BetRebels - illegal account suspension

Hi Specchio - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Unfortunately there's not going to be anything we can do to help you in this instance.

The Bet Rebels terms and conditions contain the following:

"3.9 The client must not place bets on behalf of third parties. Any bet placed with the intention of defrauding BetRebels and/or placed or received (with no written consent) from/by any bookmaker, betting syndicate and/or party, association, family group and/or under the advice of any other person or association can be voided at any time, including after the result of the event. "

Given the following statement from yourself:

"We have definitely discussed about bets and shared our knowledge multiple times persuading each other about specific bets"

it can be stated with absolute certainty that you have both been placing bets "under the advice of [another] person". This is a clear breach of terms and as such the operator are within their rights to void play and return deposits.

While you may have engaged in this behaviour innocently, by working together in this manner you've engaged in activity that will bear the hallmarks of multiple accounts being operated by a single person, i.e. fraud. I would strongly advise you against doing this again as it will almost certainly create further issues for yourself wherever you play.

Sorry we cannot be of further help,

ThePOGG

Hello,

First of all thank you for your quick reply and for spending time on my matter.

Given that you used my phrase: "We have definitely discussed about bets and shared our knowledge multiple times persuading each other about specific bets", I have three points worth mentioning:

a. I don't understand how discussing about bets means that I placed bets "under the advice of any other person or association". So if I discussed with my friend about the injuries the derby between Arsenal and Chelsea has and how this affects the game it means that I breached their terms? It's one thing to discuss about facts and another to directly say to somebody "Bet in favour of Arsenal they will win." The former we do, the latter we don't.

b. Furthermore, I don't understand how this rule is applicable. If I was at a bar and heard somebody saying that Arsenal will win tomorrow and then placed a bet in favour of Arsenal I breach the rules? Then why are there so many sites with tipsters, advices, etc in the internet? If I read one of them I'm breaking the rules? Is that what this rule is about in your opinion???

c. Finally, even if a. and b. aren't enough for you, HOW can THEY know that I discussed about Arsenal with anybody? Don't they have to be able to PROVE that I breached the rules?

I really want to hear your opinion on the above as - to speak frankly - I am disappointed it's even hinted that browsing on the internet and getting information about the bets I want to place is prohibited and that an online gambling portal like you is ok with that and can't do anything about it!

Thank you in advance,

Specchio

Hi Specchio, a) "persuading each other about specific bets" - to persuade someone you have to make an argument or give advice. Having been persuaded means that you've done something you would not have done otherwise having had your mind changed. b) There's a difference between one person reading advice online or hearing something in a bar and two people actively planning what bets they will each place together. If this was a single instance you'd be right. But it's not. c) You've openly stated what you were doing in your complaint. For us that's where the conversation ends. We're not here to fight for cases where there's clearly been a breach of terms from the outset. That wastes everybody's time. However to extend on this your profile is clearly going to show a non-coincidental relationship between yourself and at least one other account and as such the operator more than likely views your case as multi-accounting. So we now have a situation where you have breached terms and have a behaviour profile that matches with fraud accounts. You may have done nothing more than what you've stated, but you have broken terms and do have a behaviour profile that's going to be viewed as suspect. ThePOGG

Hello,

I believe that you have decided a bit prematurely that my behaviour profile is fraudalent and that I have breached any terms, especially given that you have seen no proof from what betrebels claims it has gathered. For example, if you acquired the betting history of the two accounts you would notice that common bets would be scarce to a totally reasonable percentage. English isn't my mother language and relying solely on my unfortunate use of the word "persuading" to throw out my complaint feels a bit harsh.

Anyway, I understand that your time is limited and that you want to pick carefully the cases you spend more time on so I don't want you to spend any more time on my case given that I didn't persuade you at all. I know the complete history of what happened and what exactly I have done and I am confident I haven't breached any of the betrebels terms so I will try to find justice on my own.

Thank you for your time, I wish you good luck with the other open complaints you are covering during this period.

Hi Specchio,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

With regard to your standards of English - they are far higher than 99% of the complaints we see coming across our table from English native language speakers. Your grasp of the language is exceptionally high and you shouldn't do yourself short.

Regardless, I don't need to know whether fraud was going on here. Yes, a large proportion of the complaints that turn up with similar stories to you turn out to be fraud. But the simple facts here are that you and your friend have been actively advising each other on how to bet. That's a breach of terms. Whether or not there's anything further to this issue is of no relevance to this conversation. If you feel my interpretation of your submission is unreasonable I'd encourage you to take your complaint to the MGA for a second opinion.

ThePOGG

Hi,

We agree that we disagree, I do believe that there is fraud but only from betrebels side. If you have taken the time to check all the other complaints about them or, even better, the data of this specific dispute I'm sure you would have a different opinion too!

Anyway, thank you for your good words on my english and your time.

Hi Specchio,

Other players complaints aren't relevant to your submission. And as I stated, I haven't accused you of fraud. You've broken terms, whether or not you've also engaged in fraud is an irrelevant question at this juncture.

ThePOGG

Hello again,

Given that you definitely have more experience than me in such kind of disputes, could you please help me understand a few things:

1. If you decided to pursue my complaint or if I addressed it to the respective authority what kind of proof would the firm (in this case BetRebels) need to have in a multiple accounts case?

2. Apart from straight clear cases (e.g. always same IP, same bets, etc) I assume that the ruling will be subjective most of the times as - at least imo - it's extremely difficult to really prove that somebody was getting advice from somebody else. Is my assumption true? If yes, does it happen often the authority who checks the case (or you) to disagree with the firm?

3. Is there a checking mechanism or somebody who prevents the firm to "plant" evidence against the player? E.g. Player X is winning lots in my firm and I wanna avoid paying him, let's plant arbitrage/fraud/advice bets in his history and confiscate everything (that's a general question but I always wanted to ask somebody who knows more)

Thank you in advance,

Specchio

Hi Specchio,

While I appreciate the reason for your enquiries, we don't give out information regarding the methods used to detect fraud. This would simply result in those engaged in fraud learning more about how to avoid detection.

But given this case revolves around you having specifically admitted to giving and taking advice on what to bet on with another account holder, it doesn't relate to fraud. You've already clearly admitted that you engaged in prohibited activities.

With regard to the regulatory authority, we've worked closely with the MGA on a number of occasion and it would be unusual for our opinion to differ from their's, but I cannot pre-empt what decision they would reach.

ThePOGG