I want to begin that I am not against you or trying to support Stake, I am trying to always be neutral and see from as many perspective as I can. On this matter and from the point established above, I'm afraid I have to give you a pill that'll be quite hard to swallow, namely... Casino Guru has a right stance and understanding on this matter.

Their final ruling [which didn't favor you] was,


Granted, their explanation could probably be a bit hard to understand, and from the postscript you added through edit, I take it that you probably understood them wrongly.

If I may try to better explain the situation, your self-exclusion on tetaeridanus didn't take full effect and prevent you from betting on casino is because you permanently self-exclude your other accounts before. It is a two pronged situation.

The casino should take the self-exclusion and give their best to protect you by immediately closing your account and prevent any credential related to that account from opening other accounts in the future. This means, from the "inside", the existing account were "bricked" by rendered unable to place any bet, and at the same time, from the "outside", the owner should not be able to create another account with the same credentials.

If I may throw a wild guess, their registration prevention probably try to read and stop you by reading the "analog" data like email address, username, name, DoB, nationality, and the likes, while their self-exclusion prevention within the account itself utilize parameters a platform usually use to detect multi-acc like your IP, screen resolution, geolocation, device data, etc.

This is how the self-exclusion work and the keypoint that CG tried to explain [I marked in blue] and how they honor the responsible gaming duty: by blacklisting the credentials to prevent future re-registration and bricking the account at the same time.

But, because you use other credentials to create other accounts, these "external" attempts to protect you through self-exclusion by denying you to create another accounts are bypassed because their database didn't match the newly inputted entry with the old ones that's on their exclusion list. This explains why you could create three [or four] other accounts from the first one you created and submitted self-exclusion.

Now, focusing and applying this on the tetaeridanus account, as I previously mentioned, it's a two pronged situation.

From the "outside", they can't prevent you from creating another account because you use different credential from fishermansj [your latest one prior to tetaeridanus], their system to automatically reject your account trying to sign up were bypassed by these differences on database. While from the "inside", or the second prong, the why your self exclusion for tetaeridanus were not effective by taking the self exclusion permanently, is because their system which responsible to "brick" your account read different data, thus crashed with each other.

Previously, for instance, they detected the entries [IP address, screen resolution, browser version, etc.] belonged to mrperun, or ready2323, and has to be denied, yet at the same time, these entries were belonged to fishermansj, and at some point, were yet to request self-exclusion, thus the database crashed. Same thing happened with tetaeridanus. They read that the entries are for ready2323, or other accounts, yet it also belonged to the newly created account under the name tetaeridanus that's yet to request self-exclusion, and they crashed again. And this is why the permanent self-exclusion couldn't lock itself on its place.

Of course this is only a hypothesis I get from reading the narratives of your case from the available resources [the casino guru's description and yours here]. I hope you can understand what I am trying to explain here.

Roll back a little... do I understand correctly those three previous accounts [four if we include your forgotten one] were permanently self-excluded? So, to put it out chronologically, you created mrperun on 24 April 2021, asked for permanent self exclusion at one point, granted and got your account disabled, and then, with that older account considered inactive, created set2323 on 30 July 2021, realized your addiction is kicking back in, and asked for self exclusion, and they complied. Same thing happened to account fishermansj and tetaeridanus?

Thank you for the more detailed-yet-still-simplified chronology. I understand they never give any explanation of what ToS --other the multi-acc-- you breached? Usually [if not most likely] a casino will at least narrowed things down to one or two clause on their ToS that you breached; for example [and this is literally an example for illustratory purpose, not a real clause on any ToS of any platform]:

"According to our system, you breached one of the terms you agreed upon signing up, specifically terms described on point number 13.1,

13.1. You are not allowed to enroll to a bet near the end of a live match.

for this reason, we believe..."

And I understand you are yet to heard from Stake after Symphonized's last reply to inform you implying he'll forward this matter to Stake team?

---

That's... an interesting two cents. If I may ask for more context, did you register while you're still in German [thus registered within the prohibited jurisdiction], or did you register after living in Japan?

Thank you for taking time digging those emails. I didn't mean to sound so demanding, just wanted to be through and through, I thought there are four accounts prior to tetaridanus? Can you perhaps provide us with the last one? Just to be sure we covered every ground.

And to be sure, none of those accounts are being used during the self-exclusion, or if I may phrase to an even better question, none of the accounts are active [in sense that you've asked to deactivate them] prior to tetaridanus?

OP, my initial appearance here was to... tell someone to edit their post to prevent a scammer taking advantage of the situation. I only had a chance to read your case just now.

Do I understand correctly about two things as below:

1. Simplified the chronology was, you deposited, went all-in, you won, they confiscated the fund under multi-acc accusation, proven to be wrong, returned your fund, but block your withdrawal?

2. [you've acknowledge this yourself, so this is kinda just a formal confirmation] you're from France, which is a prohibited teritory and violation of such allows them to sanction your account?

---

Yes, Symphonized here attended the thread under the capacity of person in charge that forwards all of scam accusations to Stake's staff.

Sorry but... am I understand correctly that you proposing the possibility that OP violated one of duelbit's ToS by writing a review, and thus got him into all of these trouble? In other words, duelbits prohibit their users to write a negative review about them? Why don't you do us a favor by doing two things; one, dig through their ToS and unearth this clause that became the basis and main point of your post, and two, a simpler thing [and this should be the first thing you do, as well as this is more a favor to yourself than to us], read through the thread, it was not that long, less than one page, with relatively small amount of screenshots of evidence, and give yourself a summary of what duelbit explained from their side regarding this situation.

I initially wanted to start with telling you how sorry I am with your addiction, and the seeking for help speech, but I am quite sure you have enough of that. So I'll stop that topic here, know that you have my sympathy and I am not looking at your case with prejudice of a gambling addict.

On to your case, I managed to dig your complaint to CasinoGuru, read through all of it [such a rollercoaster of reading, if I may give my personal opinion] and would like to establish the precise timeline here.

Do I understand correctly that prior to having Tetaeridanus account, you have four different accounts, which the two of them are "set2323" and "mrperun", or is there any that created after Tetaeridanus?

In reference to this findings by CG,


I'd like to take some precaution by asking you to provide a backing evidence to your answer. I assume correctly that Stake send a confirmation email after an account sign up? So, everything is well documented, up to the date and time, when were these five accounts are created? Can you please provide screenshots for these emails timestamping the registration date of each accounts [please censor every sensitive information]? I will quote your image for visibility, like the last one you made.

It's on OP's uploaded video within the post you quoted, OP got blocked by them, he can't send any chat to live support. Though I agree that it's probably because OP kept pestering duelbits for "trivial" matter, I have to say it's a poor choice to deescalate the issue with OP, especially if they didn't warn OP prior to it, that if OP kept bugging them and hindering other complainants's case to be addressed by the team, he will be blocked.

As for escalating to AG [this part of my post also addressed OP's reply above mine], it is almost a certain situation that AG will not address this, because there is no basis for the situation to be escalated and intermediated. As duelbit's representatives explained, all of the inconvenience happened to OP was not made deliberately, it's system-based, they've broken down how the bonus are distributed and based on what, and there's no scam or any suffering from lost funds here. This is what will also likely happen to OP's complaint if it's escalated to other ADR or even to their licensor. Arbitrators will most likely see this as a non-issue and dismissed it.

Again, OP, I am not trying to water down your situation here, I know you're frustrated, perhaps even angry, but they did not scam you, and the best resolution for this situation, as I've said above, as well as being suggested by AG, is to walk away from the platform, agree to disagree and part ways.

Not sure if it ever has a down period, but one thing we can be sure of is that it was accessible when the .com went offline months ago. This fact was [in a way] unearthed by CasinoGuru's mediator on a case against them from the earlier phase of their houdini act.



But yes, I am inclined toward agreement with decodx that the site never goes offline, though I think [again, much like decodx think] it's more because the site was never meant to be a live site, thus it's kinda overlooked; "abandoned", if you may.

If we suppose that they will come back at one point through the .bet site, though, I'll say they can try all they want to do that, but the record here is already pretty much extensive to tell the future users about anything related to betnomi, so I think we shouldn't lose sleep over it, and they're more likely to create a completely brand new site instead of re-using their old name and site.

betnomi[dot]bet was their "older" domain before they move to [dot]com, and I think somewhere on the [multiple] threads about betnomi, it's been explained that the [dot]bet was used to keep the platform running while they overhaul the [dot]com, and users' database was transferred there, thus logging in with [dot]com's credential on [dot]bet will grant you access.

I vaguely recalled someone tried their credential on the [dot]bet and, after gained access, learned that though you can log in, the deposit feature are not available.

---

Edit: I am thanking ninjastic's date filter so I don't have to comb over 90-something posts. Edited the original post, adding link to the "deposit feature are not available" for reference.

I see that the title changed to resolved and I believe this reflect the current development of your case? If so, I am glad it is solved and appreciate you mark it as solved. If you don't mind, please also lock this thread to close it for good and avoid unnecessary bumping and spamming post. Though I am well aware you've been around the forum for a while, in case you didn't know how, the lock button is at the lower left side of this page [only thread owner and mods can lock a thread].

Quite the opposite, bumping old thread is... less effective, IMO. You'll have better chance of [getting your money back aside] warning other possible victim by creating your own thread, if you have enough evidence. As I assume you already know, this board runs on evidence, so please also add proper supporting evidence to back up your story.

Be kind and do us a favor by entirely removing their quoted post from your post, please? I've report them to mods and they'll likely be nuked soon, or, at the very least, got their posts deleted. When that happen, your very own post will ironically contain the info that led gullible people to their trap.

Nice try, good luck being nuked.


I understand that the case is now back in motion and your KYC is now under review? In that case, we'll better wait for the result. Please keep us updated.

We can't help you get your fund back in the sense of forcing yas to refund you, all we can do here is help overseeing your case and/or tagging the platform if they're proven to be questionable so it can be used as future reference for others who want to try their platform.

You can start by having your own accusation thread, supplied with as much proof as you can provide, submitted with the proper format as written here or as below:

Can you please supply more backing evidence by providing screenshot of the above referenced conversation of them refusing to manually check the KYC? I'll notify and invite one of their representative when enough proof are provided

He had, together with some proof, though without the proper suggested format.

I'll try to reach Stake's representative, let's hope he has a better insight for this matter or can escalate your issues to be solved faster. Meanwhile I'm quoting your post with the images reuploaded through talkimg for visibility

---

it looks like he is, wasn't coming back online for more than one and a half year, with the only posts were concentrated in one week after he registered, complaining without proof, and then never have any follow-ups with his "case".


You are more than welcome to file a legal suit against them, but I'll recommend you to try to solve it through mediation first. You can create your scam accusation thread with proofs and see if their officials will address your situation and solve it. Less hassle, if you asked me.

I'm glad you brought this matter about surname up, because I've been wondering about it ever since I read your case. I understand that the apartment is under your parents' name? And they're your biological/legal parents? Which means you shared the same surname as them? Would this still be a problem?

And by the way, I will really appreciate if you can answer my questions so I can get a better understanding of your real situation. And while we're at it, it'll be very nice if you can provide us the email screenshot of them refusing bank statement as a SoW.