Online bookie problems.
The difficulties of dealing with some foreign online bookmakers is amply illustrated in the following rather long but amusing e-mail thread. I now bet almost exclusively through Australian owned bookmakers, though some are registered offshore.
The original problem arose because one of our AFL clients noticed that Sportsinteraction.com, a large online bookie based in Canada, had put up grossly inaccurate prices on two AFL Football matches. Smartgambler clients immediately hit them with thousands of dollars worth of bets which soon triggered their internal stop-loss system and their computer stopped accepting bets. I soon received the following e-mail.
(Sportsinteraction e-mails in blue, mine in black.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sports Interaction
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2002 11:05 PM
Subject: Incorrect moneyline on AFL
Guy
Due to a clerical error the incorrect moneyline was
available on the Brisbane v Port Adelaide game. In line
with our stated policy on clerical errors we have voided
all bets placed at the incorrect line and all stakes
have been credited back to client's accounts. We wish
to aplogise for any inconvenience this may have caused
and if you have any questions please do hesitate to
contact us.
Regards,
Support, Sports Interaction.
-----Original
Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2002 11:38 PM
To: Sports Interaction
Subject: RE: Incorrect moneyline on AFL
Dear Sir/Madam,
Fair enough, your rules state that this may happen in
the event of a mistake. However, because of that mistake
at your end, myself and quite a number of my company's
AFL football clients have incurred wasted transaction
and currency costs.
May I respectfullly suggest that in order not to alienate
quite a number of good Australian clients who
use your service, that you compensate us either by covering
the aforementioned charges or giving us some other sort
of compensation such as a free bet?
Given that you're giving away a lot of money in 10%
account seedings to attract clients in a competitive
market, it would be very shortsighted to lose a whole
group of clients over a relatively small amount of money.
I
can get the people involved to document to your satisfaction
the transaction expenses incurred if that would help.
I trust you will see that that it is in your own interests
to maintain a good reputation, as word travels fast
on the internet and whole sites are devoted to analyses
of which online bookmakers are honest, responsible
and clean up their own messes.
Please make sure that a person in an appropriate level
of seniority within your company is notified of this
matter and inform me of your decision as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Guy West
Managing Director OZmium Pty Ltd
No response, so I sent another e-mail.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please confirm receipt of the following e-mail (below)
to which I have received no reply as yet. This is
an important matter which has cost myself and other
clients of yours (and mine) money. I would appreciate
your urgent attention and an indication that the matter
is under review.
Thanks,
Guy West.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Sports Interaction
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2002 2:37 PM
To: Guy West
Subject: Re: Follow up e-mail
Hi,
Our apologies for any inconveniences. We are working hard to insure that this dies not happen again. However we cannot be held responsible for any bets that "could have" been placed.
Please contact us if you have any other questions.
Regards,
Amanda SIA
Dear Amanda,
I appreciate your quick response to my last e-mail but it doesn't really address the issues raised.
It's not a matter of bets that 'could have' been placed, indeed I don't even know what you are referring to with that phrase.
I'll try and make my points more clearly.
1/ A number of Australian clients of yours have made large credit card deposits in order to bet on two Australian Rules Football results where the odds offered seemed good to us. These credit card deposits attract a 4% charge plus I am hearing there is also a further charge at our end for the conversion into $US from $AUD. In my case my deposit of AUD$4,600 has appeared on my account as a debit of AUD $4,777.27c, a transaction cost of $177.27c.
Because one of your odds setters made a mistake, the bets that these deposits were used for were cancelled (by you) before the event. No problem, fair enough. However, what is not fair is if you do not allow these credit card deposits to be reversed, with the costs borne not by us but by you.
As pointed out previously, it would be ridiculous for you to on the one hand to attract clients by giving 10% new account seedings and on the other hand lose those same clients permanently by failing to cover a much smaller percentage charge that was your own fault.
I understand that your job is probably to 'get rid' of client problems as efficiently as possible, but I make the point again that this is a matter that should be brought to the attention of a senior person within your company, the sort of person who made the decision to offer a 10% new account seeding in the first place.
At this stage I have rung my credit card company and challenged the transaction, which means the amount will be reversed while the matter is under investigation. Other clients have told me they are taking the same action.
Furthermore, if our concerns are not dealt with seriously at an appropriate level of authority, I will be publishing all correspondence pertaining to this matter as well as a precis of what has occurred on my company's two prominent internet sites that attract a demographic of online gamblers who will draw their own conclusions about the matter.
In your business reputation is everything and to just say, 'Sorry, we stuffed up and cost you all money, but it won't happen again', is just not good enough.
2/ You haven't explained how a deposit of AUD$4,600 in one hit came to be accepted, when your daily transaction limit is way below this figure by your own admission. I am not asking for any kind of action on this, but it would give me greater confidence in the competence of your group if it was clearly explained what went wrong.
I hope I have clarified the seriousness of my concerns and that your next response will address them in a suitably relevant manner.
Kind regards,
Guy West.
At this point I rise up a rung in the hierarchy and hear from a new person.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Accounts
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:15 AM
Subject: 4% Credit Card Fee
Hi Guy,
First off I would like to address the wager issue, your wagers were voided due to incorrect lines being posted. Now if you would have read our rules and regulations you would have come across the following statement :
" Sports Interaction cannot be held responsible for any typing or human errors in posting odds other than the odds intended. In the event that this occurs, Sports Interaction reserves the right to either void any affected bets or to correct the error and settle the affected bets at the correct odds. "
As far as I'm concerned this immediately clears up the wager issue as you agreed to these rules and regulations upon opening your account.
Secondly, the 4% fee your were charged on your credit card deposit. This 4% fee has been applied to all our clients who use their credit card to fund their accounts, this has been in effect since day 1 of our web site. Regardless of how you use the funds in your account or what you wager on the 4% fee will always apply to all credit card deposit except your initial deposit. This 4% fee has never been hiding from our clients and has always been in plain view on the credit card deposit section of the deposit page.
I agree that it is unfortunate that your wagers did not stand however I do not see any argument here? You funded your account using your credit card and were charged the 4% processing fee, you then placed wagers on incorrect lines which were then voided and your entire stake returned to your balance. You now have the option to withdrawal those funds or continue wagering, it's that simple.
If you request a withdrawal and do happen to lose funds due to the exchange rate you can simply fax me over a copy of the deposit receipt showing the exact amount you received and we will compensate your account the difference without question, we have always offered this to clients who do not use USD to wager.
Hopefully this e-mail will set the record straight between yourself and SIA, if you have any further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact us.
Regards,
Ryan. Sports Interaction
Hi
Ryan.
Thanks for your attempt at a more meaningful engagement
with the issues I raised. However, you still missed
the point a bit, though not totally, like Amanda.
There is no wager issue to address. In my e-mail I
referred to the voiding of the wagers with the words,
'fair enough'. I most certainly did read your conditions
before opening an account and whilst I don't necessarily
agree with your approach to the question of errors
(note that if punters make mistakes it's their bad
luck) I accept that those were the rules I agreed
to in opening the account.
My point is that I only made the deposit to specifically
bet on the incorrect lines you had provided. In the
event I was not even able to place the full deposit
as bets (because your stop-loss system activated and
the computer stopped accepting bets), but that was
my intention.
I cannot leave $4,600 sitting idle in my account,
as credit card charges are around 16% per annum over
here. Therefore, like many of your clients presumably,
I only deposit when I have bets I want to make. I
will now have to withdraw the money, having lost at
least $177, because of a mistake made at your end.
Your rules for voided bets should obviously encompass
the situation I have just described and the client
should not be penalised for your mistake. The transaction
should simply be reversed as in the case of an error.
I run an internet company and I know that this can
be done as we accept credit card transactions over
the internet. We have had to do it ourselves on occasion.
I know you may disagree with my argument. Fair enough.
At least your company is finally trying to engage
with the issues raised and argue your case. I will
not proceed to publish the correspondence to date
on my internet sites (at this point) because that
intention was out of anger at being summarily dismissed
by some functionary who did not appear to have the
intelligence to understand perfectly clearly articulated
points. (I may share it with my betting associates
though.)
However, since you hold one opinion and I (and several
other of your clients) hold another, it seems fair
to let an independent umpire decide. To this end we
have contested the transactions on the grounds that
the service that we made the deposit to procure was
specifically those bets that were cancelled. Since
the service was not provided the transaction should
be voided, same as the bets.
I'd be surprised if this was not upheld by the credit
card companies concerned, but if it is not I will
accept the umpires decision.
I note you have not addressed two other points I made,
so I will make them again.
1/ Isn't it counterproductive to be giving 10% new
account seedings to entice people to open new accounts,
then losing those same customers over a 4% fee which
you know was your own fault?
It just makes no commercial sense. Someone like me
is now sitting there with AUD $460 of your money in
my account as a bonus to get me on board. What are
the chances that I am going to turn over my $4,600,
take the $460 then leave, never to be seen again?
If I feel that I am talking to a brick wall then you'd
have to consider the chances pretty good, as clients
of bookmakers have to trust them and it's a very competitive
industry.
What are the chances that other clients are going
to do the same thing? I am the Managing Director of
an internet company and I cannot believe that you
can run a successful business that way in the long
term.
2/ No-one has explained to me how I was able to deposit
AUD $4,600 in one hit when it clearly states on your
site that the limit for daily credit card deposits
is way below that. I am not claiming I should not
be responsible for my own decision, I intended to
bet that amount and it was not a rush of blood to
my head, but it worries me and it should worry you
that there seems to be competency problems with your
organisation.
When there is money at stake, as in your line of business,
this is a major issue. It may even be a statutory
issue for an online bookmaker to exceed daily credit
card deposit limits.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a vexatious litigant...Australia
has mercifully not gone quite so far down that track
yet, but I do want intelligent, complete and reasonable
answers to my questions and not some, 'tell him anything
to make him go away' nonsense.
Perhaps you could apply the normal method of responding
to e-mail points and insert your replies in the body
of the text in a different colour or something. That
would avoid the tendency shown to date of partially
responding to one point and overlooking all the others.
Thank you in anticipation.
Guy West.
This matter dragged on for another 3 months before I finally lost patience and contacted the Kahnawake Gaming Commission for help.
At this stage I finally rose to a sufficient level of managerial competence within the organisation and was informed that they had made a 'mistake'.
The matter was then resolved in less than 24 hours.