Punters’ club connection costs customer a betting windfall

An Australian punter has been denied an $8000 payout after a wagering regulator sided with bookmaker PickleBet, finding that the customer had been operating two separate accounts.

The case from December 2022 came before the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission earlier this month, over three years after a complaint was made against Picklebet, who refused to pay out after the customer increased his initial $3000 deposit to $11,000 in the space of 24 hours in December 2022.

Picklebet determined at the time that the operation of the account was a breach of its terms and conditions as it had formed the view it was a duplicate account. The $3000 deposit was refunded, but the $8000 was withheld, prompting the complaint to the Commission.

The punter believed the bets he placed with the bookmaker were lawful and was seeking the full payment.

The NTRWC hearing was told that the customer said he had placed his winning bets following a friend’s tips.

Picklebet said an immediate duplicate account notice was generated, but as it was out of business hours, it wasn’t followed up until the following morning.

The bookmaker said it had suspended a separate account the day before the new account was opened due to what it said was “suspicious activity”.

That included evidence that multiple people had accessed that account. The account holder confirmed it had been used to facilitate a punters’ club.

The new account was created under a separate name and the complainant denied they had operated the initial account, which had been active for more than two years.

Picklebet determined that the same device used to operate the first suspended account was used to set up the subsequent account.

The bookmaker also said that betting behaviour between the two accounts was similar, although the Commission did not investigate this further as it was satisfied that Picklebet had acted within its rights and the bets were not lawful.

The Commission panel, led by chair Alastair Shields said the fact that the suspension of an old account and the creation of a new account had occurred in close proximity and had involved the same device created a strong circumstantial link.

“Platform activity demonstrating a continuing consistent connection between the device used to access Account 1 and the Complainant’s account strengthens this link,” the Commission said.

“On the balance of probabilities, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not, that the complainant accessed and used both Account 1 and Account 2.”

It found that Picklebet’s invocation of its terms and conditions to void the complainant’s bets and not pay out on any winnings was justified. 

As the complaint was more than three years old, the Commission’s ruling was made under the now-repealed Racing and Betting Act 1983, rather than the new Racing and Wagering Act 2024.