Nu har StanJames överträffat sig själv, igen...

[oscar4122]

Med mig var dom iaf ärliga.

[ungthjerta]

Ursprungligen postat av Wagner

Men det förstår jag.

Det är ju samma sak som att erkänna sin egna inkompetens och det brukar ta emot oavsett yrkeskår. Visste väl att det var uppe alldeles nyligen. https://www.sharps.se/forums/125773-post14.html

I think it's possible they might not be so incompetent but rather have a strategy:

1. Set odds on most events, such that there is one or more "mug sides" (i. e., odds a mug would take) and a "sharp side".

2. Severely limit bets out of the gate on the "sharp side" of any event to limit losses.

3. Carefully monitor the "betting patterns" of players and if anyone consistently bets on the "sharp side", accuse him of arbing and close his account.

4. Let the mugs bet so much as they wish.

Ursäkta att jag skriver på Engelska. Min svenska skrivande är urdålig och det ovanför skulle ta mig en vecka att skriva.

[ungthjerta]

[Alison] Hello, Welcome to Stan James Live Support, how may I help you?
[Visitor] Hi Alison, I got an email saying my account was closed but I think there must have been some kind of mistake.
[Alison] One moment while I check.
[Visitor] I play a little lowroller blackjackand over under odd even in play and an occasion punt on scandinavian football.
[Visitor] I have give Bill Hill £1000s, you've ****canned a potentially lucrative customer.
[Visitor] given
[Alison] I understand your disappointment but a trading decision was made and your was [sic] account closed. Any open bets will be honoured, and any outstanding balance will be returned to you via your normal withdrawal method.
[Visitor] I'd like to know what specifically about my "betting patterns" influenced the decision (so that I can avoid it with other books).
[Visitor] I've bet a total of about £30 with you.
[Visitor] You're hardly risking going out of business.
[Alison] On reviewing your account it was felt by our Trading Manager that you were exhibiting a betting pattern that is known in the trade as 'Arbing'. This is betting at fixed odds and then laying or trading the bet off at shorter odds on betting exchanges to guarantee a profit, this is not something Stan James wishes to encourage and lead

[Chatten slutades]


[Andrew] Hello welcome to Stan James live support, how may I help you ?
[Visitor] I just logged in to take the money out of my account and I looked at my statement and I can't understand for the life of me how your traders came up with that I was arbing.
[Visitor] My max bet was £10.
[Visitor] Which, if I had covered the other side of the bet somewhere else would have gained me about 20p at the most.
[Visitor] Mostly I bet over/under in play.
[Andrew] One moment please.
[ungthjerta] Not possible to "arb" there, because if I played against another in-play, the lines would change or a goal could go in.
[Visitor] Am I not allowed to play blackjack either?
[Visitor] It's like accusing me of murdering someone with a wet noodle.
[Andrew] This purely a tradingdecision based on their opinion to close your Account. This decision will not be reversed.
[Visitor] But they are wrong, I was not arbing.
[Andrew] Your Account will remain closed.
[Visitor] Are they that paranoid/unreasonable?
[Andrew] Sorry for any dissapointment this may cause, but there is not really anything else I can do to help you.
[Visitor] I'd like to talk to a trader to determine his "thinking" on this.
[Andrew] Unfortunately the traders do not discuss their opinions and are not available on chat.
[Visitor] It's an over-the-top unreasonable decision and such decisions -- well put it this way, I wouldn't buy stock in stan james.

[Chatten slutades]

[kingofding]

Ja Stanjames är för sköna. Jag öppnade också konto där en gång och satte in lite pengar, fick inte ens lägga ett enda spel över typ 50 kr på stora europeiska ligr så då cashade jag ut igen. Då kör dom den störtsköna och drar % på uttaget eftersom jag inte omsatt min insättning. Borde vara förbjudet för en sådan sida att ens kalla sig bookmaker utan dom borde gå under benämningen nöjes spelsida då det är rätt uppenbart att dom inte sysslar med sportspel.

[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,

[ungthjerta]

Förresten jag har aldrig tagit en enda bonus eller andra erbjudande ifrån dem och flera av mina insatser var, att titta tillbaka, "mug bets". Jag förstår inte hur de kan vara so paranoid. Deras mentalität påminner mig mycket om en drabbning jag haft med en Engelsk pit boss som arbetade hos Cosmopol som jag aldrig kommer att glömma. När de byt på dealerinna, pratade han och en annan spelare om hur korträkning var omöjligt efter shuffle-maskiner. Han höll att sånt var fusk. Jag kunde inte hålla tillbaka från att säga emot och frågade honom retoriskt om de i England ringer till polisen och de åklager man enligt common law mot bedrägeri om de kan bevisa att en kund räknar kort och sa att det inte ens är samma sak som till exempel använda spegel för att se dealerens hålkort. Han blev tydligt upprörd om detta samtal och jag plötsligt inte ville gå vidare med det eftersom jag ville fortsatta spela poker och inte få förbjud (eller värre: taken to the back room to meet "Vinny").

[ungthjerta]

I believe that if a team of gambling consultants, accountants, marketeers, systems analysts and statistisicians proved unequivocally to them that they could increase their profits by 50% if they implemented a neural-net-based odds-updating system without having to ban or limit anyone, they would not only fire them on the spot and ask them to leave the premises, but also ban them from their online sportsbook as well as their land-based betting shops. Their management seems to really believe their own bullshit. The main thing that drives them, I believe, is not merely ensuring their profitability (otherwise, their hand wouldn't be so heavy), but rather a warped, then inverted moral sensibility according to which, value-betting is the ultimate sin (or right up there with arbitrage-betting, anyway) but there's nothing wrong with taking money from some gambling-addicted mug living in a bedsit in Slough who hopes that Citeh will win next weekend's football match against United so he'll have enough money to feed his kids. One would routinely encounter this attitude in Vegas up until about the late '70s but I thought everyone had moved beyond that by now.