Your post above easily contradict your own previous post. If books only pay and use those things from their provider, how do the provider notify them about multi-acc like you previously suggested?

They can profile bettors based on their bets, this goes in line with what I previously said, that casino and provider works in tandem to detect abuses: casino from player's personal data and fingerprints, and provider from player's gameplay. This does not answer my query to you on the same post about how do you propose the provider to notify casinos [on above case, betcoin] that the player were utilizing multi accounts? That [judging from how the email written and what implied by your statement] they didn't know about it and need their provider to tell them, indicating their security system is so poor. This is a top-tier casino we're talking about, one that's been here for a while and marked as A+ [certainly means very secure and trustworthy] by your own standard.
 
Let's make things easier, as always, let me try to see from your eyes, so let's turn the table.

Instead of me keep providing instances that you seemingly find hard to accept --since you still insist on your arguments despite betcoin's statement that they communicate with their competitors-- why don't you provide us the proof that said only limitation carries on? That one abusive behavior of a player on one casino will be treated as a clean slate by the provider when they move to other casino. And that when a player do a syndicate betting, arbing, or whatever other practices that the providers frowned upon that it made them ask the casino to disable the account, all they need to do is move to other casino and everything is forgiven.

I'd like to think that, given your confidence in this matter, it must have been written or explained somewhere that you're privileged to stumble upon and I did not, thus, I might be wrong.