that’s never happened either. Winnings have never been voided because of something that happened at another book. This would be a first as far as I know. Each book/casino is a separate entity using a similar service.
Imagine 100 different books using the same service provider and each book could void winnings because of something that happened at one of the other 99.
It can be tough on players to figure out books with the same odds provider. The settings are customizable.
I have to say I am very surprised you made this statement, because... yes, it's a known instance. The part that made me surprised and rather dumbfounded, though, is because not only I've mentioned it before,
on this post,
you were actually there too.
You were overseeing the case... at least that's the assumption I made because you
posted there, and I find it rather hard to believe that you made posts without reading the thread or knowing what happens with the case, the details of it. Yet here you made a comment like you're oblivious about the nature of that case.
It made me have to consider that... you're not exactly following the thread?
I believe if I want to spend some time further down the pages of accusation board, I can fish several other cases, but I can't find the purpose of it, nor that it bring any added benefit.
In your example, the player made an account at Betcoin. The player opened up a second account and the odds provider notified Betcoin that he opened a second account. He was penalized for multi-accounting.
The player can go play at other books using the same provider and not be penalized or have winnings taken away. It’s a new slate.
The one thing that may carry over is betting limits. If a player was limited to $100 at Betcoin, there’s a chance his limit with start off at $100 at the next book.