Assessment criterion for bookmakers
This post describes how our rating of top bookmakers works: which criteria are taken into account, and which are not. Listed below are all the main causes of disputes between bookmakers and players and how it is recommended to solve these disputes. The above recommendations are based on our vision of being fair to players and the degree of customer-oriented approach from companies. The document is updated in the course of the appearance of cases. Revision date and changes are listed at the end of the post.
Cooperation with Bookmaker Ratings
- It is necessary that a company acknowledged Bookmaker Ratings as a mediator in the discussion of complaints.
- To comply with all the requirements listed in this post.
- Bets must be cashed out according to the official results posted on the website of the organizer of the competition.
- If this information is not available, bets can be calculated in accordance with the information provided by reputable suppliers of sports data. For example, such as Sportradar and Opta.
Returns of bets
We do not object to the return if:
- Bets were made on an accomplished event (so-called late betting, betting on the outcome that already took place);
- A bookmaker confused team name or the name of an athlete;
- Bets were made on pre-match odds after the event already began;
- If the rules of the event changed, provided that it is specified in the rules.
We do not recommend the return if:
- Late bets were made on an unaccomplished event. For example, a player bet on total over 2.5 after the first goal took place but before the odds changed. His bet should be recalculated on market odds after the goal.
- Bets were made on odds that have a mistake from a bookmaker. Such bets should be recalculated in accordance with market odds.
- All refunds must be made no later than three days after the event. We understand that in some cases this deadline may be missed by a bookmaker without his fault. Violation of the terms should not be permanent, and each case will be examined independently. For example, returns made as soon as a player ordered a withdrawal, but after three days after the event, will be considered a violation of the recommendations.
Sanctions against players
We are not opposed to reducing the maximums, but this should not be applied to accounts which have any requirements in terms of turnover. If the bookmaker limits the size of the maximum bet, all the requirements in terms of turnover should be removed, and the balance paid on the first demand without additional commission.
We are not opposed to increasing the margins, but this limitation should not be applied to accounts which have any requirements in terms of turnover. If the bookmaker imposes sanctions on the account, all the requirements in terms of turnover should be removed, and the balance paid on the first demand without additional commission.
Account blocking, confiscation of winnings, confiscation of balance
The sanctions are appropriate in these circumstances:
- Refusal from a player to pass verification procedures;
- A player’s sending of non-genuine documents;
- If a player insists that he sent the original documents, the company is obliged to give him a chance to prove it. The method that we recommend is sending notarized copies of documents to bookmaker by physical mail;
- Credit card fraud;
- Betting on the match-fixing;
- Proven multi-accounting;
- If the company has a reason to believe that a player is a multi-accounter, it is not a reason for confiscation of the balance or the winnings until the company collected irrefutable evidence, which can be:
A confess from the player;
A match in the payment method. Player replenished two or more accounts using the same payment method.
However, a match in IP-addresses or using the same technique is not a proof of multi-accounting.
Confiscation of bonuses
This type of sanctions is appropriate if:
- Bonuses were not designed for a group of players, but by mistake were made available to them;
- If the rules of the company stated that the bonus was limited to a single IP-address, computer, family and physical address; we are not opposed to the confiscation of the bonus in case of corresponding violations. However, we are against the confiscation of winnings or the total balance. It is fair to confiscate the gain in proportion to the bonus received. For example, if the player made a deposit and receive a 100 percent bonus, the bookmaker can confiscate a half only, because the other half was won on the player’s money.
- Winnings obtained using freebets but with violations of rules may also be confiscated.
Increased bet accepting time in live-betting
We are not opposed to increased bet accepting time in live-betting.
Manual bet accepting
We are not opposed to manual bet accepting, but this limitation should not be applied to accounts where there are any requirements in terms of turnover. If the bookmaker imposes sanctions, the requirements in terms of turnover should be removed, and the balance paid on the first demand without additional commission.
- Identity and address verifications should be held within a week. Artificial delays in carrying out this procedure will be regarded as a violation of the recommendations.
- If there are errors in the registration data (e.g.birthday or name) with no second similar account with the same data, it is necessary to carry out verification and correct the errors.
If at the registration a punter deliberately gave wrong information in order to circumvent the automatic detection of coincident data, the procedure doesn’t have to be carried out and the account may remain blocked.
Companies rated 4 and 5 must implement a procedure for self-exclusion prior to August 2016. Bet accepting from self-excluded player will lead to a one point rating decrease for one year.
Deposit and cash out
Compliance of the account holder to the payment method holder
- We recommend to verify the compliance between payment method and the account holder at the stage of deposit. The exceptions are anonymous payment methods – such as gift cards, vouchers, etc.
- If the verification was not carried out at the deposit, the discrepancy should not be cause for forfeiture of winnings, except for:
The same payment method was used in other accounts that came under the sanctions, which is a proof of multi-accounting;
Credit card fraud.
Cash out and deposit methods should correspond. The exceptions are methods which can’t be physically used by the bookmaker for cash out. This method must be designated as one-sided at the website.
The amount of payments
- The amount of the maximum cash out shall be specified in the rules and enforced accordingly.
If a bookmaker divides the payout, it is regarded as a violation of the recommendations. Exceptions are cases when a payment system limits the amount of a single transaction. In such cases, the player must be given the opportunity to order as many portions of payments as he likes.
- Cash outs using payment systems must be processed within one day.
- Cash outs using credit cards and bank accounts – within seven business days.
It’s not recommended to:
- Offend players;
- Laugh or make fun of them;
- Discuss or argue with players on the political, religious and any other matters not related to the subject of the request;
- Answer later than one day after treatment;
- Ignore requests from players;
- Answer with excerpts from the rules without explaining the subtleties of the player’s case;
Give false information.
History of a bookmaker
- To get four, the company should be in the market for at least two years. All complaints must be closed.
- To get five, the company must operate for five years. All complaints must be closed.
Changes in assessment
- An upgrade is only possible in the absence of public complaints.
- Any bookmaker can have its assessment improved after fulfilling the requirements set out above. Even the one that was on the blacklist.
Companies rated “five” and “four” can be downgraded, if at least one of the justified complaints was not satisfied.
- Bookmakers with a rating of “three” may be reduced after making gross violations – such as confiscation of winnings, unreasonable blocking and long delays of payments. After eliminating errors, the company could be upgraded back to “three”.
Fairness and comparison principle
If the situation is not stipulated by the rules above, we will be guided by the principles of justice. If these rules don’t cover any situation, it does not mean that we endorse or recommend anyone to do so. The list of recommendations will be updated with the course of time.
We do not say and do not intend to argue on the subject of what is good and what is bad. The rating is created for players. The less a player risks, the higher rating a bookmaker will have. Example: maybe some bookmakers consider it right to impose sanctions against surebet punters, but there are companies that pay them, which makes them better than those who do not pay out.
The requirements come into force from the date of publication or when the document is changed. Complaints that were closed before the change, will not be considered one more time.
By that we mean bookmakers actively working and attracting clientele. We can’s assess long-established companies with a small number of punter because the lack of relevant information.
- Post published August 26, 2015
- Bet return clause updated August 27, 2015
- Amendment 2 added to Notes
Thanks for your help!
We appreciate your alertness!