A PUNTER in the UK is claiming Bet365 owe her ?54,000 in winnings that have yet to be paid out, and is threatening legal action against the English sports betting giants.

The unidentified punter believes the courts are her only avenue to get her funds after a fruitless two month battle against one of the world¡¯s largest online betting agencies.

The gambler ¨C who has chosen not reveal her name publicly ¨C opened an account on April 16 and deposited ?30,000 the next day, losing a total of ?23,000 after a series of disastrous bets.

She received an email from Bet365 the same day, which stated that the size of the maximum bet she was allowed to place had been increased.

The punter waited until the next day to bet again, and proceeded to turn the remaining ?7,000 into a huge ?54,000 after a turn in luck.

The customer was then sent another email detailing that the company would be restricting her stakes to just ?1 based on a ¡®trading decision¡¯.

Disappointed she was no longer able to place bets at the level she wanted, the punter then decided to withdraw the entirety of her winnings to her debit card.

More than two months later no funds have reached her account, despite there being no issue with the validity of her bets or the validation of her account.

The punter has since entered a correspondence battle, issuing bank statements to prove the funds were acquired by her from a legitimate source to which she complied; yet the funds are still to reach her account.

Unfortunately for punters this is not an isolated case.

Online gambling campaigner Paul Fairhead has spearheaded a twitter movement to rally punters into solidary against bookmakers who are withholding legitimately-won funds from punters.

Mr Fairhead believes online betting companies are not acting in the best interests of their customers.

¡°I see at least one new case like this every week,¡± Fairhead said.

¡°Nobody should have difficulties like this. They are holding on to the money in the hope that the problem goes away.

¡°This would not happen in any other industry ¨C that a customer can choose to trade with somebody and at the point when you do that, there¡¯s a risk you¡¯ll never see it again whether you win or lose.

¡°I¡¯ve heard stories of punters being asked to take selfies holding up documents, and then being told that the documents still aren¡¯t enough and that they need to be signed by a bank manager or a notary as well.¡±

Bet365 has yet to comment on the situation.

This is not the first time ¡®the world¡¯s favourite online sports betting company¡¯ has been impacted by negative press this year.

The Australian Federal Court found Bet365 guilty in early June of actively deceiving new customers and subsequently fined the online bookmaker $2.7 million dollars.

The online bookmaker was found to have created a ¡®web of deception¡¯ after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission successfully argued they offered a ¡®false free bet¡¯ which enticed new users.

Punters were not fully informed of the turnover needed to withdraw their winnings from their account.
Rod Sims, chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said back in June he was ¡°comfortable¡± the $2.75 million penalty was sufficient because the court could only take Australian data into consideration.

¡°I think it¡¯s an appropriate penalty. It will send the message,¡± Mr Sims said.

whats  your experiance guys.

can the big bookies confiscate your money any reason

what the answer for this.

can we  fight with these company..

STANDING in a bookmaker¡¯s, Cliff Bryant thought that a heavy snowfall had changed his life forever.

Told by the cashier that his two accumulator bets had come in, Cliff was set to scoop ?7.1m.

But his hopes were dashed when officials at Ladbrokes¡¯ head office told him that he was owed just a measly ?31.78 ¨C because according to the company rulebook this specific type of bet should never have been accepted.

Now Cliff, from Shirley, Southampton, intends to seek legal advice.

It comes after he placed two ?5 accumulative bets on postcodes where it would snow on Christmas Day.

Although he says that he was advised to do so by the cashier, Ladbrokes argues that it was a mistake and that he should never have been allowed to place the bet as an accumulator.

A money-spinning accumulator bet is a series of wagers where the winnings from the first bet roll over to the next and can only be won when all separate bets named are successful.

But Ladbrokes says that according to its rules the bets should only have been accepted as a single bet and therefore Cliff was entitled to just over ?30 as winnings.

The bookmaker does not dispute that Cliff was correct in each of his bets, and another bookmaker, Paddy Power, confirmed that he would have won ?4,922,800.31 on the first bet and ?2,233,492.73 on the other.

The graphic designer, 52, said: ¡°Gutted is not the word.

¡°This is a genuine mistake and if I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made.

¡°Millions of pounds will have been spent on this bet at Christmas. How many of those people will have been allowed to place accumulators?

¡°They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future.¡±

Cliff has now called on Ladbrokes to make its rules clearer as they were not made obvious to him either in the shop or online.

The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) is now investigating the bet.

Danny Cracknell, adjudication manager at IBAS, quoted a section from the Ladbrokes rulebook which said: ¡°Single bets only are accepted, accumulative bets accepted in error will be settled as singles with the stake equally divided.¡±

Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said: ¡°We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature.

¡°We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles.¡±

Last night an independent solicitor said that Cliff ¡¯s chances of seeing his winnings were slim.

Rick Munro, commercial dispute resolution partner at Lamport Bassitt, said: ¡°Generally speaking gaming bets are largely unenforceable. You rely on the goodwill of the people you are placing the bet with.

¡°There are some exceptions to this but the general rule is he wouldn¡¯t have a leg to stand on.

¡°It¡¯s about one of the only contracts in public policy where the contracts are unenforceable.¡±

It¡¯s about one of the only contracts in public policy where the contracts are unenforceable.¡±

What is an accumulator bet?

An accumulator is a single bet linked to a number of other wagers. For a person to win, each single bet must all be correct.

As such the winnings from a small stake are likely to be high, although there is less chance of guessing all bets correct.

In this case, Cliff placed two bets. The first on 13 different postcodes having snow at some point of Christmas Day. The other was similar but with only 11 different post codes. All of those bets came in and in theory Cliff won the accumulator and he thought ?7.1m.

The bets Cliff placed

Accumulator 1

1. Newcastle upon Tyne
2. Durham
3. Darlington
4. Bradford
5. Harrogate
6. Leeds
7. Wakefield
8. Huddersfield
9. Halifax
10. Cleveland
11. York
12. Derby
13. Stockport

Accummulator 2

1. Carlisle
2. Lancaster
3. Preston
4. Bolton
5. Oldham
6. Wigan
7. Manchester
8. Stockport
9. Warrington
10. Crewe
11. Telford

Independent bookmaker bet365 has reduced its Australian market losses to AUS 10.9 million (?6.3 million) for the 12-month period ending 27 March.

The figure represents a marked improvement on its fiscal 2015 market losses of AUS $31 million.

Since beginning its operations in Australia under a Darwin license in 2012, the Stoke-based bookmaker has accumulated losses of AUS $133 million (?77 million).

Reporting its results to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, bet365 management stated that the firm was ¡°gaining momentum in the market¡±. In its Australian financial update the bookmaker declared that it had generated AUS $96 million (?55 million).

In 2015, bet365 governance stated its commitment to growing its services in the competitive Australian online betting market, launching a AUS $17.3 million multi-channel advertising campaign.

At present, bet365 is believed to hold a 17% share of Australia¡¯s online betting market, according to the Australian Financial Review.

BET365 AUSTRALIA LOSES $41M IN PAST YEAR; BET365 SITES ADDED TO BULGARIA BLACKLIST

The Australian division of Stoke-based privately held online bookmaker Bet365 lost A$40.8m (US $38.2m) in its most recent fiscal year. Regulatory filings indicate that Bet365¡¯s Darwin-based subsidiary has now cost its parent company $77m over the past two years.

Fortunately, that parent company is stinking rich, earning profits of ?321m in its most recent annual report. The filing with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission says the parent has covered its subsidiary¡¯s red ink via a loan that needn¡¯t be repaid ¡°until such time as there are sufficient cash flows generated.¡±

That day may not be too far off, as Bet365 Australia reported revenue of $29.1m in the 12 months ending March 31, a 278% gain year-on-year. The company also enjoyed an 83% rise in active customer accounts. Those 73k users wagered around $1.5b in the most recent fiscal year, accounting for about 11% of the Aussie online betting market. Around 30% of that handle was wagered via mobile devices.

Expenses also increased, including $12m on technology upgrades and affiliate commissions. Staffing costs rose 63% to $19.9m as the company¡¯s payroll grew 15% to 210 employees. The company also reported ¡°significant marketing expenditure¡± to establish the Bet365 brand in a fiercely competitive betting market. Bet365 originally promoted its entry into the Aussie market via a series of adverts featuring actor Samuel L. Jackson as pitchman.

A little closer to home, several Bet365-associated sites have been added to the Bulgaria State Commission on Gambling¡¯s online blacklist. While Bet365 has officially applied for a Bulgarian license, the blacklist has been updated to include four Bet365 mirror sites: game-365.com, 878365.com, 365-808.com and 365-588.com. Other sites making Bulgaria¡¯s naughty list include betklass.com, bookie-bob.com, mcbookie.com, videoslots.com, vinbet.com and Tabcorp¡¯s Luxbet.com. To date, Betfair, PokerStarsand Gala Coral¡¯s Eurobet are among the few big companies to have been officially approved to operate in Bulgaria.

The TAB has admitted for the first time they are banning what they believe to be professional punters from betting fixed odds with them.

But they are adamant that won't affect normal punters, even those who regularly win betting on fixed odds.

The Herald has learned TAB bookies were recently told to cull fixed odds punters who they suspected were using their service for professional or semi-professional arbitrage.

While few New Zealand punters understand that concept or have even heard of it, it is simply punters taking odds with the New Zealand TAB and then off-laying them at a lesser dividend on a betting exchange, like Betfair.

For example, the New Zealand TAB may have the Reds at $4 playing the Crusaders because of parochial local money but there may be punters on exchanges overseas willing to back them at $3.75.

Professional punters will take the $4 with the TAB for the Reds, then let another punter back the Reds at $3.75 and can't lose because even if the Reds do the second person covers their bet, and if the Reds win they pocket the difference in profit.

Arbitrage is common in bigger and more sophisticated betting markets than New Zealand and many professional punters have computer programmes, called robots, loaded to seek out just such anomalies.

These are the punters the TAB is looking to stop betting fixed odds with them, says the face of bookmaking Mark Stafford.

"Yes, we have been told to explain to some of these people that we will no longer take fixed odds bets from them but we are talking about a very small number," said Stafford.

The Herald understands through other sources there could be fewer than 20 punters affected.

Bookmakers are "refusing to take bets" from successful gamblers.

Some clients have told the BBC they've had their betting accounts closed or their bets "restricted" following wins.

Bookmakers say they limit bets from a minority of customers to ensure good odds are available to everyone.

Neil Smith, a teacher from Yorkshire, says he's had around 450 online accounts closed. One bookmaker restricted the amount he could bet, and only allowed a 10 pence bet on a 4/1 horse. He said: "They will just say: 'Sorry our traders have deemed your betting pattern to be unprofitable and we're a business'.

"They shouldn't be advertising a product that's not available to everybody. The flipside of this is they are trying to squeeze money out of people who they are know are profitable. If you're good, you can't win long-term, it's as simple as that."

Campaigners are calling for the gambling authorities in the UK to force bookmakers to accept all bets up to a limit - a move which has recently been imposed on bookmakers in Australia - and make it clear to all players that restrictions may be imposed.

Peter Ling runs the Secret Betting Club, an independent gambling advice service. He says the bookmakers are using ever more sophisticated IT to identify likely winners, and is campaigning for a more equal playing field.

"Five years ago it used to be a badge of honour for serious punters to be restricted, and you would have to win some substantial sums to get a letter or email like that," he said. "But these days it's all too common.

"And it's not just people like me or my members, but your regular Joe Punters who are having the occasional bet, and are having some success, are finding themselves restricted."

He surveyed his 850 members to find out who had accounts closed or "restricted" to a small percentage of the stake they wanted to wager. Three quarters of respondents reported that one company sought to regularly restrict bets to a few pounds. Half said another firm had closed their accounts.

Cooling attitude

5 Live Investigates spoke to gamblers who suspect sophisticated software programs which are used to combat fraud are also being used to track people's betting patterns online or check whether they are using comparison sites.

Two told the BBC they had accounts closed with one bookmaker before they'd even put a bet on. The Association of British Bookmakers said they were unable to comment on the allegation.

5 Live Investigates has been told some High Street shops are also on the alert to identify the smartest gamblers and restrict the bets they can put on.

Neil Smith says he has been banned. One shop told him it was because they'd had a handwriting expert compare his betting slips with previous winning bets.

One shop manager who wished to remain anonymous said the company encouraged staff to screen-out successful gamblers: "They grade. If they are a serious backer of horses and clearly know what they are doing with the odds then we don't want them at all - the orders are 'get rid of him or let him have a have a few quid on the starting price only'."

Customers have told 5 Live they believe the cooling attitude to those punters who follow the odds and apply mathematics to their wagers, is directly connected to the success of fixed-odds betting terminals and other casino-style games of chance online.

But the industry insists they are just trying to be fair to the ordinary punter by restricting a small number of what they call "professional" gamblers.

The BBC asked firms about the practice of restricting bets but most declined to comment.

However, Paddy Power said it managed financial risk like all businesses and had a number of checks and restrictions in place to prevent certain bets being made.

"We take a 'one-for-all' rather than an 'all-for-one' view, so for instance if we're prepared to lose €2m (?1.5m) on an event, we would much prefer to lose €2,000 to 1,000 different customers rather than €2m to one individual," a spokesman said.

William Hill insisted the vast majority of their customers could bet what they like when they liked, but to provide competitive prices to its recreational customer base it sometimes restricted bets from a small minority of customers, mainly professional gamblers.

Other bookmakers declined to comment on their policies.