They will not going to answer here. I noticed they were online from your information and looked at it yesterday, but as I'm a bit swamped with something else on the neighboring thread, I just took a glance and made a mental note to comment on it when I have some space in my plate. Which is now. I'm not sure if it was there before or it only appeared since yesterday --i.e. they went online just to made this update-- but this is the current message displayed on their signature space, If you have any questions regarding the gaming platform please reach us via our 24x7 support chat on owl.games website. We do not pick up tickets on bitcointalk forum.
|
|
|
|
So, we can't exactly say his feedback is not based on truth. As well as just because his feedback said something that didn't work on your favor it instantly means he's on the bed with sportsbet. I don't believe that you are part of Steve network, but @jeremypw is, and if you spent 3 hours on this thread to answer, you can honestly spend another 2 minutes to see that he is indeed related to sportsbet.io If we apply the rule of "guilty until proven otherwise" My friend, we need to apply the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" and he should wait until this case will be solved, but he rushes to accuse me before that, but I am done with him, too much attention to him. Well, I'm more than willing to drop the topic if you will. With all the respect my questions was for sportsbet.io user ( Steve ) and not for somebody else. Sadly, with all due respect and saying this to you as gentle as i can, far as I know, based on several occasions where I watched him addressing issues raised against sportsbet, steve is a man of his words. When he said he's no longer in position to comment, or that he has no further thing to add to the topic raised, that's exactly what he adhered to. So you'll need to make do with what we tried to help you understand. you're bound by the contract that you accept and allow them to confiscate your fund. They played nice enough by letting you re-claim your deposit, because they actually have the rights --which, again, you've agreed-- to confiscate all of your fund. My friend while their T&C says that they can confiscate your funds, in real life this is illegal and it is called stealing. What if I create an website right now and put such terms and conditions and start taking all the money from users? I have my T&C that says I can confiscate them, is my right, right? come on, stealing is illegal from what I know! Stealing is illegal, confiscating funds from someone doing illegal activity is not. Regarding your question about creating a website, it depends on what exactly you wrote on that TnC and what service do you offer. Were you writing exactly as what those gambling platform wrote on the TnC, and do you provide the same service, and were you registered and supervised by gambling authorities? And does the users violate the points on that agreed TnC? If it's a yes to all of the points I asked, then sure, I think you're entitle to confiscate them. But if you don't have a license, you confiscate without valid and proof-able reason, then that is illegal. Finally can you at least admit it that their message "You are unable to withdraw for 48 hours after making a deposit due to security reasons. " and then to find out that you can't withdraw after 48 is a lie? YES / NO .
I repeat for 1 final time, when I saw so many complaints online and the fact that after 48 hours I was still unable to withdraw and this is the first time when a sportsbook doesn't allow me to withdraw I panic, I may over react , however my reaction was after what I saw about them and because of the 48 hours lie that they show in my account!
I repeat again for 1 final time, I have only 1 account ( one that I am aware of ) , I comply to their requests and everything, now if they want everything to end they could just pay me the 895 USDT and I am out of their way, or we wait for the final decision. If you ask my very honest and personal opinion, I'll say "no", as I've said before, it might be an oversight. They've been in contact with you and trying to clear your issue as fast as they can, I think there's a fat chance that what --still-- appeared on your profile is not crossing their mind. But let me ask you again, will you be more comfortable if that "unable to withdraw [...]" message --which I assume still appear to this second-- is replaced with something like the one I show you, the one that goes with the line "please contact support"? Because if you feel more comfortable with that and preferred so, I can't guarantee you anything, but I can try PMing Steve to ask their team to go with your preference and show that message on your profile instead. Just know that the message comes with the fact that you are locked out from the account, thus the request to contact security team. If I were you, I'll be grateful of this oversight they had, where they still let you in while they investigate the possibility of multi acc. But that's me, I can understand if you preferred the other optio. Should I try to do you a favor and PM Steve? P.S: We have both parties assigned the same case ID with CEG, when I reply to email I can include as CC: email address from sportsbet.io and vice versa , so at any moment I can send an email and tell that I give up to my claim and CEG will close the case, or sportsbet.io can pay me and send the proof and then we close the case, or wait for the CEG to take decision based on the proofs we offer.
So far I have send as evidence print screens of my account with bet, balance and I admit that they pay me back 836 USDT initial deposit , which I also admit here.
So far sportsbet.io send the proof that they paid me 836 USDT but they still claim that I have multiple accounts.
At this point none of the two parties ( Player - me ) or Operator ( sportsbet.io ) does not want to give up to their claim.
Ok, as this is clear that you won't settle for being accused of multi-acc --and I'm not judging that you are-- and they insist on having proof of possible multi acc, then I think it'll be better to just wait for CEG to review all of the evidences given by both parties and draw their verdict. Rest assured that if you're not guilty and this is all just a big misunderstanding fueled by panic, everything will clear itself. Sportsbet has no interest on cheating their users, just like Steve said, [...]so I can assure you if everything is as sweet and innocent as you suggest, there would be no problem here.
[...]
regards,
Steve.
Sportsbet.io
|
|
|
|
This thread and post has became --at least for me-- really really confusing and lengthy, filled with wall of text. I'll try to make it easier to understand by separating each topic into sections
For point number 9, how exactly does jeremypwr, according to your opinion, is part of "this scam"? He tried to oversee and help your case by notifying sportsbet's representative, and it's proven to be worked. Steve did come here the instance --I assume-- he read jeremypwr's PM.
One way user @jeremypwr tells me "This sounds like an honest misunderstanding and I have already notified Steve. He should be in contact with you shortly. " on other way he rush and post on my trust that "Multi-accounting scammer/liar/fraud who got caught and now claims Sportsbet is "stealing" 895 usdt from him.Even after Sportbet was kind enough to return his initial deposit of 836 usdt, he continues to copy and paste his spam posts." So you can see how the same guy once take your side and then switch without any evidence that I have multiple accounts and he is also part of sportsbet.io as you probably know already. You'll probably accuse me to be in the same league with him after I said this, but unfortunately this is the truth and I have to spell it out, feedback is given based on the user's opinion toward other user. And so far, his opinion is arguably rather correct. His feedback, as you've also quoted, said, Multi-accounting scammer/liar/fraud who got caught and now claims Sportsbet is "stealing" 895 usdt from him.
This is based on possible truth, thus arguably correct. If we apply the rule of "guilty until proven otherwise" their system caught you as suspicious and possible multi acounting. Until CEG gave their verdict, the common belief is that you're related to "punt10", "best10", "adi25", and "winwin10". Of course, sportsbet --and by sportsbet, I mean Steve-- could verify this in matter of minutes or hours, when he had free time on his agenda, sometime arond this week, but unfortunatelly that's not possible anymore as this case is now under CEG's jurisdiction. Even after Sportbet was kind enough to return his initial deposit of 836 usdt, he continues to copy and paste his spam posts." We like it or not, this statement is 100% correct. you continuously spam posting with copy and paste content. So, we can't exactly say his feedback is not based on truth. As well as just because his feedback said something that didn't work on your favor it instantly means he's on the bed with sportsbet.
He tried to, but you forced it out of his hand when you escalated the case to CEG No he did not not try at any moment to answer my questions, not here, not on email, not anywhere. My question were: [...] and this questions are still ignored. He tried to give you an even better solution, namely escalating your issue and cleared it out earlier than the timeframe given by sportsbet compliance team. Sadly, this couldn't happen because the matter was taken out of his hand. But if you really curious on these questions, FatFork has actually explained them here. If I may repost it, and add my own words to divulge it further 1) If I had any other account why would I not bet there and create a new account? You don't have any deposit bonus and rewards I suppose are better once you get higher in rankings , so what advantage I could ever have if I had a second account?.
As for why would someone create multiple accounts, there could be various reasons. Some may do so to take advantage of signup bonuses and promotions, while others might want to avoid any betting restrictions imposed on their account. However, what's important to remember is that creating multiple accounts violates the terms and conditions of the casino, which could lead to the termination of all accounts and the loss of any associated funds.
2) Why you did not ask verification on other account ( there are none ) and you ask now on : pxdi ? I think is obvious that you did not had any other account where to ask for verification and you ask only on the single account I have.
How do you know they didn't ask for verification from other accounts???
I've also addressed this issue, as below [...]
For this, they asked your patience to wait for 5 working days, which I assume they needed to contact and ask and verify the other accounts. This answered your question why they "didn't" ask another accounts. They did, you just didn't know that they asked because they asked personally to those accounts' email, which you certainly don't have access to... unless you somehow have, and that's why you're so sure those other accounts are not being investigated? 3) Why are so many complaints about sportsbet.io ? This is one of the reason I panic in the first place! everywhere on this forum we see complaints about sportsbet.io , on trustpilot more than half of reviews are 1 start and you have 3 stars average out 5, while your competitor stake 4.5 stars average out 5.
I can understand that this is the source of all of this mess, you read the reviews and got panicked. I am not sure if you're familiar with trustpilot and this forum prior to this case, but if you didn't, it's a common knowledge throughout this forum that trustpilot is well... not that trustworthy. People can be --and are-- paid to wrote positive review there, as well as can be paid by competitors to write bad reviews for other platform. That is why everybody need to take the review --or basically every review anywhere-- with grains of salt, and dash of lime. 4) Why you do not pay a legit bet? we both know and I show evidence here that my bet is legit and you basically stole 895 USDT from my player account and any joy I had after placing a winning bet.
Because that winning amount is still under investigation. If you're proven to violate the ToS --that you've agreed upon signing up-- you're bound by the contract that you accept and allow them to confiscate your fund. They played nice enough by letting you re-claim your deposit, because they actually have the rights --which, again, you've agreed-- to confiscate all of your fund. Once your case is cleared and you're proven to be honest, I think sportsbet will be more than happy to release that winning amount and you can withdraw them. But again, it's all depends on CEG's decision what action should be taken for your case. Both parties has to agree and comply with whatever verdict they gave. 5) If my bet was lost. Would you refund it? or just kept my money and then you let me to make other deposits .
Answered above, I don't think I understand. Do you mean if you lost a bet and asked for the bet to be voided? Then no, why would a betting platform allows a lose bet to be voided just because the user asked for it? It called gambling, not charity event.
If you mean to ask that if your acc is proven to be multi-acc abuse and we suppose the bet was a lose bet instead of a winning, I'm not at the capacity or position to answer this, but if we consult to their TnC, the answer is they're actually allowed --and you agreed-- to confiscate all of your funds.
According to their TnC which you've agreed upon signing up, specifically 18.1.(ix) the answer is yes and no That article in their TnC has to change, basically it gives them right to do whatever they want to player account, if they don't want to pay they don't , they are God and you should obey to whatever shit they are giving to you even if your bet was on major event on which you could not have any edge. Not honor a bet that was legit placed and which could end in both ways , player losing their funds if they lose bet or player winning the bet and taking the funds in my case 1731 for me it looks like scam, that bet could end only in 2 possible ways, either won or lost, there is no gray area, there should not be a 3rd option. That's... basically the TnC of every sportsbet and gambling platform out there. You want them all to change their article? You're free to try asking them, but I don't think they'll welcome the idea. It is why this forum have this sub-board and a lot of DT gave their time and efforts --in my case right now, a serious case of migraine-- voluntarily to oversee each of the case raised, to help everyone see the truth. There are case of a platform abusing this TnC and there are case where the user tried to scam the platform and play victim, and the DTs are not siding with anyone, they --should-- remains neutral. If a platform proven to abuse their TnC, they can expect a rainshower of negative feedback and a very pretty looking red banner above every single thread they have, take a look at this recent one for example. The same thing also applied if an user is proven to try to cheat the platform. My questions to you are and I kindly want an answer with yes or no:
1) Was my bet placed on Kansas City Chiefs to win ? Yes / No
2) Did Kansas City Chiefs won the NFL Final ? Yes / No
3) Will any legit sportsbook pay Kansas City Chiefs as NFL Final winners ? Yes / No
1) yes 2) yes 3) yes But you seemed to failed to understand the situation here. Your winning bet was confiscated not because they didn't want to pay or consider that bet as invalid. It's not because they did't accept or acknowledge the result. Your winning bet was confiscated simply because they suspected you of multi-acc, which breach their TnC, which validate them to confiscate your fund until they've done with their investigation; the investigation and decision that now fall on the hand of CEG.
the Operator had tried to reach out and working on resolving the difference with you, that's what Steve tried to do here but you decided to take a different course No they did not, Steve only posted here after I post on sportsbook chat, but it's ok, I can admit that I rushed things because I panic after I saw so many complaints online about sportsbet.io with users having the same issue like me and the trigger for me and what made me angry a lot was the fact that I waited 48 hours because of the message "You are unable to withdraw for 48 hours after making a deposit due to security reasons. " and then to find out that that message is a lie. They did. The compliance team asked you to be patient and allows them five working days to solve this issue, it's there on the email as evidence. And I think it's quite hard to believe that Steve only posted here after you rained their chat. I can't see him sitting on his office monitoring the chatroom got swamped by a spam of copy and paste and then run to this forum to look into the matter. I think it's more because he has few minutes of free time on his hand, logged into his account here, saw a PM --or two, or three-- and addressed the issue right away. All in all, saying that they had not tried to reach out and working on resolving the issue is an incorrect statement.
and I want to say so everybody can see:
I admit that I should gave more time to sportsbet.io to look into my case and I should not rush things , but the panic and what trigged me was that they were unfair with 2 things:
1) Accusing me of having multiple accounts since I have only 1 which I comply with their request and send them my documents and I still do not understand why anybody will need 2 or more accounts since you don't have any deposit bonus and probably their reward center is better once you climb through rankings .
2) Message "You are unable to withdraw for 48 hours after making a deposit due to security reasons. " and after waiting + 48 hours not to be able to withdraw, that message could not be there at all or could be replaced with contact support or anything like this , for me that is a lie.
3) The fact that I saw so many complaints about sportsbet.io everywhere made me to panic and be impatient and I also wanted to be able to use my funds and bet , probably on long run I would end up losing them to sportsbet.io eventually but I still wanted to use them.
Finally after staying up all night watching NFL final and see how your team come back from behind and win NFL final , see your account credited to 1731 USDT and just after that somebody to take your joy of winning it simply angry me.
I don't have any other accounts, I am not a big stake , I place bets for purely enjoy of betting and recreational, but it makes me angry when you finally win something and somebody just decide to take your money, this is not fair, my deposit was honest, my bet was honest, I have no edge over the bet and they should pay the bet .
I don't think I should comment on this part as it would only brings us back to the very beginning of this headache inducing post(s) filled with quoted post within quoted post.
I spent nearly three hours typing this --not kidding here-- and I really hope you can understand the situation better now as well as understand that there's nothing sportsbet and steve --and you-- can do other than wait for the results to be validated. P.s.: I am not sure I understand correctly the snippet of CEG you posted above, as what you gave is a very small portion of what seemingly long email chain. Were they saying they returned the decision to sportsbet compliance team and let them find a way to meet you in the middle, or that they'll mediate you both and overseeing the evidences given by each side then took decision based on it? |
|
|
|
I appreciate your help but here is my story chronologically whith evidence ( https://i.ibb.co/bB0wHK7/Notification.png ): 1 ) 12 February 2023 at 6:39 PM I create my account to sportsbet.io with username: pxdi . 2) 12 February 2023 at 10:39 PM I made my first deposit in value of 836.28 USDT from my binance account and shortly after I place the bet on NFL Final , bet here: https://i.ibb.co/SJ0SXrP/mybet.png3) 13 February 2023 at 5:17 AM they credit my account with 1731.11 USDT and they offer me a reward of 0.27 USDT , see here my balance: https://i.ibb.co/D4xPxbm/wallet.png4) 13 February 2023 at 5:37 AM they decline my withdrawal of 1231.11 USDT see here: https://i.ibb.co/bB0wHK7/Notification.png5) 13 February 2023 at 6:53 AM they ask for verification " please go to your Account page and complete the verification." and comply right after and send them an email. 6) 13 February 2023 at 7:27 PM after almost 13 hours from their last emails they ask me again to send the same documents but using a link they gave me via email, again I comply and send them documents . 7) 14 February 2023 at 7:44 AM after 12 hours from their last email I received : "that your account was disabled due to being flagged for multi accounting by our security systems" 8 ) 14 February 2023 at 8:22 AM since I had only 1 account and I felt this is not fair I open this thread here. 9) 14 February 2023 at 04:07 PM @jeremypwr who seem like a nice guy in the first place , but in reality he is part of this scam says : "This sounds like an honest misunderstanding and I have already notified Steve. He should be in contact with you shortly." 10) 14 February 2023 at 10:39 PM at more than 48 hours after my deposit according to their website/ system that shows message : "You are unable to withdraw for 48 hours after making a deposit due to security reasons. " see here: https://i.ibb.co/nMHmPhw/withdraw.png which is a LIE , if that message isn't a true statement then just don't put it out there, remove it, because you make people to wait 48 hours for nothing! This was the moment that after reading so many complaints about sportsbet.io online and after I saw that their message is a lie , I panic a bit . 11) 15 February 2023 at 05:45 PM Steve reply here for the first time, but as you can see from his message his main concern was that I post my story on their main chat of the website ,club talk, where all the customers can see how they act with customers like me and of course was unpleasant for them and tells me that "I will take the time to review the information and process. I will give you a full explanation this week." WOw and after just 21 minutes: 12) 15 February 2023 at 06:06 PM after Steve took a long long time to have a look into a case that last for 3 days of just 21 minutes decide to tell me via email to withdraw my deposit and to fuck off because they are not willing to pay my winnings just because in their view I have multiple account. Now really isn't this stealing  You credit my account with 1731 USDT then you suddenly decide to pay only 836 USDT and steal the 895 USDT left ?? I think I'd have to address an elephant in the room thread: that you seemed to perceive their response time is slow, as evidenced as well as to address your chronological order number 1-8. May I point out that it's just 26h:48m [I fixed your minutes to match your screenshot] give or take couple hours to match the difference between your local time [the time your withdrawal is locked according to the screenshot, which in your local time] and the time applied by the forum when you create this thread, which UTC +0. Wouldn't you agree that it's too rash? You're trying to clear an issue with a platform which operates worldwide and caters probably hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints and disputes everyday. They need time to address each of the ticket raised in chronological order, from the earliest to the latest, and then back to reply from the earliest response to the latest. Expecting them to response within minutes is rather... rash, IMO. I am not lecturing you or trying to say you're wrong, it's completely to someone's consideration and decision when they should open a thread to address the concern, I just try to point out that your chronology number 1-8 --which repeated various times in various forms throughout this thread-- didn't really help your case, it only paint you as someone impatient and that this case probably wouldn't need to be escalated to this point and situation if you exercised some restraint. For point number 9, how exactly does jeremypwr, according to your opinion, is part of "this scam"? He tried to oversee and help your case by notifying sportsbet's representative, and it's proven to be worked. Steve did come here the instance --I assume-- he read jeremypwr's PM. Point number 10, I'd have to agree with you. If the case is like what I assumed, that initially you're locked out due to the 48h policy but then within that timeframe they suspected you of multi-acc, then the message should not said what's shown, but instead something like this or this. I believe this is an oversight because they're already and currently in communication with you in regards of multi-acc --chronology number 5-7, which happened before number 10-- so it's very possible that they didn't check your account again to change the message displayed. 11, this is quite interesting, perhaps a language barrier made you perceived the post wrongly, as you stated that English is far from your primary language, but allow me to quote the exact post Steve gave as his first response and break it down Hi pxdi,
First of all, please don't panic post on every available known outlet to sportsbet.io. This does you no favors, and most of all, this does not speed up our process of getting back to you.
We have a fraud/security and payments team who are dealing with many facets of operating a sportsbook and casino.
I will instigate the scenario of your account issue this week.
We processed over 100,000 withdrawls last month alone, so I can assure you if everything is as sweet and innocent as you suggest, there would be no problem here.
The panic posting, emailing, spamming club talk chat and trusting in Trustpilot to get you an overturned result leads me to believe you are aware of what I am going to find out.
As mentioned, I will take the time to review the information and process. I will give you a full explanation this week.
regards,
Steve.
Sportsbet.io
I don't see where he's more concerned that you spammed their system. He gave you his words that he'll see your case himself, which means escalating it and sped it up --it's certainly a privilege, he cut the line for you-- and urged you to show some restraint and stop raining all of their media. This is not without reason. Panic posting here, as I've also said earlier, just made it difficult for the neutral overseer --and whoever read your thread-- to comprehend the situation. Wall of repetitive text and screenshots just made people lost track and focus of the issue. Emailing, well... it's actually quite impressive, if I may be honest, 400 emails certainly shows dedication... or a lot of free time at hand. But allow me to explain this as well on why Steve urged you to stop doing so. Other than because it will clog their system, the way ticket-addressing adapted by many platform --far as I know-- is by queue number. When you sent them an email, your email got into a queue. Let's say you're the 137th person emailing them that day --or during certain timeframe-- you're on queue number 137, which means your email and complain will be addressed after they addressed #136. If you send them another email, your previous queue would be voided and your newest will be the one active. Which means, suppose you're initially at 137, your second email --that's sent before they can even address the earlier email-- would be pushed to the back of the queue, perhaps number 159. Your 359th email? It probably pushed you to the 666th. Your 400th? Maybe somewhere on the thousand-th. So yeah, Steve's advise to stop panic emailing is actually to help you and the other customers. He already put your case on his plate and tried to track down your email. If it kept jumping queue, it'll just make it harder for him to clear the issue. [Of course, this is statement and explanation made based on my knowledge and assumption, anyone is free to correct me if they have a better knowledge and experience on this matter] Spamming their chatroom, I think it's more to protect the interest of their community than to protect their name from "the expose". Put yourself in a sportsbet user's shoes, they tried to engage in a discussion, or tried to ask something, and their chat kept being cut by someone complaining a repetitive words that's effectively rendered the chat room non-functional, wouldn't you be annoyed? Now put yourself on the chatroom admin's shoes, they tried to engage with their user and their response kept being pushed out of the screen by the same complaint, wouldn't you find it irritating? IMO, it's not about Steve concerned about how they treated their one specific customer --especially as he's already offered to take the matter to his own hand-- it's about making sure the entire system works and able to cater everybody's interest. Next, point/chronology number 12. I didn't see this screenshot in any of your post, perhaps I lost it between the repetitive links, would you please share us again the exact screenshot? This is the end of addressing the first part of your post. Now we go to your second part, which I'll breakdown to parts without changing the point of the questions, Now if you are impartial like you said can you admit few things:
1) Steve decide to ignore my legit questions that I raise to him
He tried to, but you forced it out of his hand when you escalated the case to CEG, [...]
As you have since gone and placed an official complaint with E-gaming commission in Curacao, the matter is now with them and I didn't even get a chance to dig into your case due to your impatience.
As always, we will wait for the process of e-gaming curacao ( which is long and drawn out ) and we will adhere to any findings they have.
This also means I am no longer in a position to comment on your case now it has been taken up with the commission.
Im sure we can all agree on that matter.
regards,
Steve.
2) It is obvious that my bet was placed honest, don't you think that they should pay it since I had no leverage on it , it was a major event, NFL Final , I can't cheat in any way even if I wanted too.
According to their TnC which you've agreed upon signing up, specifically 18.1.(ix) the answer is yes and no, 18. Cancellations, Suspensions and Closure
18.1. Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if:
[...]
(ix) we suspect that you have registered, manage or direct your betting activity on multiple user accounts in an attempt to hide your betting activity, bypass our set trading limits or violate any promotion Terms and Conditions
If your account is found to be the one and only you have, thus not multi-acc ing, and as your bet is legal --at least that's the assumption when this post is made-- then yes, they'll be more than happy to restore your account, there are instances of this events, like this one for example. But if their suspicion proven to be correct, then no, you'll not get your winning bet, it'll be voided as per your agreement with them upon sign up. 3) You don't think that they should remove the message "You are unable to withdraw for 48 hours after making a deposit due to security reasons. " if they are going to need more than that ?
Explained above, it might be an oversight and that the case is developed to something else where the 48h-after-deposit is no longer the case, its --used to be-- 5 working days to investigate the matter of multi acc. But will you be more comfortable if they changed the message on your profile now? 4) If my bet was lost, will they still refund me I don't think I understand. Do you mean if you lost a bet and asked for the bet to be voided? Then no, why would a betting platform allows a lose bet to be voided just because the user asked for it? It called gambling, not charity event. If you mean to ask that if your acc is proven to be multi-acc abuse and we suppose the bet was a lose bet instead of a winning, I'm not at the capacity or position to answer this, but if we consult to their TnC, the answer is they're actually allowed --and you agreed-- to confiscate all of your funds. Finally I truly believe that Steve or anybody with decision power from sportsbet.io wanted this to end they could have send me the winnings of 895 USDT and I will end any debate with the promise that I will not open another account ever with them and if they want they can close my account. Maybe people from here don't know that I will tell right now, Curaçao eGaming inform both parties that we should try to settle : "In accordance with the IP-agreement, the Executive is required to provide Curaçao eGaming and the Player with proof within seven working days after having received this formal notice, that the Operator has reached out to the Player and that it is working to resolving differences between the Operator and the Player.
CEG will monitor mutual attempts to resolve the said dispute as part of its Alternate Dispute Resolution" So this can be solved very easy if sportsbet.io wanted , all they have to do is to pay the legit winnings I made! Here is message that I sent to both sportsbet.io and Curaçao eGaming where I stated that all I want is to receive my winnings: https://i.ibb.co/MsMG6Gb/request.pngAnd they did, the Operator had tried to reach out and working on resolving the difference with you, that's what Steve tried to do here but you decided to take a different course |
|
|
|
I have to spend a lot of time trying to comprehend your story chronologically, thanks to the burst posting and repetitive info --and screenshots-- every now and then. And I actually have been following your thread since day one, just to emphasize how tangled this thread is. If I may be honest, it's quite annoying to have to open an ibb link in the middle of digesting your wall of text just to see that it's the same evidence provided several post above, over and over. Or the same questions and statements reposted. I would very very politely ask you to please take a good care of your keyboard and spare them from a premature worn out due to the heavy work you tax them with by typing every few minutes.
Before you can accuse me to be a friend of Steve, allow me to save your time --and keyboard's mechanism-- by saying I am not. I can go long and long with my defenses but the point is, no I am not, I have zero business with him and didn't get anything from whatever the outcome of this case other than finding the truth behind your case.
If I may add, just to strengthen that I am siding with the party called "finding the truth", it's way past bedtime in my local time and I have about 90+ chat bubbles from a friend in my personal phone, dissecting her day and catching up with me with a very interesting topics that I'd really prefer to spend my time there, typing my reply and response, which no doubt I'd enjoy more, yet here I am, trying to understand what actually happened.
Ok, that's my wall of text, which rather not important and irrelevant, hence the font color.At this point, we might be just beating the dead horse as Steve had said that the matter is now out of his hand and we can only wait for --and comply with-- E-gaming commission's decision, but if I may straighten a few things... I think what actually happened to your account was: it's initially locked for 48 hours due to the new creation, first deposit, or whatever other reason. It's not uncommon. I have a first hand experience where an exchange I frequently use locked me for 24 hours because I resetted my password, and I vaguely remember a platform also applied a 48h lockdown time from the initial account creation. But on your case --again, if I may suggest from what I understand-- during this 48h lockdown, the compliance team suspected you of multi-acc, which is why you're still unable to wd after 48h passed; it's no longer due to the 48h lockdown, it's because your account is under investigation. IF your account is indeed not related to the ones they pointed out on their email, they'll more than happy to unblock your account and proceed with your withdrawal. For this, they asked your patience to wait for 5 working days, which I assume they needed to contact and ask and verify the other accounts. This answered your question why they "didn't" ask another accounts. They did, you just didn't know that they asked because they asked personally to those accounts' email, which you certainly don't have access to... unless you somehow have, and that's why you're so sure those other accounts are not being investigated? Second, about how unresponsive and unhelpful Steve is, [...]
I never refuse Steve help, but Steve did not tried to help me at any moment and after I spent hours investigate sportsbet.io I think he is the owner an he pulls the shots. There was no help from him side and as you can see he is not willing to answer my questions that I raised .
[...]
We all know this is not true. He addressed your concern right away when he noticed it. Exhibit one [1], it happened behind the screen so it's not on public information, but I also PMed Steve the moment I saw him online. At the time I finished writing and sending my PM, I saw that he's already replied here, proving that once he went online and saw jeremypwr's PM, he went straight to this thread. Exhibit two [2], he promised to take your matter to his hand and see through it himself, to escalate the issue and give you an answer within this week. That would be 19th at the latest instead of 20th, or even by tomorrow, 17th, if we assume he referred to week in a workdays. It's faster than the initial deadline, but unfortunately, you choose to take a different path.
[1]  [2][...]
I will instigate the scenario of your account issue this week.
[...]
As mentioned, I will take the time to review the information and process. I will give you a full explanation this week.
regards,
Steve.
Sportsbet.io
Next, I wanted to dissect the cases you mentioned here one by one, but that'll require me to at least skim through all of those threads to get a better grip of each of the situation, and as I said, it's already past bed time in my time zone, so I'll gladly do it tomorrow when time allows me to.
|
|
|
|
The owlgames' representative was online few hours ago [1] I've leave negative feedback to on his account, @OP you need to create flag type 3 and use this thread as the reference, I'll support your flag.
[...]
I wanted to say that a type-2 flag [a violation of casual or implied agreement] is more appropriate for this case rather than type-3 [a violation of written contract] --which also the heaviest flag-- due to the reason I said on other thread snipped below, [...]
1by the way... i think flag type-2 is more accurate, since OP did not have a written contract with the suspect. The "contract" is the ToS that OP checked upon signing up, which basically an agreement. Unless I'm wrong and such action [checking the "i agree ..." box] can be considered as a written contract?
[...]
however, upon trying to learn more about the legal status of a ToS [or TnC, which rather interchangeable], it seems ToS is indeed perceived as contract,   https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/terms-conditions-faq/#How_Can_I_Ensure_My_Terms_And_Conditions_Are_Sufficiently_ClearSo yeah, if owlgames failed to prove that their action is justified and thus their action against you is breach of contract, then a type-3 flag is acceptable for this case. |
|
|
|
[...]
Thanks also to holydarkness for his efforts to bring this thread to their attention.
I've left them a neg trust as, in my personal opinion, their series of action clearly shows they're unwilling to cooperate. If you'd raise a flag, I'll probably support that too as the absence of their side --although they've been informed-- on this thread to give their defense and provide counter evidences is not met, as long as they refuses to come here, the case is as good as reaching a verdict that it won't be resolved. Anyone is welcome to try reaching to them and informed them about this case just like what I've tried to do, and if they shows good intention to solve the case, I'll withdraw my neg and --suppose it's raised-- support of the flag. |
|
|
|
Hi Holydarkness, We've just addressed the hint that our team is not transparent enough and have updated our Web Pitch Deck. The new version is live. Not all team members have enough info on their LinkedIn account, we will address this in the near future too. https://www.aeddon.com/download/AeddonMetaverse_WebPitch.pdfWe will now address the issue to clarify our Tokenomics slide. I will keep you updated. Cheers Thank you for voluntarily doxxing your team, I really appreciate the transparency. I spent few good minutes searching their profile and name, just to be sure that they're indeed the person said in your updated pitchdeck, only to realize later that you've conveniently add link to each of their linkedin profile. I can see that some of them indeed listed Aeddon as their current employment, a prove that you didn't just grab random profile without the owner's knowledge. That's another thing clarified. I'll be happily waiting for your updated tokenomy so the community could also be rest assured of your project. |
|
|
|
All your bets were placed on matches with abnormal activity (matches with a predetermined result) and our provider canceled them so your account will be closed after you withdraw your last deposit, play fair and you will not have problems with payouts
I was about to wrote this around the time OP posted his reply yesterday and something else needed my attention and it slipped from my mind. I was curious with the same matter both OP and Albon said, if OP caught cheating and you canceled their winnings, then you should only confiscate the winnings from the --allegedly-- rigged bets ans return their deposits, not just the last one, otherwise you're stealing from them. I can't comprehend the logic behind this decision. Second, you're accusing OP of a rigged match where they already know the outcome of the game? How?
OP, can you inform us what game or match you were betting on? As I didn't see you said anything about being locked out of your account, I assume you still have access to it and your betting history. Can you provide us the screenshot of it? Those screenshot might give us a better insight of the situation. |
|
|
|
[...] the TX private key is what saxydev would provide, he wrote and I quote, "to a trusted person outside the gang of [...] GazetaBitcoin" [...]
If I am, then I'll ask saxydev, do I fall under that criteria? You asked if anyone would do their role as part of the community, and here I am, volunteering purely to get this case closed. I appreciate your good intentions, but I think that your effort is like asking the "sup fellas gang" to stop spamming. Do you remember the "sup fellas gang"? Sup holydarkness?  [...] Oh LOL, to be completely honest, I forgot about that part. That emoji made me laughed then as it is now. To saxydev, the posts on that thread was a contribution to the forum, though, and doesn't necessarily mean I'm taking side, or favoring you or whoever involved on this case. I still stand with my offer, if you provide me with the real TxID and the TX private key, I'll report whatever results shown by the data to this forum. If you've really paid the OP and this is a simple misunderstanding, my offer is a good way to clear err... one of the flag raised against you. |
|
|
|
<cut>
Am I correct?
Yes, you are basically right. Except, that TX mentioned earlier is probably not related to this case since the information in screenshots, particularly the block number and timestamp, doesn't match up. "saxydev" claims that the transaction was confirmed in block 2813799 (mined about 10 days ago), and the mentioned TX is part of block 2820718 from a few days ago. I see. But let's suppose we insist on using that TxID as it's what admitted by saxydev to be the valid TxID, and thus, the complete web address as I wrote above, will entering both entries --the address and the TX private key-- brings us a "false positive", i.e. it will says xxx amount of XMR --equals to 90$-- was indeed sent to OP's address while saxydev actually never send it? Or will it says something like, "invalid data, transaction not found"? If what'll happen is the latter, then the result itself is conclusive enough that saxydev has never send the payment and brings us to the end of this case. |
|
|
|
[...]
That said, I'll add that I don't know how can I say this without sounding like a total jackass, but I still have to ask, so I'll just shoot it: were you saying that you propose to open your service in certain market without prior study of the said field, all the advantages and disadvantages you'll get from choosing that market?
Hi, it came to my awareness that peterspiro was online days after my last question quoted above and probably forgot to reply me. As I am somewhat sure both account attending this thread are related --if not operated by the same person-- I would like to remind you to address my question so we can move to other details I'd like the community to know about |
|
|
|
Quoting what saxydev said on the other thread so anyone can catch up and get the relevance with my post below, I will share it to a trusted person outside the gang of ShitBaboonNewsletterBitcoin aka GazetaBitcoin to verify the transaction, my personal specification is that it is a private matter and I do not make public any of my own addresses or information related to any of transactions public. Working in my domain you may understand that sharing an address is the same as doxing yourself.
[...]
You have a point sending straight to him would be easy and the best way. But I don't want to please others. He is not capable of keeping his own wallet safe, it is not my problem.
If someone is really interested and doing their role as part of the community, can text me and I will share it in private.
Yet nobody did it, why? Well, not even clue. Perhaps, nobody cares. They just complain in other's threads.
I have zero knowledge of monero, so guide and correct me if I'm wrong, but basically if we want to prove this payment and get to the end of this case, we can do it from https://localmonero.co/blocks with txID 6cb0178cd40e70339bf83d80a71936d14721954958679ea4a910349562900e95, so the complete web address would be, https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/6cb0178cd40e70339bf83d80a71936d14721954958679ea4a910349562900e95
which would bring us to this page,  Where the "Recipient's Monero address" is what's given by the OP, 4B5P6RUPjedUu6xMavFrEthePYfgaEmnMHsoRKQf4jC1b2JYShUZdKS1FtDg7Y5phbQnhRY4MoLKZi6 KgR2emFeg9DC3HCG and the TX private key is what saxydev would provide, he wrote and I quote, "to a trusted person outside the gang of [...] GazetaBitcoin" Am I correct? If I am, then I'll ask saxydev, do I fall under that criteria? You asked if anyone would do their role as part of the community, and here I am, volunteering purely to get this case closed. I don't think I'm on any gang on this forum, and I would like to call myself --well, self proclaimed as it is-- trustworthy enough. Would you PM me that TX private key which will allows all of us to see the truth behind this case? And to any other members, as I am aware that screenshot can be edited, but suppose saxydev kept his words and provide me with the TX private key so that I can confirm that the payment is indeed sent --or didn't sent-- would the screenshot provided by me enough as an evidence? I can assure you all that I won't bother editing the screenshots --aside from cropping and obscuring anything that can be used to identify me-- as whatever shown wouldn't benefits or detrimental to me. |
|
|
|
If my memory serve me right, EUPHORIABET had a signature campaign here recently, no? It is weird they risk damaging their reputation here for such a trivial sum. This kind of behavior is concerning and raises questions about their integrity as a company, it will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.
[...]
Yes, but it's a very very very small campaign with as small rewards, one week only signature and reddit campaign with 600 USDT pool, 300 USDT each. If the amount OP stated is true, the amount they lost would almost equal to the amount allocated for that marketing. I looked at their spreadsheet, the highest paid for reddit was 34 USDT and signature was 28 USDT. It was distributed successfully, though. I wouldn't be surprised if they launched that bounty for the sole purpose of giving false credibility and tricking people into thinking they're a good platform. I would very like it if I can be proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for your support guys, especially the DT's who spend time reading and monitoring this topic.
From my side, i can only guarantee you all once again that i did nothing wrong and that i haven't violated Ole7.io ToS.
I haven't taken any bonus, i am not a multiaccounter, i never use VPN and obviously i am not a part for any syndicate etc.
All bets were mine and all bers were fair, hence i was deserved to be paid every penny.
Ole7.io is not new in business, same do i. We both know the industry standards and they defo know that i did nothing wrong.
They choose to confiscate 12000USD with out any valid reason. Don't know if they expected to be blacklisted in this forum after this, but obviously they will lose more in the longterm than 12000USD. Building a trust in betting area is number one key to success and they decided to screw it for 12000USD.
Let's just wait and hope that their compliance team changed their mind when Monday come. Your link to their flag is not correct, it's this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3106 |
|
|
|
Ahh... Owlgames, a name I haven't heard in a while. And you too, been a while. Yes, their customer service is notoriously poor. On one case I followed, they kept trying to assign the blame to the victim --that case didn't end beautifully due to the victim's own greed, though-- and diverting the matter at hand to other topic. While on the other case they almost costed a reputation of another betting platform who uses them as a third party service. Moving to the point of the case, I don't think your accusation here will made known to them, since they're been away for a while, 20 January. Let me try to hail them via TG and let's hope they don't... block and kicked me out.   
Edit: LOL, that's fast. I was just uploading my screenshot to ibb and posted my post here and when I returned to tg to see if my message got read, I found...  As I have the CM's username at hand --luckily I took this precaution-- lemme try once again, in a good faith, to hail them, this time through PM to their CM
Edit 2: Ahh well, they're thorough and efficient in blocking people who they don't want to communicate with. Anyone else would like to try inviting them?    |
|
|
|
Notify them about this thread so they can come here and give their side of story. I didn't mean to rub a himalayan salt on your wound, but I'm a bit curious on how you find this platform appealing? Looking back at their ANN, 8 of 9 pages they have basically debating their false claim of NO KYC while their ToS --which the users agreed-- specify they're allowed to ask for KYC anytime. A deliberate misleading title and dirty marketing. One red flag. The demands by a lot of member of this forum for them to edit their thread title also came to a deaf ear where they deliberately ignore and pretend didn't read. Another red flag. Third red flag? This, [...]
we no have license
Anyway, as it's already happened, what you can do now is --as said above-- notify them and let them explain themselves here. The community will mark and flag them if they found to be guilty. |
|
|
|
tl;dr: we are on a stalemate, flag supported. It now has 3 DT supports and should be active. Bear with me, it'll be a long post, I spent my entire day --literally-- mulling over this. I even sat on the floor, waiting for my laundry while reading back and forth between posts.
Several days have passed since the representative of this casino showed up and said they would take a look at the reason why $12000 was confiscated and the player got banned. Since nothing is happening and we still don't know more, I am going to support the player's flag.
[...]
In the spirit of being fair and just, the official of Ole777 has actually replied with the reason why $12,000 was confiscated from OP, although they somehow replied on their ann instead on this, more proper thread. Their reply had also been quoted and replied by OP here on this thread [...]
Lastly for spyrosc200
"If you really want to help, please don't come back with general statements for arbitrage betting and/or syndicate betting and all that stuff that you know in advance that they are just lies and joke explanations."
Sadly they won't disclose further information but I am still working on convincing them about it, but yes. Your account was labelled under arbitrage/syndicate betting.
Nonetheless, it wasn't an answer that's constructive to the development of this case or --at the very least-- invoking confidence for the platform. Tracing back, basically, most of their explanation for these situations is, "you're caught in syndicate and arbitrage betting, that's all". [...]
Bitcointalk Username: Bachezy
OLE7.IO Username: didi123
Now for this accusation, I was told by the CS representative that you were caught with arbitrage and syndicate betting.
They have not provided further information.
[...]
Sadly they won't disclose further information but I am still working on convincing them about it, but yes. Your account was labelled under arbitrage/syndicate betting.
On the same day that Carlos posted his answer on their ann thread, describing the tight situation he currently is, I advised him to ask the compliance team to create an account here and answer these pile of issues, as they seems to be the key to all of the cases here, and their reluctance to provide the backing evidences of their counter-accusations only complicate things. I can understand that a platform is reluctant to share their multi-acc abuse detection system because it'll make the system obsolete, but I can't fathom why won't a platform shows a proof of arbit, as --if I understand correctly-- it's mostly about the bettor's bet log and it won't do them any harm. At some point earlier today, I realized that we are at a stalemate. The only way to move forward is if compliance team level down and shows their evidences. Otherwise, it's just an empty counter-accusation. We can drag it out for years and make Carlos goes back and forth between this forum and the compliance team and still at this exact point if they stays on their ground. And this is detrimental for the cryptocommunity who want to play on their platform. We can't be sure how many people in the future joining up in a good faith --while we still trying to put this case to rest-- and got unlucky by getting into this similar inconvenient situation with no plausible evidence to justify the action taken against them. At the same time, I'm still standing on my belief that OP's flag 1 is still lacking the stated requirement. I even consulted to the guide on raising and/or supporting flag to get some insight on what step is the best to take here and what's the justified action, and theymos said, [...]
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
[...]
Reference for the fact-statement mentioned above: On my honor, I affirm the following:
1) This user violated a written contract, resulting in damages;
2) I have not been made whole by the user;
3) no existing flag covers this same incident;
4) this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic;
5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above.
Furthermore, I promise to withdraw my support for this flag if this user makes me whole in the future.
I wouldn't hesitate to support the flag if it's a type-1 flag as the condition is instantly met for that flag. Flag type-3, though, is still not completely true, and that's purely because Carlos seems to still gave his full effort to ensure that point number 4 is not valid and point number 2 will never befell to the OP --aside from point number 1 that I will explain on the postscript. However, in the consideration of my point of stalemate, I think this case is just as good as a dead-end if the compliance team keeps refusing to give their supporting evidence. And no matter how hard Carlos plead to the team, as long as they still holding on their decision to not sharing any incriminating proof against OP, point number 2 and 4 on the type-3 flag is as good as a proven and fulfilled. Thus, in hope that the nice red banner on their ann would help us get through this situation, I supported the flag and leave a negative feedback to the suspect. The flag will now be active.
1by the way... i think flag type-2 is more accurate, since OP did not have a written contract with the suspect. The "contract" is the ToS that OP checked upon signing up, which basically an agreement. Unless I'm wrong and such action [checking the "i agree ..." box] can be considered as a written contract?
Edit: [...]
Additionally,
@spyrosc200 You might consider creating a newbie flag against the casino as well. That would be visible to people who browse their ANN thread even if they are not logged in.
[...]
Type-2 and 3 flag will also be visible to newbie and guest once active, much like the type-1 flag  |
|
|
|
But no, I am not exactly at a relaxed state. Then let us change this! Thank you for your feedback, it's really appreciated! I can understand your concerns about the team slide and that you can not verify this information. We for sure have put too much effort into our tech and business side, and not spent enough to visualize this part. Please give us some time to update this information in our pitch deck. Thank you for addressing this, I'm looking forward for the updated document. and the fact that the link to your linkedin on your website somehow... didn't work That's funny, because it works well for us. Need to check what people see if they are not logged in into LinkedIn. They'll see an authwall. I was actually logged into my account when I checked your LinkedIn. However, I think I've found the issue, your profile somehow won't work on mobile version. I was talking about the "/m/" part of the url, not the device mode. I tried to access your profile through my phone, both in mobile version and in "desktop site" and it shows as below. Removing the /m/ part --which take us to the full desktop version of LinkedIn-- clears this [see image next to it, pay attention to the address bar]   Regarding the Tokenomics, I understand your concern about the 37% / 33% ratio that you mentioned.
This just shows me that our Tokenomics slide is not yet clear enough, and I agree that we don't mention there needed info.
We actually have vesting periods for all the organization's tokens,
and it is planned to reduce the Vault's token amount and increase the IDO liquidity with it as more and more cash will come in.
I'm not sure if I described it here in an understandable way, what do you think?
Maybe you are willing to discuss this point with me in a 1:1 zoom call? If yes, just drop me a PM.
What does the community in general thinks how this should be, to be fair for everyone?
I'm flattered by the offer and your time, but I think it would be best if you instead published a page which give a detailed info of your tokenomy --and other things that you might want to explain further and more in-depth-- rather than explaining it to me in private. Afterall, it's the community and your future investors that you need to convince. It'll be more convenient if anyone can access the info so they don't have to ask again and again in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
