Bitcoin Forum

I deposited 0.0000 BTC in SportsBet.io and they don't want to pay my winnings!

As a result I've decided to open 20 users in BitcoinTalk and start accusations against SportsBet.io making people believe each claim is genuine and honest.

They accused me of having multiple accounts, but I deleted a post from my end proving that I had multiple accounts, and I've changed my password 1 hour after deleting that post and I want the forum to believe me that my claims are genuine.

In a nutshell,

I'm trying to scam SportsBet.io and I wasted people's time in this forum making them believe my accusations are genuine, I also wasted genuine users' time who actually do need proper support from SportsBet.io and people like me just waste everyone's time by trying to scam SportsBet.io

---------------------------------------------------------

Now in a serious note, I think new users should not be allowed to post scam accusations in this forum until they become a high ranked member or have some other type of protection so newbies won't be able to do what they did in the past few weeks.

A couple of the newbies may actually be high ranked members using their alts to incite discussions, such a restriction may force them to use their original accounts, which they wouldn't want to do, but it's unnecessary and would have negative effects on real newbies who were actually scammed by websites.
The best solution would be to ignore the users once you notice that pattern of posting, you could also leave a neutral feedback on the accounts used for trolling.

Everyone should be able to post scam accusations. As long as you can provide enough evidence that the scam actually happen then I see no issues to have such rank restrictions.
Simple scenario : 
You assume you got scammed by some XYZ company and the first thing you do you search for "XYZ + Scam" and guess what, the bitcointalk thread pops up on the top. You come here, register new account and post your scam accusation. If the XYZ company have a representative in the forum then your problem could be solved, but since you have all the needed evidence to prove that the company is doing a shady business, you should be free to post and let community decide whether your accusations are true or false.

The forum allows free speech and so everyone is free to post whatever they wish to. Whether to accept statements from newbies is the choice of the user reading the thread. You may wish to agree or disagree to it depending on what you think is right.

There is no hard and fast rule like if a newbie makes a scam accusation it is always right or wrong. Depending on the proof and how it has been presented the reader if free to make up their mind about it. That is the reason if someone posts a random thread without proof they get bashed for not posting evidence and mocked at. ::)

But without allowing users to post threads here would mean that someone who gets scammed has no place to report it and make other aware of the scam. This forum is by far the biggest niche forum for cryptocurrencies.

By posting the proofs here at least the members of this forum can use that information to warn others, put a red trust on the representative account to fix the issue or to mark as a scammer using the flag system.

There is a reason the "Investigations" section does not allow lower ranks to post, but this is not the case with "Scam Accusations".

You cheated one gambling site and when they took your money you wasn't really happy with that. You were fine with breaking their ToS:

https://archive.is/sHtI7#selection-6335.0-6335.86

Deposit + small profit ~$10,500 lol.

Was your claim genuine and honest? No, it wasn't, you intentionally broke their ToS but you did accuse them, now you are trolling.

---

You are suggesting that someone should wait for months, write as much quality posts they can to get enough merits to rank up account just to open scam accusation. Does this make any sense to you?

On serious note, how about this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5189479.0 -> deposit refunded  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5266626.0 -> you mentioned this in OP
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.0 -> settlement
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2461108.0 -> deposit refunded  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5266016.0 -> deposit refunded  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5203845.0 -> "another complaint about a certain CS GO match", not sure what happened here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5265366.0 -> deposit refunded  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211525.0 -> support answered in ANN topic, probably resolved
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1882846.0 -> this one is weird, according to accuser, support told them that they can do something and when player did it they closed account. Player claim they mysteriously changed ToS.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5082061.0 -> Seems like SB broke their own ToS here

https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/sportsbet-casino-winnings-confiscated-without-any-valid-reason -> multi-accounting, user said they passed KYC, SB said they didn't
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/sportsbet-io-casino-refusing-to-payout-10-btc-winnings -> multi accounting, SB said player broke ToS

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/sportsbooks-industry/3537610-warning-sportsbet-io-dont-play-there.html -> player claim they bet on badminton and their deposit is refunded, not sure about this accusation, no proofs
https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/sportsbooks-industry/3487030-scammed-australian-bookie-sportsbet-com-au.html -> withdrawal problem, seems that SB said that "it can take up to 10 weeks to resolve issue", it's probably resolved

I wasn't the one who cheated - they explicitly reopened my account, sent me bonuses and asking me to give it a shot, despite having a self-excluded account with them.

Did I circumvent the rules and tried to reopen another account? No.
They did it with the very same account, repeatedly, several times.

I was vulnerable at that time, they were wrong for doing it, they had to pay for it, it's their fault, not mine - and that's why they paid.

It might not sit with your agenda but it sits perfectly fine with my conscious.

They "cheated" but you did it as well (two wrongs don't make a right btw), take a look:
Unless you are suggesting that if you break someone's ToS it is perfectly fine then but when some other 20 users in bitcointalk do the same thing it is not fine, even thought in most cases it is just: "you broke something in our ToS from 1-10, we don't have much evidence but we know you did it".

Now, do you have proofs that someone created 20 accounts on this forum to run scam after scam accusation against a bookie? It might look like humor to someone but that is exactly what you are trying to say here.

Here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5266626.msg54975410#msg54975410


The number 20 was a figure of speech.
Marlboroza - is it okay to call you "Mr Perfect"?

5 newbies without post and 1 newbie claiming their account is hacked start accusationS.

You can when you explain me how arbitrage betting is not in violation of bookie's ToS and you didn't cheat. Sounds like...shady rule, right?

When someone bullies you and he doesn't stop - then all means to retaliate are ok until he stops.

So you can't explain it.
You mean like bulling addicted gambler allowing them to create more accounts and gamble more? Don't just take from this post what suits you best, read whole post, don't ignore this:


So (assuming everything in that post is true, and that is actually everything we know), you are sure this is multiaccounting but it sounds similar to your case, only difference is that casino didn't lock your account and in saturent's case they allowed him to create more and more accounts and when they won they decided to lock him out of his winnings, just like that website did to you (both of you broke ToS btw). FFS even bitcointalk has better security against..."multi accounting" (evil IP), and money related service doesn't? Right...

Anyway, in your case you hired lawyer because "casino is scaam" and you got your money back (did they refund you everything you lost or just last deposit + win?) and in this case "accuser is scaam" and they got only their deposit back.

If I were to create additional accounts I would be the one violating the self-exclusion.
And that also was in 2013, a year where almost all websites required you to go under KYC.

You can't compare 2013 to 2020 where you can open tons of accounts with an email and a password.

And in that point I agree/concede - you made some valid points, and I totally feel for the OP here (of the other thread - however his name is - saturent etc.)

However back in 2013, having a registered KYC verified account - self excluding it, and still allowing you to reopen it - that's negligence, however you want to look at it - that is plain stupid from the casino's side, not from my end ... when I used that account back then my mind wasn't thinking about how to sue it - I remind you the settlement was achieved almost 5 years later.

Now,

As for this "Saturent" - this guy came to the forum initially as neymarjr and got his issue settled, then he came again under different users making us believe in the forum each account is genuine - until he slipped and someone else recorded it.... he also posted in rent font as Boris7 or something like that ... that's cheating ... you don't the whole truth and you're not being honest ....

If he has a gambling problem he could say it, one person did come forward and explained he lost a lot of money in SportsBet.io due to having a gambling problem and was advised to pursue the matter legally which I think is the only way to do something about it - but I wouldn't call him a scammer or cheater because he was honest about what happened and he didn't try to create several accounts with several users in Bitcointalk.

There is a huge distinction between doing the right thing and the wrong thing - there is no doubt this Saturent guy did the wrong thing - you just don't resolve your issues like this.

First you said "20 accounts" then you said it was "a figure of speech" and you pointed some "saturentXX" accounts, and now, everyone is the same person. Now this joke of yours become real scam accusation.

Do you have proofs that saturent == neymar == Boris7 == other users who start scam accusation and allegedly defraud casino?

---

Edit:

This Boris7 person Get-Paid talks about:


As I can see his case (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54979836#msg54979836) has nothing to do with gambling, but it is funny to see how some users jump to conclusions like OP here.

If I'm wrong then I apologize about it, I was just upset on the way this Saturent user fooled everyone.
That's why I made this thread because he did waste lots of my time and I'm sure he wasted others' as well.

How many times did you flip-flop in this whole Sportsbet mess? First you supported neymar's invalid flag, then...


Then almost immediately you started shitting on Sportsbet again in the saturent dispute, then you started this stupid thread and I'm sure there are some flips and flops in between.

Lock the thread and move it to Archival and perhaps take a break for a couple of weeks if mentioning Sportsbet affects your blood pressure.

You clearly have some tunnel vision with scams and gambling. Your proposed solution forgets the fact that most users scammed are going to be newbies, and likely in a trade. Whether it be forum or crypto newbie in general, limiting any ones ability to create a scam accusation would defeat the purpose of the board.

In the end users just have to understand the limits of this board and it's purpose; which is mostly to warn and prevent. For whatever reason many assume they will be made whole through their accusation and that's not the most likely outcome. Same goes for investigating if there was wrongdoing and on who's part, it just clears things up to prevent others from losing funds.

What a surprise...
I was just waiting the time when main culprit guy will open one more accusation topic against Sportsbet.
He is obsessed with them, and probably working with his old scammer partner.
Is anyone still suspicious about this guy connection with GP?
How many more sportsbet topics we need?  ::)

You want that only 'elite' can create accusation topics, but you should know that all high ranked members started as newbies once.
I see no point in preventing newbies to create topics or ask questions.

or more  ;D

You should really read this topic again  ::)

---

If you are wrong? You just accused several accounts that they are the same person trying to scam bookie without any single proof, I even posted you reason why Boris007 was ranting around and you still ask "if I am wrong"?
Get-paid still supports newbie flag(I believe this was first flag in neymar's case):
https://i.imgur.com/k4U2Scb.png

And what is even more better, some newbie account opened topic providing zero evidence of anything except they posted text wall (unedited post here: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5490/54903210.html):

https://i.imgur.com/TGoVwfU.png
...and that flag gets OP's support. Where is proof of violation of contract?


OP better lock this topic.

Not sure why the OP of the thread you have linked removed this topic but it's a topic I am very interested to follow. I do not believe any of the post to be incorrect as sportsbet.io did not deny any of it on their reply, it seemed very real. It's very possible that OP and sportsbet.io came to an agreement in private in exchange for removing the thread?

I am not sure, but I'd like to know more about it but I imagine we won't find out much more.

You shouldn't support a flag just because it "seemed very real". Anyone can create a thread on this forum and there's certainly no lack of that recently. Now you're part of the elite group of sockpuppets going around and supporting any flags they find against some entity they dislike, as well as known scammers (game-protect) and plagiarising ICO bumpers (hacker-whatshername). Well done.

One user should not corrupt the entire population of Newbies. That is a ridiculous extrapolation and you are too intelligent to be fooled by that flawed logical progression. A single bad actor doesn't mean that the other cases were not legitimate, or that subsequent cases would not be legitimate. For one, the neymar case reached a resolution of some sort whereas the saturent one resulted in them ousting themselves.

Theymos would never do this. Its counter-productive. Newbies are the most likely to be scammed and taken advantage of hence the need for them to be able to state their case here. People should probably just start ignoring all the newbie trolls though.

From  automatically supporting all those flags raised by newbies, you gone to another extreme. Newbies are already "handicapped" by lack of reputation so their claims simply don't have the same weight, so something like that would be an overkill.

Sure, majority of newbie claims are most likely false accusations, especially if raised against long standing and reputable businesses, but every once in a while there will be a legit complaint.

The reason for supporting the flag was so that PlayerX could get the answers from sportsbet they wanted and for sportsbet to take the case seriously, that’s what they were asking for help to do. Had sportsbet supplies answers then I would have removed the flag. The flag helps them take it seriously. Nothing more.

That's an improper use of the flag system, though it's no fault of yours that you were mistaken about the mechanics and intent of it. Educate yourself here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0

Warning about scams is different from warning about possible scams.[/quote]Ah, yes, and as the breeze descends from our heads, the sun rises. We look down at each other, and the sun sets up a bright star that looks just like it's the brightest star in a constellation. It's not quite a big star, but it has been around a million times in all our existence. We're looking back at our past as well as the way we have interacted. The light of this universe has been changing our perception of the cosmos, and it is changing our perceptions about what is going on around us.

That's not what type 2/3 flags are for. To support a flag that claims a contract violation occurred there needs to be a referenced thread that shows the proof of the contract and the violation.


It kind of is. The flags are very carefully worded if people cared to read before clicking buttons:


Nowhere does it say "support this if you want to send sportsbet.io a message".

Actually if you read the original thread, this comment is accurate. Therefore I stand by my support for the flag. Until a better explanation is provided or sportsbet provide evidence to the contrary, I believe it to be true due to they did not deny it.

You should not support flag type 1/2 because someone made a comment. Imagine, scam accusation board full of comments and people supporting red flag(s) just because someone said something.

---

OP is full of crap, in one topic(https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5490/54903210.html) he said:
...suggested accuser to hire a lawyer:
...and supported flag, and in another topic:

...he withdraw support for flag because...accuser allegedly did the same thing.

And in third topic (neymar's case), he still supports flag even thought he is convinced saturnet == neymar and he believes that:
???

@Get-Paid, In one topic you have someone who asked to be excluded and was able to create new accounts, lost money and you suggested them to hire lawyer because "sportsbet is "baaad", and in another topic you have someone who asked to be excluded, created new accounts, lost money and when they won sportsbet returned their deposit back and you think "accuser is baaad", "you tricked me, who gives a fuck about you" because the were not being honest.

Main point is - both accusers allegedly asked to be self excluded and both were able to open new accounts.

---

Anyway, as Get-Paid accused various newbies of being alt accounts, I don't see any particular reason why, according to OP, users shouldn't believe that accuser 1 and accuser 2 are not the same person, and, as OP supported flag created by newbie account posting words only it contradicts his suggestion from this topic.

Maybe OP is suggesting "don't allow newbies to open scam accusation unless I like it".