Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 10:20:55 PM

Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 08:31:36 PM

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.[...]

Sure, there is a degree of possibility toward that scenario, but what's written between the lines lean more toward an exchange of communication between casinos instead of internal issue.

Why? Three things.

One, Betcoin's representative said that they will continue to work with their competitor to ensure the integrity of online gaming. I don't think they'll need to bother mentioning working with other casino if the case is not about cross-casino abuse.

Two, if the case was about multi-acc within their platform instead of cross-casino abuse, I think Betcoin will not write this,

Quote from: Betcoin.AG on May 20, 2024, 01:09:29 PM

Quick update on this case:

Within 4 days after receiving his withdrawal, this user had his friend deposit and play under a different account for him. [...]

They'll instead more likely to say, "another different account". And why would that player asked his friend if his case was a multi-acc abuse? He'll more likely try to have yet another account on his own. He already has a habit of it.

And three, the most obvious and interesting thing, that's why I'm saving it for the last, casinos don't need their odds provider to tell them that a player on their platform has an alt. Sure, there might be cases of it, and I am also sure they will welcome these notification, but they have their own detection system for that.

In fact, and this is the interesting part, how exactly do you propose the providers do their detection? Of multi acc abuse?

Casinos act as their middleman, the data that's given to them goes through the casinos first, and more likely than not, casinos retain some of those data for privacy reason. Not all the data they gathered from a player were given to the provider, only those that's needed. Casinos are the one who read and analyze device fingerprints, IP address, and the likes. If a case of multi-acc abuse happens, they should be the one detecting it first, rather than the providers.

I'd like to think that they have their own field and method. Casino detect abusers in form of multi-acc, bonus abuse, and other things related to their platform. Provider detect technical details like arbitrage betting, value betting, the use of automated service, taking advantage of glitches, and other things related to the game system. They both have their own material to detect abuse; casino from the account related details, and platform from the gameplay.

Now, this just goes more interesting, you might not realize the implication of what you said above, when you proposed it earlier, with the provider telling the casino that they have a rogue player, you're proposing that the casino have a rather poor security algorithm that they can't detect what their provider can. In this case, Betcoin, the one rated A+ by you. Can of worms.

Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 08:31:36 PM

In this thread, if all of this occurred at Duckdice then I got confused. I thought the player was an abuser at another book using the same provider.

And finally, going back into the track. I honestly started to think that within short future Cyrus will begin deleting conversation I had with you because most likely than not --with me [almost] always willing to address matters that people put into my plate-- it goes further and further from the topics that we alwas ended up OOT.

To answer your on-topic question, based from the narrative so far, unless duckdice managed to unearth information that can sway the current situation, it will be a,

"No, DuckDice is the one who flag the account and voided OP's bets, but it goes back to other casinos, the decision was asked by their provider for previous abuses on another casino."

I'll keep things within the subject of the casino in the future but this pertains to this case. Casinos work with competitors to make pre-emptive strikes. Once a bet is placed, winnings cannot be taken unless the abuse occurs within the same casino. The casino can also use knowledge obtained from others to ban the player but not his winnings. As stated before there has never been a crossover cancelling of winnings and there never should be a crossover.