Of course I disagree with the word "scam" here because that implies a net monetary loss, which didn't happen no matter how you frame it.
You are very wrong on that nutildah.
The player takes a risk in placing the bet. From the moment the bet is won the money is his. So if he gets anything less returned than his deposits + his winnings it is indeed a loss.
Not if he was never eligible to receive it in the first place. In that case the net winnings are zero. I already said it would be more ideal if the system flushed out multi-accounters before they placed their bets, but nobody does that.
Yeah but that's the issue. Because the implied contract starts when the player places the bet. Basically the casino has until the start of the game the bet is placed on to null the bet. After that it's set in stone.
Your point is relevant, but it's exactly what is wrong. Casinos decide wether the bet is ok or not based on the outcome of the bet. The input is already flawed.
I stand by my point.