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.

I understand that on your chat with them, those that happens every two or three days, are all about you demanding an explanation why you keep losing and their rtp, of which they basically tell you that their game is provably fair and their rtp are calculated from so many variables that they can't tell you in specific how it got calculated?

Is there any part from your side that hinted the addiction?

Perhaps it'll be best if you provide those screenshots of conversation. Not all of the conversation that happens every two or three days [I assume we'll be flooded by hundreds of screenshots if this is true], the ones where you clearly shows hints of gambling problem will be nice. Don't worry much with inability to show the image, I or someone else overseeing this thread will quote those images for visibility.

Thank you! I was quite surprised about this too, that their email come from a personal Gmail [not even google for business] instead from their own domain. I wanted to check if their support was indeed addressed to a Gmail address, but I somehow can't access their page from any devices and browsers, though I can do it just fine when I made my first post on this case [I was looking at their sub-license situation].

---

Okay, noted about this. Let me try to invite their representative here and give their side. Hopefully I can reach them.

I took a quick glance at your post history and umm... just to be sure, when that problem arise and you were in first contact with the support [the one where they confirmed that you've fulfill the wagering requirement] or on other chat with them, were you talking in a good manner?

I know it's quite strange [let alone sounds very sensitive and insecure] but... casinos have this rule of rude behavior towards other player and their operator, and looking at your post on their thread, I somewhat feel the need to cross that possibility from the list.

---

It's already moved.

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.

Thank you for bringing this to my awareness.

---

Alternatively, OP can just move the topic to scam accusation board and edit the opening post with the preferred format. I think it'll be better than having two threads for the same topic.

And yes, they do have an ANN here [I'm just learning about this too, LOL], as well as had a campaign for one week. I'll notify their representative once OP complete the thread as best as they can.

---

OP, please move this thread to scam accusations board? The button to move a topic will be at the bottom left of this page. Only you and admins can do that. And it'll be very much preferred if you can edit your opening post to match this format as it'll make things easier to understand at glance.

Meanwhile, just to be sure there is no miscommunication and misunderstanding, I understand that you deposited USD 1,098, wagered 1x of that amount, and ended up with USD 1,145?

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."?

I think you get it wrongly, it is not over and resolved yet. OP is still required to clear his level 4 KYC. After that, and if we assume the problem is indeed with that bet, Stake will tell him their decision regarding the rest of the fund on his account.

Possible situation, that OP is guilty of wrongdoing, but he needed a lot of time to get all of his document together were [inferred from his explanation] more to a series of unfortunate events [I guess bad luck do happens?]. He initially can't provide utility bill because it is not under his name, took them a while to get through the proof of address, and they seems to finally get through it. And now, phase 4, SoW, he is once again meet with difficulties because his bank [as per the statement you quote yourself] can't provide the format Stake wanted.

I think if any of OP's explanations for his invalid documents are lies [the needs of notary, unsupported format, and the likes], CG and AG will point it out, as those arbitrator will [I somewhat believe] check the validity of his statement and will points out if the statement are false.

---

For this, I think it's actually "works in OP's favor". If AG simply closed the case and lowered Stake's rating, OP can say good bye to his fund. Sure, Stake's ranking got lower, but they can get it back up with other solved issues, while OP will forever be parted with USD 12,000.

Sorry that you misunderstood what I said, I believe you missed the part where that word, random, is placed on a quotation mark, as in conveying a message that it is said in figurative manner. I explained next to it, that at times, KYC are asked because the users triggered some flags, which some of them I also mentioned on the same sentence. They are all in the same paragraph.


I don't think it will affect the situation by much at this point. They're asking OP for KYC, and OP will most likely need to clear those up before they can proceed. They have not made what triggers them to ask for KYC known to public. Just because OP shows his bet and [suppose] it's legit, won't necessarily means Stake will instantly withdraw their KYC requirement and say, "our bad, you're good".

It'll be a different story if they've cleared the KYC and give their findings that OP's account is suspected for malicious bets. On this situation, then yes, showing his betting history will probably help him cleared the issue [or not].

Hi, my apology, I just got into the forum few minutes ago [a minor IRL problem that I need to tend to, thus I am away from the forum for longer than usual] and read your PM regarding this. I understand that your situation resolves itself. One thing that I'd like to ask [or rather offer], would you like me to PM Razer to arrange for self-exclusion?

This part worries me a lot [for your own well being], as it can be considered as a sign of problematic gambling:

I believe at this point you're quite well versed that casinos are asking for "random" KYC from time to time. Not necessarily due to multi-acc or AML, OP can simply triggered some flags because he won big or accessing his account from questionable IP or whatever reason they might think of.

I am not supporting these random KYC practices and I personally think that is quite unethical, but is that acceptable? Well, sadly, it is. As I believe you're also well acquainted, they have a clause on their ToS that allow them to ask for this.

OP just draw a short straw that he happened to be asked for high level KYC [and to make it clear, I personally think such level of KYC without any reason is very wrong, but again, it's sadly acceptable] and they made it further complicated for OP to get it done by keep rejecting his submitted documents.

Bottom line: the KYC request does not instantly OP is suspected of cheating a bet or multi-acc or being accessory to ML.

BC.Game Support has asked for your UID, you've provided it, and I've personally get in touch with my contact on BC as well, relaying that info. I am quite sure BC's representative is currently combing through interdepartment and gathering details for the nature of your case. I would ask you to kindly give a couple of more days while they get things done.

If you have not done anything wrong or violate any of their ToS, you can rest assured that they will unblock your account [and the KYC] and return your money.

Still beating and the horse is still dead, can't be more dead. Even if we suppose it's true that the problem is with your webcam, that it's of poor quality and it made you didn't pass liveness check, they still currently locked you out from KYC because they suspected something suspicious, so I still can't see why bother "brute-forcing" the progress by retrying it.

If I may give an opinion about liveness check though, I don't think the quality of your webcam will affect much. If they found it too blurry for them to verify you, they'll just ask you to move to a well-lit place and/or try with better camera.

Ok, this case [and Mahdirakib's comment] put a smile on my lips. The name was familiar to me and I actually peeked at their post history to see if I've met them on other, older case they raised. I noticed that OP had a case with bitstarz, but I thought this is the same one and they simply "bumping" the case with a new thread. I am oblivious to the fact that it's a different amount, thus a different case.

Good findings, Mahdirakib, you noticed the details.

Kinda beating a dead horse, isn't it? They didn't allow you to re-perform KYC two weeks ago, and it won't change today or tomorrow or even the next two weeks, not until their support team get to the bottom of your case. If the problem was you and their decision was justified [i.e. you had skeletons in your closet], then you'll never be able to re-perform it. If the problem was a technical mistake from their KYC provider though, then you'll be able to re-perform KYC once it gets sorted out. But the point still stand: trying to re-perform KYC before their support can get to the bottom of your situation is useless.

I can assure you that they're in the middle of their investigation of the situation, though. So a little bit of extra patience will be much appreciated.

DabsPoorVersion understand the situation wrongly, the amount being disputed here is not purely from deposit. Granted he deposited to a sum larger than the amount in dispute, but according to OP, inferred, the amount in question [USD 12,000] came from winnings,


The situation OP experiencing right now [a requirement to do KYC] is not purely because he deposited certain sum of fund. It might be related to AML policy, but there also possibility of other violation or perhaps even small misunderstanding.

The way I understand it, that KYC is simply the preliminary requirement by casino to conduct their investigation, which is a quite common practice shared by many casinos. The problem is yet to be announced. OP never knows and Stake doesn't explain it yet.

Ahh... thanks. Also thank you for confirming the content of the chat.

And Willy99, since that's the case and their support has confirmed that it should be voided, then I believe we can sort this out rather easily. I'll make sure BC's support get this resolved fastest they can.

It's sportsbetting, answered by OP on the second page of the thread, as well as being made known by the opening statement he made on CG. The reason why OP's account got banned on the first place [multi-acc, ML, strange bets, etc.] are yet to be known as the case is still in preliminary phase and gets stuck there.

Stake require OP to perform KYC before they will investigate OP's account and tell him what violation he made. And here we are.

As for why CG mediate the case though it's sports-related, I think they see it from the perspective of KYC instead of the bets.

That'll be because DTs are not light-handed on passing negative trust. Well, at least most DTs. We will need you to provide concrete evidence that someone scammed you an/or is a scammer before we tag them. Had your previous report supported by substantial evidences?

Tagging an account without strong enough basis will make people say DTs are abusing their power. I guess people do never satisfied.