Telegram is really bad for fake airdrops that are dangerous to click. NFT and crypto. |
|
|
|
Stake downgraded to D+. Stake has once again rejected documents requested. Stake is becoming more heavy handed with KYC, the delays are long and documents are being rejected. The documentation requested below by Stake is very intrusive, time consuming and unnecessary. https://talkimg.com/image/r2ut9 This is from holydarkness who deals with a lot of dispute resolution here at BCT I think they've went from investigation to trying to make things as difficult as they can imagine. Depending on their explanation of your inquiry on AG for why it got rejected, and considering the many unresolved cases against them, I might leave a tag for the time being to warn others to be careful playing on Stake for the time being. I'll be waiting for their response on AG. This player is owed approximately $12,000 USD. He was betting MMA and these bets were made in November 2023.  |
|
|
|
[...]
Here is stakes official response
"
Hello,
[...]
Unfortunately, you will not be able to withdraw any remaining funds and, you will receive no further correspondence from the accounts team regarding the decision.
[...]
To clarify, they confiscate all of your funds? Including the other balance you accumulated from the winnings of other bets? Were you at a profit from your entire stay at Stake?
This is another case that has nothing to do with money laundering. It shouldn't even be brought up. The player isn't being accused of money laundering. In the history of BCT, I have seen one case at most of money laundering. If money laundering is used then the book is just pulling up an excuse to steal money. What should happen to a player that is unemployed and doesn’t have a bank
account?[...]
Yes, this is another case that has nothing with money laundering, but this is another case that has to do with being compliant to clauses on the ToS both parties entered into agreement, that Stake are allowed to do their CDD. I believe I've give some explanation on the other thread. I really frowned upon this "new" approach from Stake, but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to ask for it. Even with the neighboring case, where their level-4 verification goes out of the fence [while at the same time, frowning upon and thinking that the decision they made on that case is not something acceptable] the basis of it stays true, that they reserve the right to ask for SoW and may brought it up whenever they deemed fit. What if a player is unemployed and doesn't have a bank account? Well, they have other acceptable documents a player can submit to verify their SoW.  and what should the outcome be if Stake doesn't accept any of those documents? Do they return funds or confiscate the player's money? |
|
|
|
my income is all from the web affiliate , crypto and trading online . i might have the same problem you are in if they asked me such a documents
man this is sucks Then I'll suggest you to complete your KYC before any situation can happen to you and they slam their KYC hammer on your account. Prior to completing the highest level of KYC [given your problem will be on their level 4, SoW], don't deposit any further and it'll be best to withdraw everything in incremental amount instead of whole. Otherwise, if you don't want to do your KYC on Stake, then leave [with same suggestion to withdraw as above] and move to other casino you prefer more. Simple as that.
If Stake doesn’t get or isn’t happy with level 4 verification, it doesn’t mean that Stake can steal your money. It should mean that they pay and then they can close your account. Source of funds has nothing to do with identity or multi-accounting.
Are you sure with this statement? If Stake doesn't happy with the result of OP's level 4 verification [SoW], it means they deemed OP did not pass their monitoring and CDD [Customer Due Diligence], especially because OP did not pass level 4, which heavily related to AML policy. Thus,  It's just one of handful rules on Stake that state the reasons they're allowed to confiscate someone's fund if they find something strange. This is another case that has nothing to do with money laundering. It shouldn't even be brought up. The player isn't being accused of money laundering. In the history of BCT, I have seen one case at most of money laundering. If money laundering is used then the book is just pulling up an excuse to steal money. What should happen to a player that is unemployed and doesn’t have a bank account? Reading further posts, Stake did steal money. The outcome was rigged but the OP may not have been involved in the rigging. He may have made a steam play, poster is calling it follow the trend, where he saw the line moving elsewhere and jumped on it. It's ok not to pay winnings but pay the rest back. Stake is misrepresenting what law enforcement has done. To my knowledge, the only funds where deposits weren't paid back involved those involved of rigging the game. Others got their deposit back. If a player unknowingly gets caught up betting a fixed match, a book can't take all his money as a punishment of a crime he didn't commit. |
|
|
|
I have no love for those opening multiple accounts. Whatever punishment handed down is fine. I was confused by Jeremy’s reply. Thanks for the clarification. You just can't keep my name out of your mouth, can you? NEWSFLASH; we don't care what you think and no one takes your little troll account seriously  There's no reason to play at Sportsbet. Your lines are awful, some of the worst that I've ever seen. Stake and Sportsbet are very similar. Both are bad books for players but pay to recruit those that don't know better. Both books also do more KYC than others. I'm sure a lot of innocent players get caught in the net. |
|
|
|
This is absolutely insane. Your level 3 verification was approved on March 30. They should pay you your money and close your account if they don't like level 4. This case has nothing to do with money laundering so level 4 is irrelevant as far as being paid. What would happen to a person that dealt 100% in crypto? Tell them to close the account and pay you. What should the outcome be if Stake isn't happy with stage 4 verification source of funds? |
|
|
|
Hi, OP, I see that you've been online from time to time. First I noticed was on 13th of April, and then again on 20th. Can you please confirm if you're accessing SB from Germany, and thus, from a restricted access? Your silence will make people assume the answer is "yes", and thus this scam accusation is not valid as SB do everything according to the rule.
I'd be waiting for a couple of more days before having to strongly assume that above narrative is true and mark this case as invalid. I am hoping for your cooperation.
Did Sportsbet take his deposit and winnings? Quite safe to assume that they did from OP's very little explanation and the lack of clarification. Their findings [alt-account] is quite logical if we assume OP is from restricted country, don't you think? OP will need other accounts since his other ones were banned. And that'll be [at least] two points being breached. I am sure OP is at an overall profit from the previous accounts and abuses, otherwise SB will return his initial deposit. I have no love for those opening multiple accounts. Whatever punishment handed down is fine. I was confused by Jeremy’s reply. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
Hi, OP, I see that you've been online from time to time. First I noticed was on 13th of April, and then again on 20th. Can you please confirm if you're accessing SB from Germany, and thus, from a restricted access? Your silence will make people assume the answer is "yes", and thus this scam accusation is not valid as SB do everything according to the rule.
I'd be waiting for a couple of more days before having to strongly assume that above narrative is true and mark this case as invalid. I am hoping for your cooperation.
Did Sportsbet take his deposit and winnings? |
|
|
|
Stake downgraded from "C+" to "C" There are currently three open cases with Stake. Two of them go back to 2023 and the third has been ongoing for over one month. It's happening far too often where Stake is stalling on making a some type of decision on cases where the player has been accused of multi-accounting. In two of the cases, Stake is asking for source of funds. Source of funds is irrelevant since the player is being accused of multi-accounting, not money laundering. No fiat book takes four months to determine if a player multi-accounts and no crypto book should take four months. There isn't any reason to hold a large balance at Stake, nor is there a reason to multi-account. Stakes lines are generic and there isn't a sports bonus. Innocent players may have their funds held up for months. There are cases that have gone on for over four months but only the complaints at BCT are listed in this thread. If you aren't willing to provide source of funds, it's best to play elsewhere. Novemebr 21, 2023 STAKE IS SCAM ($12,000) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5474855.0March 12, 2024 I GOT SCAMMED FOR 0,85 BTC ON STAKE.COM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5488632.0December 18, 2023 Funds withdrawn from Stake without 2FA. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478418.0 |
|
|
|
|
If the OP won money, he would be paid. He lost and has no one to blame except himself. These types of addictions are sad but the book returning funds is enabling him to do it over again.
|
|
|
|
|
If Stake doesn’t get or isn’t happy with level 4 verification, it doesn’t mean that Stake can steal your money. It should mean that they pay and then they can close your account. Source of funds has nothing to do with identity or multi-accounting.
|
|
|
|
thanks. once again i hope you understand it has only taken this long to provide documents because my first 10 documents and my 15 selfies were not good enough for some reason that was never clearly stated if you comb through the casino guru thread (whatever they said was made up on the spot, and when i tried to address specifics they ignored me)
I was definitely skeptical until I saw your bets. There doesn't seem to be a reason to multi-account. There's no bonus. The lines don't seem to be off. I only took a quick glance of line history and matched up dates but not exact times since I'm not sure of time zones on ticket and history. I take a little different approach than most when trying to figure out if someone is multi-accounting. The first thing I try to figure out is why the player would multi-account. Is there any reason to try and cheat the book or break rules. |
|
|
|
Lines are good. Wishing you luck on getting paid. |
|
|
|
|
This case got real strange. David is going to make the decision and the OP complains to AG about David’s actions rather than the money he’s claiming to be owed. Of course that case isn’t going anywhere.
OP- are your bets limit bets on props?
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't say it's unlawful or unfair to limit or to close accounts of such bettors. Or even to do that to just good bettors if it's clearly stated in ToS previously agreed by the customer at least. AFAIK fiat sportsbooks are doing it, but unlike those offshore crypto sportsbooks they will never keep customers' funds, and ask dubious extra KYC.
Some crypto sportsbooks will have no problem with users' KYC for receiving their funds, and to take their money when they are losing, even when amounts are way higher than what the user is usually betting and could be obviously critical for him, but weirdly they need highly private and specific documents when the user made some profits in order to withdraw his funds. It looks a scammy practice bad for reputation of crypto ecosystem for me.
Agree 100%. These long investigations are scammy. They are looking to steal or hope the player loses money while the investigation is ongoing. Stake is guilty of it over and over again. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't accuse someone of being a "casino scammer" just because he placed some weird bets, except maybe if it's not physically possible for a human being obviously. But betting history of plaintiffs would at least show if those offshore crypto casinos are only blocking suspected professional abuser, or any random bettor winning too much/too frequently according to their business model.
I'm not saying some, I'm saying all bets at a line that is off. If a line is 2.2 everywhere he's betting 2.4 where he can arb or just take the off line, this guy is going to get banned or limited. In major markets you can use a line service and pick off bad lines manually whether just off or slow moving. Some people try to throw the book off by making some bad bets. Every single crypto book is going to ban or limit winning players that make bets on lines that are off. Always betting off lines in small markets screams bot use. There's a lot of arb software out there but sooner or later you'll get caught. |
|
|
|
The KYC goes on no matter what happens. What I'm doing is simple profiling and probability. With how long it's taken to get all of his documents together, profiling says he's going to be guilty. In the country that I'm in, if I were innocent I could produce my passport, utility bill and bank statement in 15 minutes. It could be a lot tougher for him because of the country he lives in and not having a utility bill in his name but an innocent person would figure out a way to get documents verified in under 4 months.
You are looking at it from a judge's perspective which you should do and is very valuable to the forum. I think your line of questioning would change and make it much easier if you knew exactly what he was betting. It's just a time saver for you and the posters.
Ahh! Do I understand that what you try to propose here is: if OP's profiling [shown from his betting history] come out questionable and indicates that he's the bad actor here, then it'll safe us all our time if we just leave this be as it'll just a waste of time? If so, I appreciate your concern and kind gesture. However, things can't simply be left behind just because the OP of a scam accusation is the guilty one. Speaking for myself, we are here simply to oversee cases. We couldn't [shouldn't] care less who come out to be wrong and who come out as the real victim. We get no benefits from the outcomes of every cases, thus we are neutral. We just have the concern to keep the forum a safe place for every user to roam. And in the case where an OP of a case is the wrong one, then the case --IMO-- should still be seen toward the end of it, because the victim still needs to be proven not guilty, the narrative simply shifted, where the victim is the casino instead of the gambler. Example - We look at the players bets and his bets show that he limit bets many obscure markets and is picking off bad lines. No one can do this manually without electronic means. He's obviously using a bot. Now you go to Stake and ask for some proof that he's using a bot. Stake is really making it difficult too because they aren't telling you the infraction. Maybe they would if this type of evidence was open on the forum and the case would be closed in our minds. |
|
|
|
If all of his bets are limit bets in obscure markets or prop bets, 99% of the time he's going to be multi-accounting. These guys make money and get banned or limited everywhere they go. All of us get profiled by either the book or odds provider. If all of his bets were $500 in major markets at widely available lines in a non-restricted country, 99% of the time he'll be innocent. If neither of these happen, his bets are a mixed package, then we don't know what happened.
The book can do whatever they want but us posters will have a good idea of what happened if it's scenario 1 or 2.
Walk me through this, as I don't think you see the point I raised, so I'll try to see from your perspective. Suppose he's innocent, his bets are clean, then what? Stake will not stop the KYC verification mid-way just because OP can prove it here that his bets are clean. Thus, the KYC goes on. Suppose his bets are limit bets, or the likes, that'll indicate he's multi accounting, thus, he's the bad actor here, then what'll happen with the KYC? Should he stop the KYC progress? Because it'll help the casino identify him? That'll be an awful advice to give to OP as it'll awfully looks like people are suggesting a scammer a way to evade detection. Thus, the only way, will still be to have that KYC done. Suppose his bets are mixed, and we can't conclude whether he's innocent or guilty, the KYC will have to continue. Bottomline: the KYC goes, no matter what. The KYC goes on no matter what happens. What I'm doing is simple profiling and probability. With how long it's taken to get all of his documents together, profiling says he's going to be guilty. In the country that I'm in, if I were innocent I could produce my passport, utility bill and bank statement in 15 minutes. It could be a lot tougher for him because of the country he lives in and not having a utility bill in his name but an innocent person would figure out a way to get documents verified in under 4 months. You are looking at it from a judge's perspective which you should do and is very valuable to the forum. I think your line of questioning would change and make it much easier if you knew exactly what he was betting. It's just a time saver for you and the posters. |
|
|
|
[...] I know you said that we are past the point of posting bets and that this verification must be done. For the sake of the posters, posting his plays could give us an immediate decision on whether there was wrongdoing or not. All of these sports cases are the same. Most could be solved in the minds of the posters in a day. It's different with casino play. That could take time. I still can't see the benefits of it. Suppose OP provided his betting history and prove to the overseers that his bets are legit, it still doesn't translate into OP not needing the KYC anymore. And suppose there is something odd with OP's betting history, then what? We'll gonna tell OP, "oh, there, you found cheating on that bet on date xx, on xx vs. xx, we don't think you need to pursue the KYC anymore, you'll lose the case anyway. If you complete your KYC, the casino will have your data and can block you from future attempt of abuse, so better not providing them that."? If all of his bets are limit bets in obscure markets or prop bets, 99% of the time he's going to be multi-accounting. These guys make money and get banned or limited everywhere they go. All of us get profiled by either the book or odds provider. If all of his bets were $500 in major markets at widely available lines in a non-restricted country, 99% of the time he'll be innocent. If neither of these happen, his bets are a mixed package, then we don't know what happened. The book can do whatever they want but us posters will have a good idea of what happened if it's scenario 1 or 2. |
|
|
|
807 was the first claim - then I updated it to the specific claimed amount of $1,456.74 that is the total betted during the period that they had issues in their sportsbook that affected my bets.
so good on mathematics and you forgot the past week in your equation?
I already got 499.12, I don't know the specific number to earn within some weeks, but it will be clearly over $500.
Can you now comment the rest of the points? Do you find their offer fair to addicteds?
This is the first casino I ever seen that cannot limit the deposits or bets.
You got 499.12 for what exactly? Not for weekly bonus, that's impossible. You have 70k wager life time! 70k is nothing. I have 250k life time and I never got a bonus you are dreaming off, not even my first week where I wagered 200k. That's 3x your life time wager on the site. Everything you got in bonus money (not monthly or weekly) was clearing the rake back BCD money from the deposit bonus + level ups. These are paid instantly and ONLY get paid if you continue to wager. They are not paid for past wager. Weekly sports bonus is a maximum of 150$, that is the MAX amount, you can see that for yourself. I calculated it all down for you, these are facts. Your all time wager is a fact, 150$ max weekly is a fact, 0.30$ for 1000$ wager for monthly is a fact. I don't care about what they offer to addicts, I care about this case and how you are trying to twist thinks to blackmail them. Anyway, I said what I wanted to say. You lost your money fair and square because you took risky parley bets that didn't pay. U can't blame someone for your own decision of choosing the wrong teams to bet on. They paid you back 1000$ already, even though you also lost that bet fair and square when you made the decision to bet on the side. Sure the odds change was shitty but if it accepted the 2.1 or whatever it was your bet would have lost as well. Now you lost that money and try to get more from them, that is ridiculous. PS: Funny how you now suddenly talk about your "health condition". That didn't work for rollbit and it won't work here. Exclude yourself and get help. That's all there is to say. This whole thing stinks. I don't know if I even believe that the OP had his settings at "don't accept odds changes" at the time of the bet. He may have done that later and took a screen shot. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
