Bet Regal - Sports Betting Wager

Hi Canada50 - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Please ensure you have read our Complaint Guidance to ensure that you fully understand how our complaint management process functions.

As we are the ADR for the Aspire Global license under the Malta Gaming Authority license there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – http://thepogg.com/terms-of-use/ and the terms of use for our complaint service here - https://thepogg.com/terms-of-use-for-dispute-resolution-service/

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

Was the outcome of the wagers already known or had events come to pass that would have changed the odds at the time you contacted the operator's support?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi Canada50,

I'm following-up on the above?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi Canada50,

If we haven't heard from you by Friday the 8th of April I'll assume you no longer need our assistance and close this complaint.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Yes the odds would have changed as the last rock advantage was known at the start time.

Hi Canada50,

Please quote the term that the operator previously used to justify voiding wagers.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

They said because there was no score at that point in the game. Which doesn’t matter because even though there was no score things happened by that point that affected the odds.

From my perspective it’s pretty clear in their rules that these wagers should have been voided. They can’t arbitrarily decide when to follow their rules and when to not follow them.

Oh sorry I think I was mistaken. In this issue it’s because they didn’t void these bets that was my concern. When they did void my bets in an earlier situation they referred to their rules and said the game started already. So basically I have 2 situations, one where they voided my bets because the game had started (where I would have won the wager) and pointed to their rules and one situation where they didn’t void the bets (ended up losing) saying it would stand as there was no score at that point. Two same scenarios both done to the benefit of the sports book. In the first one they pointed to their rules and in the second one they mention nothing about the rules and just say that the score was 0-0 at that point. But like I said the last rock advantage was known and that significantly impacts the odds in curling. Hope that clarifies.

Hi Canada50,

Please quote the term that the operator previously used to justify voiding wagers.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I already described this. The first time they pointed to their terms and said the game started already. The second time they let the wagers stand, same scenario saying the score was still 0-0.

Hi Canada50,

We're not looking for you to describe what happened. Please quote the term the operator previously used to justify voiding wagers. The exact language of the term is pertinent to this situation.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Do you want me to send you the emails they sent me on it? If so, what email address can I send them to?

Hi Canada50,

Please forward them to [email protected].

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Sent you the email. Thank you.

Hi Canada50,

Thank you for your email. However, this relates to the current bet. We need to see what term the operator cited to void the previous bets that you have used as a comparison.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Just emailed you where they talk about the context with the first wagers.

Hi Canada50,

We're not looking for a discussion of the differences between the situation at this stage. We are looking to see the EXACT term that the operator relied on in the original case. What term did the operator cite to justify their actions?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I sent you the EXACT emails they sent me on it. That was THEIR reply. That was what THEY provided me. That was THEIR words.

Why don’t you ask them for more details if you aren’t satisfied? I can only provide you with what they provided me and I’ve done that.

This is simple. Read their rules. They didn’t follow them. If you want to know why they didn’t follow their rules ask them because they haven’t told me why hence I’m here in the first place.

Hi Canada50,

The email you have forwarded relates to this specific bet and the operator explaining why the two situations are different.

We are asking about the communications that happened when the previous issue occurred. Presumably the operator contacted you to inform you that they were voiding certain bets and pointed you to the terms that they were relying on to justify those actions. Is that not the case?

We are looking to assist you building a case for this matter. This is the information that is most pertinent as to whether that is possible.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Ok, I will ask the operator to send me about the first bets and email once I receive.

Got it and just emailed it to you. Thank you.

Hi Canada50,

Can you please confirm - are you playing with betregal.com or betregal.ca?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I live in Canada so for me the site Betregal.com redirects to bettegal.ca. So I guess to answer your question it’s bettegal.ca.

Hi Canada50,

Thanks for the clarification and I have to offer our apologies. I was not aware that Bet Regal were operating a separate .ca domain. This domain runs on a different, Curacao license, rather than the Aspire Global Maltese license for which we serve as the appointed ADR. As such we cannot act officially as an ADR in this case.

We will look to contact the operator informally, as with other complaint service in the sector, but we do not have any authority to enforce rulings in cases against the Curacao license and the operator is under no obligation to respond to us.

Sorry for the confusion.

ThePOGG

Wow, I literally followed the escalation process directly from their website and it lead to you guys. Now you’re saying you can’t do anything. So who do I escalate it to then?

Hi Canada50,

I'm afraid you have got yourself confused. There is no mention what-so-ever of ThePOGG.com on the .ca site. You have followed the escalation process that is shown on the .com site.

We are not saying we cannot do anything. We are still happy to try to contact the operator on your behalf. What we are saying is that we cannot act in an official capacity in a regulatory role as we would for the MGA licensed site.

As to further escalation, the .ca site is Curacao licensed. There is very little in the way of recourse when you are playing with a Curacao licensed operator.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

That’s not correct. On the .ca site the escalation process says to contact the Malta Gaming Authority. They have an online form that I filled out. They are the ones that redirected me to the POGG.

I guess I will leave with you for now. Let me know how you make out. Thank you.

Hi Canada50,

We've reviewed this matter with the operator and sadly we cannot uphold your claim.

At the time you were looking to place these wagers there was an error at the operator end and the market had not been opened at the correct time. You contacted live support who addressed the issue for you and confirmed for you - at your request - that even though the bets had been placed just after the starting time of the match, that they would still be considered valid. Knowing that this had occurred, you specifically raised the fact that the matches had started a few minutes ealier and when the operator confirmed that your bets would stand you then asserted you were happy with this. It is only after the loss you appear to have become unhappy that the bets were accepted after the start time of the event.

Given that both parties were clearly aware of this issue and that both parties clearly asserted their satisfaction with the situation, it is entirely reasonable to assert that an exception to the terms had been agreed.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.