Player blacklists – why do the bookmaker limits come in pairs?

Dear Arbers!

Not so long ago we wrote about certain technical systems which make tracking possible and how to deal with them.

Everything written there stands, every single word. The reason for this post is more to actually scare you a bit and MOTIVATE you to actually move your ass and set up a VM, which I’m sure almost nobody did.

Recently there’s been a thread on one of the arbitrage forums by a representative of one of the smaller bookmakers (this description is vague on purpose, so as not to easily identify the person who had been very honest), in which they revealed that a database of bettors exists, ran by a third-party, later identified to be a payment processor.

This database helps reveal undesirable players. At this point pure disgust should be appearing on your face, as this is exactly what is sounds like. Readers familiar with the history of advantage gambling should be aware of the Griffin Book (if not, look it up on Wikipedia). We’re dealing with a similiar situation, except on a way larger scale, using much more potent technology. Namely, the representative claimed that many bookmakers have access to a INTERBOOK database which contains blacklisted players.

There is, in our opinion only one situation in which blacklisting players in this way might be morally acceptable. That is the credit card fraud – deposit money to a bookmaker using a CC, place a big bet, withdraw in case of a win and start a stolen card charge dispute in case of a loss. There is no sensible defense against this for a bookmaker.

However, as was the case with the Griffin Book, and most other surveillance lists, they tend to expand uncontrollably from the most serious offenders to even the marginal ones. And we can say, with a probability close to certainty, that this modern third-party list already includes bonus abusers and arbers.

This is in line with a lot of anecdotal evidence of how people who get limited with one bookie quickly get limited with most of them.

While we have no precise information on what identifiying information the lists contain, our sources indicate that country, IP and browser fingerprint data are used to uniquely identify a machine. Betting a lot of money on that names and contact information from bookmaker records are included will be a value bet at almost any odds.

Morality and legality of such a scheme is defintely disputable, but the possibility of getting to court with this and proving that the bookies are violating their (or their regulator’s) privacy policy is effectively nil. I’m not an ethicist nor a theologist so I’ll leave the problem of whether that is fair to the players. Even if it’s not, nothing can be done to change it.

Risks are simple and I have broached the matter in the previous article, however let me recapitulate and point out a few new risks that come with the new understanding of their networked structure.

• The limits at most soft bookies come more or less (within about one month) synchronously. There is no sensible counterstrategy to this, however in order to maximize profit, deposit to multiple bookies at once and extract as much value (play as many surebets) as possible before the limits come. This will be effective, as one of our sources claims that low latency (daily or faster) reports are very expensive, and most providers will choose weekly or event monthly accesses.

• The same applies to bonus extraction, as once you are in such a database, the limits will come fast and you might have issues with the turnover conditions. If bankroll allows, extract all bonuses at the same time.

The two above risk are about making less money than would be possible, and are hence important, but not game breaking. The things get interesting in the following case:

• If for any reason two or more people use the same computer to place bets (big – small bettors will likely be ignored due to low damage done),
  there exists an array of option, with the worst ones involving the confiscation of both the winnings and deposits. Such cases
  can be found on SBR and will send your blood pressure to extreme levels.

  That sounds and truly is terrible. What can one do? Protect yourself. Remember that condoms only reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, and only abstinence is a certain protective measure.

While the above line can seem a bit off topic for this post, substitute condoms with VMs, pregnancy and STDs with identification, limits and confiscations, and you are on a good way to understanding the countermeasures.

The right way is to use highly isolated, basic and frequent setup VMs on a variable IP connection. One per person using the computer. This will make it EXTREMELY hard for any fingerprinting algorithms to find and get you. This is like the hymen reconstruction surgery for a computer – the bookmakers will see you as a virgin arber and you will get limited like a virgin arber – slower.

As I’ve said before, setting up a VM is a relatively simple task which will can save your arbing life and bankroll. If the public response in terms of views and discussion indicates a strong need for a precise, step-by-step guide to setting up a secure, anonymizing virtual machine, such an article will be written.

RECAP:

• Bookmakers have an access to an interbookie database containing undesirable players (fraudsters, but also arbers and sharps)

• One can reduce its impact on arbing by arbing all bookies simultaneously (i.e. Bwin, Unibet, Betsson and Betsafe at the same time, not one after another)

• If there are multiple people using your computer, you HAVE to use VMs to avoid limits and much more dire situations

• If you want to know how to set up a VM for arbing, make this article popular 🙂