Betfred

**joert** · 18 October 2012, 5:11 pm

Something happened to me this week, and id love an opinion.

Opened an account with them via credit card, bet some, won some ,lost some. End of the weekend I always clear out my accounts and withdraw, I was down a total of 5 pound after some decent sized bets.

i went to put more money in tonight, but see the withdrawal was cancelled a couple of days ago!. Then I go on live help, and they say it's because they need my id for a withdrawal, to make sure im not underage. Well, its an understatement to say I wasnt happy about this; how can they say they need ID to make a withdrawal, after a credit card was ok to allow a potential child to gamble? I saved the transcript, and im thinking of starting a website im that pissed off.

Is it just me or is this completely ridiculous and contradictory? Basically they want money to stay in an account as long as possible so it increases the chances of the punter losing it. There's no other reason for this SH*TE. You can bet had I withdrew a small amount (and lost loads) they wouldn't have been requesting id. Shower of complete w*nkers

**slotplayer** · 18 October 2012, 10:14 pm

all the online casinos require verification documents as far as I know. Nothing unusal about it.

**Anthony-Coral** · 19 October 2012, 2:19 am

Standard Practice for age verification

**baldidiot** · 19 October 2012, 3:38 am

Not only is it standard practice, but it's also part of the KYC obligation in many circumstances for UK licensed sites. So they have to do it (or verify some other way, eg: electoral roll or an identity verification credit check).

**TheGooner** · 19 October 2012, 3:59 am

Standard KYC (know your customer) procedures as legislated.

**thebookiesoffers** · 19 October 2012, 4:14 am

Originally Posted by baldidiot

electoral roll

wondered how they'd all know my age as never been asked, apart from when I used Betclic but they were asking for passports etc so they weren't victims of money laundering

**FictionNet** · 19 October 2012, 4:39 am

I know it's supposed to be widespread practice to be asked for verification docs before processing a withdrawal but in my experience playing at online casinos/sportsbooks over 10+ years, I think I've been asked for docs maybe two or three times. However, with most of the last few places I've joined, I've asked up front if anything will be required and usually the reply is "nothing required" and when I come to withdraw, they're good to their word. If I believe I'll need to send docs when it comes to withdrawing, I'll send them before I even deposit and have the merchant confirm they're not going to ask for anything extra when I cashout.

**justbookies** · 20 October 2012, 10:44 am

Not only is it part of the licensing agreement and the sensible way to proceed internally for these firms, having been down this route in the past, I know the banks who issue the merchant services accounts to operators (to enable them to accept credit cards) also insist that the KYC procedure is stringent.

**mojo** · 20 October 2012, 11:18 am

It is standard practice to require documention upon withdrawal but I don't think that's the issue.

Originally Posted by joert

how can they say they need ID to make a withdrawal, after a credit card was ok to allow a potential child to gamble?

It's flawed because deposits do not require verification. Documents should be required before deposits to truly protect and prevent underage use. While it may be undesireable to do that, it would solve a lot of fraud and withdrawal snafus as well. Seems that if they lose, the casino does not appear to be concerned if they were underage or not. Not Betfred in particular but all of them.

**justbookies** · 20 October 2012, 12:13 pm

That is all true but they don't want to put obstacles in the way of customers. So they allow you to deposit and check you on withdrawal. It is that fine line between security and annoying their new players. Imagine being asked for all the documents on your first deposit - so many people would say, 'sod this' and the business would be badly affected. So they do it when they owe you money and there is an incentive for you to comply. While they comply with under age gambling via all the background checks you don't see upon that first deposit (checking electoral role and a whole host of other publically available data in less than a second - they don't just rely on you being honest about your date of birth!), production of the documents is all about preventing charge backs, not about verifying your age.

**mojo** · 20 October 2012, 12:32 pm

Originally Posted by justbookies

That is all true but they don't want to put obstacles in the way of customers. So they allow you to deposit and check you on withdrawal. It is that fine line between security and annoying their new players. Imagine being asked for all the documents on your first deposit - so many people would say, 'sod this' and the business would be badly affected. So they do it when they owe you money and there is an incentive for you to comply. While they comply with under age gambling via all the background checks you don't see upon that first deposit (checking electoral role and a whole host of other publically available data in less than a second - they don't just rely on you being honest about your date of birth!), production of the documents is all about preventing charge backs, not about verifying your age.

Agreed and I appreciate and know that. Also the trust issue and why it is undesireable to ask for documents first. Especially in the early days of online gambling. However, playing online isn't new anymore and were they to implement pre-verification I think most players would be ok with that if they trust the casino. As a player I would be fine with that and get used to it pretty quickly.

These days, I know some players won't deposit before their documents are approved and that do that on their own volition so there are no surprises on cash outs.

The only sites that would need to worry about that are the shady ones who like to stall and use verification 'issues' to withhold winnings.

**TheGooner** · 20 October 2012, 4:51 pm

I think that the rationale for doing KYC on withdrawals is pretty easy to understand.

Firstly, gambling is an impulsive activity - and putting a delay with ID verification in front of a customer BEFORE they play will reduce depositing customers and overall action at a casino / sportsbook. IT can take a couple of days for some verification. This is specifically true for players wanting to bet on a football game NOW.

Secondly, there are significantly more first deposits than first withdrawals (lets face it most players lose) - and while deposits tend to flood in during big events the withdrawals tend to be more staggered - so it's easier for the programs workflow to do the KYC procedures on a withdrawal where 24-48 hour delay is not as significant.

If the KYC regulation were imposed on deposits then a lot of the impulse play would be suppressed and there would have to be a significant shift in promotions at online bookmakers and sports affiliates - away from the "GET A FREE BET if you bet on TONIGHTS game".

As players realise that they will be checked BEFORE withdrawing, and that it's not possible to make a profit at a casino if you are playing with fake ID (be it fraudulent or underage) then the KYC regualtions are working.

**mojo** · 21 October 2012, 3:00 am

Originally Posted by TheGooner

I think that the rationale for doing KYC on withdrawals is pretty easy to understand.

Firstly, gambling is an impulsive activity - and putting a delay with ID verification in front of a customer BEFORE they play will reduce depositing customers and overall action at a casino / sportsbook. IT can take a couple of days for some verification. This is specifically true for players wanting to bet on a football game NOW.

Secondly, there are significantly more first deposits than first withdrawals (lets face it most players lose) - and while deposits tend to flood in during big events the withdrawals tend to be more staggered - so it's easier for the programs workflow to do the KYC procedures on a withdrawal where 24-48 hour delay is not as significant.

If the KYC regulation were imposed on deposits then a lot of the impulse play would be suppressed and there would have to be a significant shift in promotions at online bookmakers and sports affiliates - away from the "GET A FREE BET if you bet on TONIGHTS game".

As players realise that they will be checked BEFORE withdrawing, and that it's not possible to make a profit at a casino if you are playing with fake ID (be it fraudulent or underage) then the KYC regualtions are working.

Point - Counterpoint

I will take on this argument because it's outdated.

If we truly want to come up to 2012 it's time to change this frame of thinking.

Why not put more focus on the fraudulent and underage. It would be great PR. Just think for a minute. Players are parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends etc etc and NO one wants children to have access to underage gambling. They would gladly comply. Not wait until withdrawal to check it. Most kids/parents would try to hide it due to embarrassment. It feels like casinos and affiliates are ok with that. It's just not good to verify after the fact.

Why would we want to prey on the impulsive at the risk of the vunerable and underage and problem gamblers? It's deplorable. This argument is wrong in so many ways with all due respect Gooner.

Why not take that energy for that BIG BET RIGHT NOW and put it into verifying players immediately.

IT can take a couple of days for some verification.

Why not implement Instant Verification, or within and hour or whatever. Why are we pressuring people to PLAY NOW.

It can be done and we know it. To brush it aside for the impulsive player is irresponsible and we all know that. So a couple players get their nose out of joint. Most players are happy to protect kids. We continue to underestimate players, that they are stupid. They are not.

The advantages:

No underage players
No fraudulent players
No innocent mistakes from players not reading complicated t/c's
Respect that we are not preying on impulsive/problem/underage players.

**TheGooner** · 21 October 2012, 5:00 am

Mojo - You're clearly embarrassed by the quality of programs that you're currently working with - and want to change things.

If you want to promote a site with an automatic stand down waiting period for new customers - then go for it.
I would expect that depositing signups are few and far between and the program goes bust.

Immediate verification is probably achievable within a single country, especially if you have access to government databases or interfaces, but it is not easily managed across country borders - and certainly is not yet an internet standard anywhere.

The existing KYC regulations implemented by European properties at withdrawal are a good balance between ensuring that fraudulent activity is minimised while still allow programs to service customers that want to play quickly.

**slotplayer** · 21 October 2012, 10:24 am

it could totally be done with skype video, face to face like its done when a patron buys beer, ciggs, enters a club, a casino etc..
of course many may not have skype but that would be a great way to verify docs for whatever reason pretty quick.

**mojo** · 21 October 2012, 11:02 am

Originally Posted by TheGooner

Mojo - You're clearly embarrassed by the quality of programs that you're currently working with - and want to change things.

No not at all, I am merely thinking out loud how we can do better for underage gambling and the verification process. I didn't mean to offend and I think it's ok to have different ideas on it.

**joert** · 22 October 2012, 6:28 pm

Originally Posted by mojo

It is standard practice to require documention upon withdrawal but I don't think that's the issue.

It's flawed because deposits do not require verification. Documents should be required before deposits to truly protect and prevent underage use. While it may be undesireable to do that, it would solve a lot of fraud and withdrawal snafus as well. Seems that if they lose, the casino does not appear to be concerned if they were underage or not. Not Betfred in particular but all of them.

this is my issue.

if its for underage, its a retarded reason to take IDS AFTER the money has been gambled

I tested this out on another bookie in the meantine. Put 20 quid in, lost ten, withdrew ten - any problem? No. (The last withdrawal was a fair bit bigger at betfred)

Fact is , they do it so you have the money in the account longer and maybe gamble with it. If it was for user id/underage gambling reasons, they would take the ID first.

Anyone on here defending it is living in a fantasy land. Im an affiliate too, but im not going to defend a bullshit business practice. Either take id's at the start, or don't insult my intelligence by asking for it when I take a **** load of money off them.

In the end, they regretted it even more - took 50 of the winnings and stuck it on a 13/1 9 game accumulator that romped home. Betfred fools.

**joert** · 22 October 2012, 6:33 pm

Originally Posted by TheGooner

Mojo - You're clearly embarrassed by the quality of programs that you're currently working with - and want to change things.

If you want to promote a site with an automatic stand down waiting period for new customers - then go for it.
I would expect that depositing signups are few and far between and the program goes bust.

Immediate verification is probably achievable within a single country, especially if you have access to government databases or interfaces, but it is not easily managed across country borders - and certainly is not yet an internet standard anywhere.

The existing KYC regulations implemented by European properties at withdrawal are a good balance between ensuring that fraudulent activity is minimised while still allow programs to service customers that want to play quickly.

and lose money.

Gooner, i agree with most of what you've said. But there's a massive absence of logic to this.A kid gambling is more likely to lose money so it works well both ways for the pain in the ass books that go demanding ID's. And on the cross border stuff, I'd imagine within the EU at least that would be discriminatory.

If they take the card initially, they should pay back on the same card. they only want id to delay the money coming out ( insurance companies are the exact same), and to get data on winners. I have friends who back horses who can't get an online account anywhere, and have to send out minions to get bets down. It's all data accumulation for them - intelligence gathering. It is war between them and punters after all.

**TheGooner** · 23 October 2012, 4:38 am

There is no absence of logic Joert - in fact the solution is very logical in the form of KYC regulations.

Signups and initial deposits for sportsbooks come in waves - usually associated with a big game on TV or high profile match or whatever is being written about in the newpapers or being shown on TV. There is no way to quickly verify ID in a timely manner to process all these new potential players and allow them to bet in a timely manner.

Gambling is an emotional activity - and impulse activity - and programs want to avoid putting barriers to gambling when they can be avoided.

Withdrawals are less frequent, and more staggered, and that's why sportsbooks have elected to do it that way. It's no mystery or a conspiracy - it's identity verification that prevents fraudsters from benefiting from fake IDs. Payments are made to verified players only.

KYC is about ensuring only genuine accounts receive gambling proceeds - withdrawal based KYC fulfils the brief

---

if you want to bring in other aspects - eg. Mojo with under age players using ripped off ID or cards, or your case with friends who use "beards" to generate fake identify to use fraudulent accounts - then these are much more hardcore frauds - and probably need different solutions.

A hard-core fraudster with access to other peoples cards and accounts (underage player or otherwise) or multiple account abuser probably has the skills and abilities to avoid detection - and pushing to verification to the front of the process will not change that fact.

**joert** · 23 October 2012, 9:41 am

again i agree with alot of what youre saying Gooner.

its mainly age restrictions that I see an absence of logic in- if you want to prevent kids gambling, asking for ID after the fact is ridiculous ( and this was why they said they needed my ID). In fact, though it would mean less money for us, the responsible thing for society would be to demand that all accounts are set up with ID's first before any money is taken.

Regarding a couple of friends- they dont set up online accounts, they just send armies out to highstreet bookies

Thread: Betfred

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Betfred

The Following User Says Thank You to baldidiot For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to TheGooner For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to FictionNet For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheGooner For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to slotplayer For This Useful Post:

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions