[ungthjerta]

Gentlemen,

I was dismayed (but not surprised) that you have, as we Americans say, "86'd" me from your betting site -- not surprised because you have a notorious reputation for ridiculous betting limits even on Premiere League matches and for banning punters at the drop of a hat. But I am, to say the least, a little puzzled by the reason given for your decision. Your customer service representative said that you closed my account because my "betting patterns" indicated I was "arbing". That is a conclusion that, quite frankly, I don't pretend to understand. My average bet was somewhere around £5. At that rate, assuming I was arbing (which I was not), given the usual expectation of arbitrage betting, if you had only given me about six months and let me make about 1000 or so bets, I might have made enough money to invite one or maybe two friends to the pub for a couple of pints (though I would have to have been careful not to make bets of more than 50p with more than one person on the darts games, lest a Stan James employee be there to accuse me of arbing). Additionally, the majority of my bets, aside from being mainly on first-league Scandinavian football and major tennis matches, were in-play over/under, where it is possible only to punt and, if trying to "arb", it's a punt nonetheless -- either that the odds not change or an event in the match or fight not render ones bet worthless.

Of course you don't owe me and certainly are not legally obligated to provide an explanation of the thinking behind your decision, but I would point out that, on its face, your stated rationale defies all reason, logic and common sense for the reasons stated above.

You are like a casino that has a blackjack side bet of over/under 12 for the dealer's or player's two cards and first limits, then gives the boot to any player who has the audacity to bet on the over, accusing him of "card counting" even if his bet amounts never vary, never once considering (or likely deliberately ignoring) that over/under 12 is not the proper "line" to set, but rather that over/under 13 would give the house a positive expectation on both sides of the bet. A casino whose management was short-sighted and/or unscrupulous enough to abuse and embarass its customers in such a way and obdurate enough to continue doing so for very long, would gain a bad reputation and see its clientele (and hence its bottom-line) slowly dwindle, even amongst the mugs who would bet on the under. I predict that same thing occuring with Stan James -- that even those who consistently bet on the "mug side" of the odds you offer (who presumably don't get ridiculously limited/banned) can read sports forums like the punters' lounge, sbrforum, &etc and will, with time, if you keep acting as you do, take their business elsewhere.

But I also understand, that even if were you to sincerely wish to become more "Pinnacle-like" an ingrained corporate culture is a difficult thing to change.

Sincerely,