Shad0wcat Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Hm.. sounds interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 is it possible to pull this if don't actually have ?100 in my account atm, but am confident enough now to risk it? it should just read ?75 DR if i (somehow) lose ?100 [i have ?25 in there:unsure:ure: It isn't. I have a bank account in Belgium. If you have around 80 Euros in your account, you can't make a one-time-transaction of 81 Euros. What you CAN do, however, is make two charges. Since the stores take a couple days to contact the bank and deduct the amount of money you spend, you can spend say... 79 Euros on one purchase and then 79 Euros on a separate purchase in a different store. Somebody actually took advantages of these delays in the US (between banks). The scheme is known as "check-kiting" and the most that has been "kited" was over 4 million dollars. It is against the law too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Where's the fraud??? We're complying with their rules. Not really, because you have to keep betting with the promotional ?100. If you get > ?100 with your initial amount I'd cut and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inertia Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 Not really, because you have to keep betting with the promotional ?100. you dont you use the ?100 on 400 safe ?1 bets u dont get the extra ?100 til u have done that, then u withdraw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pctuk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 forster: but if you then run the betting again with the ?100 you are within the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 (edited) In a typical check-kiting scheme, the check-kiter opens an account at Bank A with a nominal deposit. He writes a check on that account for a large sum, say fifty thousand dollars. The check-kiter then opens an account at Bank B and deposits the fifty thousand dollar deposit from Bank A. At the time of deposit to Bank B, the check is not supported by sufficient funds in the account at Bank A. Bank B, however, unaware of this fact, gives the check-kiter immediate credit on his account at Bank B. During the several-day period that the check on Bank A is being processed for collection, the check-kiter writes a fifty-thousand dollar check on his account at Bank B and depossits it into his account at Bank A. At the time of the deposit of that check, Bank A gives the check-kiter immediate credit on his account there, and on the basis of that grant the credit pays the original fifty-thousand dollar check when it is presented for collection. In effect, the check-kiter exploits the time it takes to process checks between different banks. The scheme artificially inflates the balances in the bank accounts when, in fact, the check-kiter is really just shuffling worthless paper back and forth, timed to stay one step ahead of any check bouncing due to insufficient funds. In the meantime, the check-kiter can use the credit given on an artificially inflated account as an interest-free loan for as long as the kite lasts. It's illegal. Edited June 11, 2004 by nspeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pctuk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Nice info nspeds - this is probably why in the UK you cannot access the credit at bank B for 5 days to allow the money to 'clear' through the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I dont have access to the TOC, but this was posted a few pages back by you pctuk: For this promotion, the bonus amount must be staked at least four times prior to withdrawal. Ladbrokes Casino reserves the right to refuse all future promotions and bonuses to players who do not comply with this condition. So in theory, as we have said, you could run the 400 bets again with the bonus 100 quid and come out safe, or you could place 4 bets on blackjack and lose, say, ?10 on those bets and come out with 90 quid. I dont know the ins and outs - I havent done it myself yet. But I am betting that it wouldnt take much of a lawyer / solicitor to imprison / fine each and every person who has 'beat' the system due to detailed instructions on the first page of this post. Its just worth bearing in mind that if you get away with it, great, but if you continually use this with several cards you may well be looking at a visit from the boys in blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobsgrg Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Marisa you shouldn't do this unless you actually have ?100 and can afford to lose it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobsgrg Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 forster: but if you then run the betting again with the ?100 you are within the rules? if you bet the ?100 4 times over, e.g. bet ?400 then you've totally met all the rules and are even eligible for future promotions. One word of warning they do say they reserve the right to refuse to give out the promotions at any time for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 In a typical check-kiting" scheme, the check-kiter opens an account at Bank A with a nominal deposit. He writes a check on that account for a large sum, say fifty thousand dollars. The check-kiter then opens an account at Bank B and deposits the fifty thousand dollar deposit from Bank A. At the time the time of deposit to Bank B, the check is not supported by sufficient funds in the account at Bank A. Bank B, however, unaware of this fact, gives the check-kiter immediate credit on his account at Bank B. During the several-day period that the check on Bank A is being processed for collection, the check-kiter writes a fifty-thousand dollar dheck on his account at Bank B and depossits it into his account at Bank A. At the time of the deposit of that check, Bank A gives the check-kiter immediate credit on his accont there, and on the basis of that grant the credit pays the original fifty-thousand dollar ceck when it is presented for collection.In effect, the check-kiter exploits the time it takes to process checks between different banks. The scheme artificially inflates the balances in the bank accounts when, in fact, the check-kiter is really just shuffling worthless paper back and forth, timed to stay one steop ahead of any check bouncing due to insufficient funds. In the meantime, the check-kiter can use the credit given on an artificially inflated account as an interest-free loan for as long as the kite lasts. It's illegal. A great post, nice one (Y) Reminds me of the flick 'Catch me if you can'. I agree, this thing may be following the terms and conditions, but I think the illegal bit is inciting others to take money from Ladbrokes 'for nothing' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pctuk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Yes, I certainly wouldn't say people should do it more than once - that is clearly outside the rules. To me, the choice is this: 1) Chance losing the ?100 bonus, but still have quite a good chance of coming out of the bets without having lost anything (I gained ?8.50) 2) Not bother and not have a chance of getting the ?100 So long as you a) stay within the rules and only do it once and b) don't bet money you can't afford to lose - it's worth a go. One hour later I still haven't got the ?100 bonus yet. Of course I'd like it, but if I don't get it I'm not going to complain - I've not lost anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeley Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The Promoter reserves the right to refuse any offer to any player for any reason, or to withdraw an offer at any time. No correspondence will be entered into. So if you technically are under the terms and conditions, they may get you on this part. Do you think they would be able to get their money + your winnings back off you? I'm not sure of the legals, but I reckon they have top-notch lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I find it really funny that we have passed 11 pages and not a single mod has posted here :p So if you technically are under the terms and conditions' date=' they may get you on this part. Do you think they would be able to get their money + your winnings back off you? I'm not sure of the legals, but I reckon they have top-notch lawyers.Yep - that is a very general clause, and you can bet (lol - see what I did there?) that their lawyers are bigger than your lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beninio Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Leagally they do not have to pay you. Just like the national lottery. They do not have to give you the money even if you win the jackpot. But just think about the reputation and the bad publicity they would get if you do eveything in the T&C and they don't pay up. They would lose more then they would gain for not paying up. Therefore it is in their best interests to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberfrem Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I find it really funny that we have passed 11 pages and not a single mod has posted here :p they already got their money and run! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Leagally they do not have to pay you. Just like the national lottery. They do not have to give you the money even if you win the jackpot. But just think about the reputation and the bad publicity they would get if you do eveything in the T&C and they don't pay up. They would lose more then they would gain for not paying up. Therefore it is in their best interests to pay. LOL - a national betting agency loses 5 hundred quid between a dozen or so forum posters, they wont lose more than they will gain - they run nearly all the bookies in the UK. This is pennies to them. Its not in their best interests at all ! What is in the best interests, is making an example of those who have ripped them off so that nobody else does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pctuk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Just noticed something new on the TOCs at http://www.ladbrokescasino.com/subnavpages...promotionId=216 *Please note that when playing Blackjack only individual bet stakes of 10 chips or greater will contribute to the minimum stake required to qualify for this offer. It looks like time has run out! Doubt anyone else will get their ?100 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Winning against a corporate attorney with your local neighborhood one is like taking a shot in the dark. Lawyers can and will find every way to nail you if you're caught. That's why when most people say "I'm studying to be lawyer", it is often translating into "I'm studying to be the devil." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inertia Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 i still dont believe its illegal, what is your source nspeds ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 i still dont believe its illegal, what is your source nspeds ? Did you read the check kiting post I made? The real source is me since I'm studying to be a devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pctuk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 It's too late now anyway guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inertia Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 yes i read the post, its your opinion then if u dont have a source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 i still dont believe its illegal, what is your source nspeds ? Um - real life? Ive heard that a lot of times in real life cases. I work for local government and even we can crush the little independants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 yes i read the post, its your opinion then if u dont have a source I thought the bit about my studying helped show a source. But in the event that you are too slow to interpret that my source is the law school I study at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts