Panda Bet Close Account and Confiscated Balance

[jav4927]

I opened an account on Sunday the 24th of November with Panda Bet, in the
morning. I deposited €25 and was awarded a bonus matching the first bonus
so I had €50 to bet with. I made three bets during the day, one on the
Levante vs Villareal match, one on the Manchester United vs Cardiff match and
one on the Bologna vs Inter Milan match. I placed bets on the match result on
these games after the previous game had finished.

I backed the correct outcome in all three games (first game was Villareal win
and the second and third were draws). Anyway, I turned my balance into
€1160. The following day I was sent an email stating that my account had
been closed and the balance confiscated aside from €25 which I originally
deposited which was returned to my source of original deposit.

They seemed to be saying that I was abusing the bonus but I don't believe I
had. I simply guessed the correct outcome in three matches in three different
countries between some big teams. I feel that the only reason my account has
been closed is due to actually winning some bets. I do not feel it fair to
confiscate all of the winnings.

I do not have any scans of betting slips etc as my account has been closed,
but I don't think they would deny the bets that I have listed above if asked.

 

[Trevrizent]

I'm sorry to hear about this. Did you attempt to make a withdrawal before they sent you the email saying that your account had been closed or did they just send it?

 

[Trevrizent]

I've had a look at Pandabet's terms and conditions. They are some of the most long-winded and complicated I've ever seen (especially the sections on bonuses), so I may have missed something. As long as you haven't requested a withdrawal, however, I can't see that you have broken any of their rules relating to bonuses. They say that at least five individual sportsbook bets must be placed before a withdrawal is allowed and that each of these bets must have a stake equivalent to the sum of your original deposit plus your bonus (at least that's how I interpret it); but if you haven't attempted to make a withdrawal, then I don't think you can have fallen foul of this rule.

In the first instance you need to contact Pandabet's customer support and ask them to explain exactly why your account was closed and your winnings confiscated. Assuming the matter cannot be resolved, then you should contact the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission (www.im.gov/gambling/), by whom Pandabet are licensed, and give them a full account of what has happened. The one thing in your favour is that, unlike some licensing authorities, the IoM GSC will try to help you if they feel you have a genuine grievance against one of their licence holders. By the way, Pandabet state in their terms and conditions that they will make available a full transaction record to any player who lodges a complaint against them with the IoM GSC.

 

[jav4927]

Thanks for getting back to me. The response I got back from them during the week as to why it was closed exactly was the following:

"As mentioned in our previous email, The system highlighted your betting pattern.
 
The reason for our system to point out your betting pattern is due to paragraph 7.2 of our bonus terms;
 
To ensure fair gaming and the proper use of bonuses, Pandabet™ considers low margin betting, equal betting, zero risk bets or hedge betting to be irregular gaming when deployed to exploit bonuses. Further examples of irregular playing patterns also include, but are not limited to: (i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of fifty percent or more of the bonus on any single game , individual hand, or round, building a balance and significantly changing play patterns (bet size, game types, bet structures etc.)
 
Our system was designed and is used by the majority of bookmakers to prevent exploitation of odds and algorithm betting.
 
You may have placed your bets in all fairness but we are bound to draw a line. We cannot make individual decisions on betting patterns."

Now I take to mean that they are not saying that you are prohibited from doing what they say in 7.2 but that if you do that then you get flagged up and then they might close your account. Like I said earlier, I placed bets on big games in big leagues over the weekend so I don't think that just because I did that and the bets won means that I fall foul of their rules.

By the way, what they say there about 7.2 is not in the sign-up terms and conditions but buried away in the general terms and conditions on another part of the site.

 

[quincunx]

People are attracted by low - margin betting - the lower the margin,the more popular it is likely to be.So that cannot be considered to be 'irregular' -they are trying to twist and to re-define the English language.

 

[BMR Forum]

We have emailed Pandabet a link to this thread and asked them to comment.

 

[pandabet.net]

Dear jav427 and others who may read or comment on this threat.

On behalf of Pandabet I would like to respond on the subject of this threat and the comments of its discussion.

The subject of this discussion states “Panda Bet Close Account and Confiscated Balance”.

We are sorry to hear that one of our customers had a bad experience with Pandabet.

We do not agree with the expression of the subject. In our opinion the subject should be “Pandabet closed my account and cancelled my bonus and bonus winnings”

We confirm that the information regarding the betting history which “jav427” describes, is similar to an account in our records and also that this account has the username “jav427”. Further we confirm that the e-mail reply from Pandabet posted by “jav427” is similar to an email Pandabet has send to this account. We cannot comment or provide any further specific details regarding this account due to our player protection policies.

However we will explain our motivation and conclusion in regard of the account. First we will respond on the comments in this threat.

1. Comment by jav427

“By the way, what they say there about 7.2 is not in the sign-up terms and conditions but buried away in the general terms and conditions on another part of the site.”

The sign up page of Pandabet does not allow a player to register unless the player confirms the following;

“I am over 18 years of age and have read and accepted the general Terms and conditions”.

- There is direct and clear access to review the Terms and conditions when confirming this statement.


2. Comment by Trevrizent

We want to thank you for your comment and the good advice you gave to jav427!
However you did stated;

“I've had a look at Pandabet's terms and conditions. They are some of the most long-winded and complicated I've ever seen”

Although we appreciate your excellent advise towards jav427 we have to disagree with your statement regarding our terms and conditions. If you would compare them with the majority of well- regulated companies you will see that they are meeting standard.

In general, Terms and Conditions are long-winded. This is to prevent any misunderstanding or alternative interpretation of phrases. Apart from being long winded, the paragraphs leave nothing in doubt. When nothing is left in doubt you provide transparency.

3. Comment by quincunx

“People are attracted by low - margin betting - the lower the margin, the more popular it is likely to be. So that cannot be considered to be 'irregular' -they are trying to twist and to re-define the English language.”

We do agree that “low margin betting” does not have to be irregular immediately. However it can be in certain cases. Many times a betting pattern shows a combination of events which will draw the attention of our systems. One of these patterns can be for example “low margin betting” while using a bonus together with a significant drop in bet size to clear the bonus points (simplified).

Therefor “low margin betting” can, but does not have to be irregular gaming by definition. When you read the sentence you quoted in our terms and conditions, you will see that the sentence uses “low margin betting” in combination with “Bonus exploitation”

So to come back on the statement “-they are trying to twist and to re-define the English language.”
We would not want or even dare to do so!

4. To conclude our decision

We believe that terms and conditions together with our business decisions are fair and transparent. The complaints regarding our general Terms and Conditions have been 0 since the launch of Pandabet. Further the complaints regarding our additional bonus conditions have been below a bare minimal.

We do have to protect us against players with wrong intentions.

In order to do so, we have measures in place to monitor and flag betting patterns which are in breach with our Terms and Conditions. The review of a betting pattern is not limited to monitoring and flagging individual or small series of bets placed.

It could happen that a betting pattern of a new registry is flagged immediately with a score similar to patterns known to be abusive. If an account is suspended for such reason the initial deposit of the player is always refunded.

There is always a chance that a player with good intentions will show a betting pattern to such an extent that it gets flagged by our systems.

As a well regulated company we have to follow our policies and processes. When a betting pattern is brought to our attention by our systems there is no possibility to change the actions taken regardless any complaint or explanation.

Jav427;

We do our best to meet with the needs of our players and provide excellent customer service. Hence our rapidly growing brand and all our satisfied players. Due to this complaint we have looked into the referred account and checked that all processes and actions taken have been according protocol.

Unfortunately we will not be able to reinstate this account. Like Trevrizent mentioned in his comment,

“Then you should contact the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission (www.im.gov/gambling/), by whom Pandabet are licensed, and give them a full account of what has happened. The one thing in your favor is that, unlike some licensing authorities, the IoM GSC will try to help you if they feel you have a genuine grievance against one of their licence holders. By the way, Pandabet state in their terms and conditions that they will make available a full transaction record to any player who lodges a complaint against them with the IoM GSC”

We are sorry that we cannot resolve this case in the favour of the player. If we would do so, we would neglect our protection systems and also give an example for everyone that you can break the terms but still profit by lodging a complaint.

To finish this comment, the account holder has taken the effort of contacting BMR which supports the idea that the betting pattern was used unintentionally. Therefor we will make an exception and offer the account holder a second chance. If the account holder sends an email to our support department referring to this post we will reinstate the account and make the welcome bonus available again in full respect of our terms and conditions. This does not include a refund of any bonus moneys which were obtained by breaching our terms and conditions.

We hope that we have clarified our actions in regard of this account and that we have provided sufficient answers to any queries or discussions.

Best regards,

Pandabet

 

[jav4927]

Thank you to Panda Bet for providing such a detailed response. They have been resposive to my emails as well so credit to them for this. Without going through your post in great detail, my main problem is still unresolved. The main problem is that I won over €1,000 which I would be giving up by sending you the email to reopen my account. The bets I placed were on mainstream games in big leagues on some big games and I still entirely believe that the only reason for my account to be flagged was that these bets won.

If anybody else could provide some insight into the response from Panda Bet I would appreciate it.

 

[pandabet.net]

Dear Jav4927,

As mentioned before the account has not been flagged because this account won bets. The pattern in which the account holder executed these bets where against Terms and Conditions. Furthermore the system does not flag on bets only but uses a lot more data before deciding to flag. If the account holder does not approve with our decision, a complaint can be made with our regulator. We will then lodge the data to them for review.

We would not be in business or have an Isle of Man licence if we would block accounts just because they have won.

We are sorry that we can't resolve the issue to your satisfaction. If we would satisfy you by returning the bonus fund to this account, we might as well throw our systems and policies in the bin.

Apologies for the inconvenience, however we feel confident in the decision made in regard of this account.

Best regards,

Pandabet

 

[jav4927]

If anyone has any input I would appreciate it.

 

[quincunx]

My question for Pandabet is this.How can it be determined whether winnings come from bets made with money deposited or from bonus money ? Because if there is no way of telling then Pandabet are making themselves the Judge and Jury of whether any bet should stand or be voided if it could be said to have been made with bonus money.Those terms and conditions about why bets can be voided are just too subjective - the punter cannot be sure whether he or she is breaking them or not.So then the bonus becomes a trap for the punter.

 

[Trevrizent]

Whilst I credit Pandabet for taking the time and trouble to reply to BMR's approach (many bookmakers would not have done so), I have to agree with the view of jav4927 that the proposed solution of simply reinstating the player's account and making the welcome bonus available once more does not go far enough and in no way addresses the issue of the player's winnings. Jav4927, I think Pandabet have themselves pointed the way forward in this case when they say 'if the account holder does not approve with (of) our decision, a complaint can be made with our regulator'. I think that it is a great shame that Pandabet are not prepared to pay you your winnings, but in view of the stance they are taking on this issue, I feel you have been left with little choice but to take your case to the IoM GSC and let them adjudicate. What you certainly should NOT do is simply allow your account to be reopened and your original bonus be reinstated. Good luck!

 

[pandabet.net]

Thank you all for giving us credit for responding. In this final post we would like to answer any remaining questions and address any uncertainties in regard of our policies.

To answer the question of Quincunx; Our general and bonus Terms and Conditions clearly set out the following.

"Whilst using a bonus on the Sportsbook, real and bonus monies both fall within the scope of the bonus terms and conditions as herein set out. For example, when claiming a bonus, your initial deposit becomes subject to the bonus terms and conditions and should therefore meet with these terms and conditions when the bets were placed."

To address the uncertainty of Trevrizent; We do not feel ashamed at all. What you suggest is; Because a complaint was made, we should automatically pay out a balance which was obtained unlawful, therewith neglecting our policies, terms and systems.

Regardless of the ridiculousness of such statement, this would also be an example for everybody to breach our terms and then claim their balance by making a complaint.

We feel that we have put a lot of effort in this case as a part of our customer service. We have addressed the case for as much our player protection policies allow us to. Further we have shown willingness to solve this matter in a rightful way by offering the account holder a second chance.

We want to thank the participants of this discussion for their valuable input and empathy towards the protection of players and fair gaming!

 

[jav4927]

Well that seems to be that. My summary of their response seems to be that they are saying that 'the system' said that there was a problem therefore there must have been a problem, there does not seem to have been any explanation given as to what I did wrong just that 'the system', being some kind of unquestionable entity, said 'no' therefore it must be right. I appreciate the openness from Panda Bet andtheir willingness to reopen my account but that throws up the two following and obvious problems:

1. That my winnings would still be confiscated which were more than €1,000 at the time
2. That I have no faith that I could place bets in the future with Panda Bet without fear of having 'the system' confiscate all winnings again for an unexplained reason.

Could someone at Bookmakers Review please advise on my next course of action, is there anything to do prior to contacting the regulator?

Thanks for your help everyone

P.S.
Does the use of the word 'unlawful' jump out at anyone in the following paragraph from the Panda Bet rep:

'To address the uncertainty of Trevrizent; We do not feel ashamed at all. What you suggest is; Because a complaint was made, we should automatically pay out a balance which was obtained unlawful, therewith neglecting our policies, terms and systems.'

I would like to state that I have done nothing unlawful here.

 

[pandabet.net]

Lets not get lost in translation here

unlawful - not morally right or permissible
unlawful - having no legally established claim

Jav4927; Regarding this account, we had a flag on 4 criteria. Due to player protection policies we cannot publish the parameters. Also, we will not reveal our protection mechanism. We will reveal the pattern to our regulator if a formal complaint is submitted.

We do understand the emotional conflict in a situation where one placed bets oblivious of the fact that they are against the Terms and Conditions and oblivious of the fact that the pattern in which the bets were placed is mainly used by abusive players. Hench we give this account a second chance!

Please do understand that we cannot alter our Terms and policies per individual case.

We do not want to let this proceed to an endless discussion so with this comment we rest our case regarding the account Jav4927.

Of course we are always available to answer or discuss any other queries.

Best regards,

Pandabet

 

[quincunx]

A second chance to play,yes.But you have just confiscated the player's winnings.Player protection is a false excuse,because you refuse to tell the player exactly how they broke your rules.
How can anyone who takes the bonus and wins be confident of getting paid,now ? These rules about 'irregular betting patterns' are too subjective and ambiguous - you could always simply claim that the player had broken them,confiscate their winnings,and then invite them to try again !

 

[Trevrizent]

I think your next move has to be to contact the IoM GSC. Unfortunately it looks as if we have taken this matter as far as we can on here and Pandabet are not going to move from their stated position. Don't be discouraged, however, and make sure that you pursue this with the regulator and don't simply allow Pandabet's actions to go unchallenged. Let us know in due course how you get on.

 

[jav4927]

Well an update then:

I got onto the Isle of Mann Gambling Commission but they ended up being worse than useless, their "inspector" simply copied and pasted the reply from Pandabet into the email they sent to me which was pretty much what they stated in this thread.

Pandabet went out of business on the 31st of December. Funny that. I'm sure they'll pop up again under some other name. Can't help but feel vindicated in that I was trying to say these guys were nothing but a bunch of con artists and then they mysteriously vanish at the end of the year.

Thanks for your help earlier, I'll eat the loss and put all of this behind me.

 

[Trevrizent]

Thanks for the update. I'm sorry to hear that you did not get your winnings, but, if it's any comfort, at least you didn't end up badly out of pocket as a result of all this. I'm sure you're right in saying that Pandabet are likely to start up again in the near future (no doubt under a new name and in a different jurisdiction). It's also disappointing that you didn't get more help from the Isle of Man GSC. I don't suppose any of their commissioners will read this thread, but if they were to do so, it would be nice to think it might give them pause for thought about who they award a licence to in the future.