roulette player makes opposing bets routinely. Most sports bettors make partially offsetting bets like first-half and final score bets on opposite sides. I am sure new players get extra scrutiny, but I doubt they have the resources and tools to look at a fraction of my play. I make over 50,000 wagers per month at some sites.
link to original post

Many online casinos have general provisions against, "Aides," or, "Using software," so while I didn't thoroughly investigate the terms of Bovada, in that regard, it's possible that there is something in there that could be argued as applicable.

Also, I do note that the player TOLD Bovada they were doing this, otherwise, I don't see how Bovada would have known. If Bovada cited that as a reason for the no-pay, then I would suspect that it was just laundry-listing to make their case appear stronger than it was. In my opinion, the highly probable multi-accounting, which they call, "Betting syndicates," was enough on its own.

If I wanted to be really conspiratorial, then I could consider the possibility that the player brought that up so that they could argue that the Bovada no pay was largely due to the player using WoO strategy guides as opposed to the multi-accounting aspect. If that's the case, and I am not suggesting that it is, then that wouldn't be a great tactic. Again, the multiple players on one device all playing the same bonus the same way is enough, in my view, for the, "Betting syndicate," argument.

I agree about the chargebacks and perhaps my article would have done well to mention hackers, but hackers are not really players, per se, and I also failed to think of that anyway.

I seriously doubt that they would have the resources to dive deeply into your play! It sounds like you have a perpetual advantage at these online casinos, by one mechanism or another, so my article wouldn't really apply to you so much. Also, the casino probably sees you as an ideal patron given the amount of action you are giving them, so they likely attribute you being in the plus column just to luck anyway.

Quote: Wizard

However, what Internet casino doesn't reserve and invoke the right to seize player funds and close their account over alleged "bonus abuse"?

It's not whether casinos have the right to fight bonus abuse, it's that they need to do it according to their own rules. As I said, but everyone ignores, the issue is that Bovada is enforcing a rule it doesn't have. What the rules SAY is "one account per household", but when they ENFORCE is "one account per IP":

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Bovada's ToS doesn't even specifically prohibit multiple accounts on the same IP anyway. It says one account per household, and a visiting friend isn't a household member. As Gambling Grumbles noted, there's no violation here.

If Bovada wants to enforce "one account per IP", then fine, PUT THAT IN THE RULES. My point is that it's not fair to enforce rules that don't exist.

Is the player really a secret AP? Maybe. Do we know for sure? No. Does Bovada know? No. It's guessing. And by guessing, there's a chance that they snared an innocent player. After all, the player's explanation was plausible.