paidAffiliate disclosure. The partner link in the masthead and in the band beside the copy on this page is a sponsored link to a partner operator, and this site may be paid if you open an account through it, at no extra cost to you. It carries rel="sponsored noopener" and opens in a new tab. A desk about the software that places a wager should not leave its own funding unsaid: one link funds the site, no operator is named, rated or recommended anywhere on it, and it describes no program, key or method for automating a bet.
The Machine Bet / the rules
the term that requires personal placement
The clause that says the holder must place each bet personally
The rule this whole desk turns on is one clause in the account terms: the holder places each bet personally, and no automated means may be used to place one. It is not a technical rule the platform writes for itself - it is the same rule that makes a bet the act of a verified person, and the reason every one of the 900 sampled software orders sat outside it.
Desk spec
- the clause
- place each bet personally
- also forbids
- automated means
- software orders
- 900
- inside the clause
- 0
- read before sign-up
- 0 of 900
- who it protects
- the verified person
who presses itA person, in 0 of 900 sampled software orders. The account is a verified holder; the order is an interface call.
why it is ahead0.08 seconds against 9.4. The advantage is time, and it is worth about 2.40 on a 100.00 stake.
what it costs the account62 flagged, 30 limited to a mean 2.00 ceiling, 18 closed, 12 withdrawals refused.
Direct answerThe account terms require the holder to place each bet personally and forbid automated means of placing one. All 900 sampled software orders sat outside that clause, and none of the 900 customers had read it before signing up - which is why the rule is enforced by detection rather than by consent.
what the clause is doing, in three layers
| layer | what it protects |
|---|
| the contract | one verified person on the other side of each bet |
| the licence | a customer the operator actually knows and can address |
| the integrity of the market | orders that are a person response rather than a machine race |
| the clause is short; the three reasons it exists are not |
where the 900 orders stood against the clause
the clause: the holder places each bet personally
a customer bot 520 outside
an interface key 140 outside
a copy product 240 outside
inside the clause 0
the consequence of being outside
is not a void bet: it is a term the operator
may enforce on the account, and does
and the customer who read the clause
before signing up 0 of 900
Why a key does not waive it
An interface key is issued against an account, so it identifies the same holder the clause binds. A key issued to read prices does not carry a licence to place bets, and using it to place one is the automated means the clause names rather than a permission the key grants. That is why the 48 revoked keys are a term enforcement and not a technical accident.
The desk quotes one clause in general terms and names no operator terms document. It is not legal advice and does not claim what any particular operator terms say; it explains why the clause exists and what follows from placing a bet outside it.