Bet-at-home (BMR red list) avoid winnings


New member
Bet-at-home complaint

Before the entire incident, I bought a computer from another player of Bet-at-home, who told me to open an account with bet-at-home and betfair if I wanted to get some action on betting. After I got the computer, he didn't have access to this one, as I did not have access to his brand new one. He advised me to play on BAH and deposit a full 500$ to get the 250$ full sign up bonus, nothing unclear here. I didn't sign up with betfair because I quite don't understand how that works yet. Anyway, I started playing with bet-at-home on the August 28th and deposited 500$, giving me a 750$ balance.
Some days later, I got a call from my friend asking how the computer was performing and I told him I had deposited 500$ on BAH. At this point, he told me he was with two friend of him and one of them just had made a bet on the over 2,5 goals in a football (soccer) match. I got interested and saw some fast stats and got the same hunch. The odd was 2.00 and I thought it was a good bet. I was with him on the phone and he advised me to put three bets of 200$ and one of 150$ if I wished to play all funds. He told me BAH allowed to do this as a big bet of 750$ would somehow not get trough but these ones would. Ok, I like the bet, I was confident, go! This game ended 2-2 with the third and fourth goals in the last minutes, giving me a 750$ profit, a 1500$ balance. After that I played in some other events on my own and got my account reached 3745$ when I completed the rollover requirements. I thought I could get more action but luck doesn’t last long so I decided to get the payout before I could get the chance to lose it all.
On the same day, BAH asked for my documents, which I sent right away. They then asked me what was my relationship with the players 15409288 (my friend), 15418413 and 15417444. After some emails and a long phone call with my friend this was the conclusion of it:
- When my friend called me, he was in the cafe next to my home with his two friends who were spending some holydays in his home. My computer often logs into the cafe wifi instead of my own wifi because of some default priorities, but when it does, the internet connection is not so fast. So, I always turn back to my own connection. The two extra players are friends of him who used their own two computers to bet on BAH. That was why my friend called me, because he remembered advising me to bet there too. So, it is true we all shared the same wifi IP address, although I didn't use it to place any bet whatsoever. Only one of this player and me betted on the 2-2 football match. The other had lost his funds and my friend as well as far as I know. So, even separated by physical walls, we shared somehow the some wifi IP address at some point. But never we shared the same computer to place bets. All of the players involved betted on their own computer, at all times. I got this computer way before the bonus was asked for and I asked for it in my computer, my friend asked for it in his new one. He and his friends never had contact with my computer after the opening of my BAH account. I said BAH he may have logged into his account once when he was at my home, but after talking to him he said he didn't.
After some days waiting for the solving of this and some talks on chat service who always told me to get in touch with them via email, I got a payout of 500$ (my initial deposit) and no winnings back. I then got an email back from BAH saying my account was closed and I breached the bonus rule that states:

"The bonus is limited to one betting account per person, family, household or computer. By suspicion of abuse via multiple registrations (fictitious accounts, game communities) or balance betting, reserves the right to remove the bonus and any resulting winnings."

According to my case, I do not have any other account at Bet-at-home .
According to my case, no one in my family has account at Bet-at-home, much less asked for the bonus.
According to my case, no one in my house has account at Bet-at-home , much less asked for the bonus at any point.
According to my case, I do not share my computer with anyone (read computer and not IP internet connection). My computer was another player's, but he asked for the bonus using his brand new one. I do not have access to his computer, he does not have access to mine or ever had during bonus period.
According to my case, I don't have multiple registrations, much less fictional accounts, as I can prove with documentation delivered. I'm not part of any gaming community. It's true I like to put some money on poker in the casino like twice a year, but nothing more than that. I guess we four all shared some information about BAH, but we are not a gaming community. When a friend deposits 500$ into a bookmaker, who won't talk about this to his friends? That's normal. Anyway, I only have an account with Bet-at-home and no other sportsbook, so how could I be part of a gaming community?
According to my case, I used "balance betting" at absolutely no point during the rollover period. This can be confirmed by the history of my selections in other bookmakers.
It is quite clear there is not a single point in the bonus rules that might lead of voiding of winnings, There is no part in the rules stating "only one bonus per internet IP address", so entire payout should be processed, as 15418413 player's account should be unlocked for him to get the opportunity for, at least, get the rollover done. As he told my friend, after the 2-2 match bet he placed, he didn't play in BAH anymore, but he confirmed his account was locked.


New member
As you correctly mention, Bet-at-home is in the Red list, but I have actually some sympathy for them after reading the load of bollocks that is your story.

"Bought a computer from a bet-at-home player", "My computer often logs into the cafe wifi", etc

Do you bonus abusers think people are stupid?


New member
This got my attention because the player is from the same country as me.

pier0, although I have to agree with you as same parts of the story are just somehow badly told, the argument the player told is strong. By the rule, he didn't break any of the conditions of the rule, so this measure from Bet-at-home is wrong. Even if he is a bonus arbuser, which I believe it is.

ccamposfilipa, you did good filling a complaint here, but I don't think there is much BMR can do in this case because Bet-at-home is already on the red list and BMR says to stay way from red-list bookmakers. You can try filling the same complaint in, BAH is classified as C- there. I don't think you will get your funds back, you are not the first and won't be the last one to get scrued by BAH. Sorry! :(


New member
Bet-at-home are a shitty bookmaker, but they have done nothing wrong in the case above.

Just by reading the ridiculous story the player that alleges to be a woman posted, you understand there is obviously just one player using 4 accounts, so if someone has a strong case is the bookmaker, not the player.

Bonus abusers are as bad as non-paying bookmakers in my book. They are ruining the industry for everyone else, so BMR doesn't get involved not because Bet-at-Home is in the Red list, but rather because we do not help scum bags.

It is as simple as that.


New member
So, you think there is no player whatsoever just because the player is a woman? Err.. really?

"Bonus abusers are as bad as non-paying bookmakers in my book. They are ruining the industry for everyone else, so BMR doesn't get involved not because Bet-at-Home is in the Red list, but rather because we do not help scum bags."

Totally agree! ;)


New member
jocasimo said:
<p>So, you think there is no player whatsoever just because the player is a woman? Err.. really?</p>

I didn't say that. I know quite a few women that bet on sports. As a matter of fact, when I organized the sports betting player panel at the London Affiliate Conference two years ago, one of players I invited was a woman.

But I strongly believe the player that submitted the complaint posing as a woman is a man, probably using the identity of a girlfriend and of a couple of friends to manage the 4 accounts.

I've seen dozens of cases like these and a real player would not be aware and certainly not report all the details reported by ccamposfilipa. Only a bonus abuser trying to cover up his tracks would say something like "My computer often logs into the cafe wifi", which suggests he has a certain familiarity with these issues.


New member
I guess you are right, I could learn a few things with you :) I often see several cases like this too, because I take part in a sports betting national forum and some of them are just "really? who are you trying to fool?"

The thing that gets me somehow confusing with this case is that even if that is true and that's only one person betting for someone (girlfriend or not), he used another computer to do it. And by the rules, that's what matters. BAH has no proof he/she is playing by someone else. Oh so I think...


New member
I don't really want to take bet-at-home defense as BMR recommends players to stay away from them and personally I've had several arguments with them including on Twitter a while ago, so I believe I cannot be accused to be a BAH fan.

Having said that, even where a player is using more than one computer and his friends lent him their identities to bet, if bet-at-home has somehow discovered there is just one player using the 4 accounts, I believe they have a valid reason to apply the rule against abuse via multiple registrations (fictitious accounts).