That, sadly, sounds very circumstantial.

Nonetheless, perhaps there's something on that screenshot that can give a hint. Do you mind to post it? Perhaps in a new thread with no specific mention to a user to avoid baseless accusation and to keep this thread clean [as this one seems like a completely different topic]. Or shoot me a PM with it so I can get a better understanding of it, if you're rather reluctant to start a new thread just yet.

Hmm... quite interesting answer. Which guide is it that you read? If you don't mind me ask further.


Umm... why would they selectively scammed you if the same amount that's being denied from you were generously given back to their gamblers?

In a sense, they're making a point. They can't provide their findings here due to security and privacy concern. Thus, they take a long way around this by making a statement, as above.

---

Regarding this part, as I've been walking around this section for a while, may I offers another perspective: that it still do its job to look out for the community?

One [bad] user from another thread accused me of being in favor of casinos instead of the community because I gave benefits of doubts to casinos, seemingly oblivious that --as I explained to them-- casinos' accounts here are also part of the community. This board doesn't necessarily shift from the previous "role" where it's more to cater people coming to warn others with findings of questionable projects and their proof to [for a lack of better words] a "tribunal" to extort sportsbook.

On the contrary, so far, from time to time, it proves as a good tools for casino to invalidate an accusation, helps thwart malicious attempts toward casinos, be it extortion or smear campaigns, where the overseers [and the casinos themselves] provide proofs that invalidate the accusation.

Further, from my own perspective and opinion, these scam accusations on this board actually works as a testament of the casinos' reputation. I observed that big casinos and those that provide appealing promos are the ones that most targeted by malicious actors, and their swift response proves their trustworthiness. I mean, I'd like to think that one glance at my list will give players [and future players] an idea of how good certain casinos at handling problems, and allows them to make a decision to stick with one casino instead of others.

And that list is built from these... cases.

Quoting your post and reuploading the image [original link below each of them] to talkimg.

Betcoin.ag's representative are usually very prompt at addressing issues, their resolution procedure and time are very excellent. Let me try to hail them here.

One simple and honest curiosity though... you're sure you new here? Usually newbies doesn't know why their account can't show image.

Does the previous documents you provided, all of those bank statements [credit card, credit line, consolidated report, etc.] have a table or any part on the document's body that shows the account number are belonged to the name and address of yours? If any of it does, is it allowed to provide two simultaneous document [the bank statement and that document with such details] to validate each other?

[grin]


Your answer actually explains enough. Thank you for that.

What does it tell me? Well, given in your opinion, it is a free roll and there is no one suffering financial loss by joining the game, nor sacrificing anything, it can be safely inferred that no one is scamming anyone. Not you, not other players, not blackjack. It's free roll. The prize is real money, but no one suffers anything by joining the game.

This should invalidate your scam accusation thread against them.

It was previously [and repetitively] asked what the scam is. You refused to give straight answer, only pointing to general direction that your problem were: [1] the bug in their free roll tournaments, [2] their 100 USD bug bounty and your current balance --which you kinda refuse to accept-- and [3] your demand to turn the funds into giveaway... oh, and [4] a request to re-gain access to the platform to test that bug.

Point number 2 and 3 kinda explains itself, that they're invalid. One can't be said scamming someone else because that someone else did not provide a return address, nor complying to the demand of creating a giveaway on that someone's behalf.

Point number 4 has a very clear solution that JollyGood nicely provide: create another account, test that bug, record everything, provide it here. Granted, it'll be against their rule of multi-acc, but given you're just want to test it and does nothing else, which means you'll be in and out in five minutes or less, with little to zero fund being involved [and thus they can't confiscate due to a breach in ToS; multi-acc], I think the general consensus here will be that there is no harm in that, and that it is perhaps the first and probably the only one case where multi-acc is "encouraged". You refused that. So, we're clear on this one.

This leaves the only point in your case: bug and tournament. Given you're agree that it is a free roll, etc. as said above, this also clears and invalidate the accusation.

Explained as above, it should means everything in your thread against them is resolved.

ELI5: I just wanted to cross the T and dot the I, make sure it's valid and agreeable to mark your case as resolved [previously and currently marked as "invalid"] on my list.


Me? Why? I don't have any issue with you, financially. Unlike specific someone that I am sure everybody can easily mention here, I am not we are not interested in opening a baseless scam accusation and goes on a wild goose chase, building strawman, throwing muds, you name it, just to justify the accusation build from the hurt feeling.


Pmalek, you bad bad boy!!! Look what you've done! You make your snowflake cries! Apologize, now!

Thank you for the number, I'll add that info to my list.


This is my understanding too, that those findings they found are there simply because two players are friends, who share time and wanted to enjoy some game together, instead of deliberately trying to collude. Especially that now you've add that you've been around for a while and plays on other matches alone, and not exclusively always together.

If they found strange behaviour on some of the matches where one [perhaps] deliberately lose to the other, and very visibly guiding the winner, on empty tables, I believe it's simply because:


pineapple_poker?

Oh? That question is not clear enough? Okay then, my apology, I think other people will understand it quite easily. Nonetheless: regarding the free tournaments on their platform, and in relation to your course of actions and decision during your stay there, do you consider them as free roll or are they a serious and real, given real money are being involved?

What? Where do you infer that from? I've told you that I think you were right, that there is something fishy here.


I extremely sure that is not intended as an april fools' question, given I asked that three weeks before first of April even come. I should have known the best that it's intended to be a serious question... given I'm the one asking it.


Perhaps I don't get it. Do you mind to spell it out for me? For us all? In a very short, yes or no answer, if you may?

---

Since you're apparently in the mood of answering questions, can you perhaps help us by also attending this post of mine that's left unaddressed? If it's too long to address at once, you can focus on this one below first:

Not trying to sway your final decision about OP, merely trying to add more depth and possibilities to be ventured [and perhaps a broader knowledge to learn] but... if OP [or some other players] consistently have different IPs, isn't it possible that they just happen to have a dynamic IP?

Was OP's original account also accessed from ever-changing IP, or is it a static one?

Oh, and please don't post in consecutive, you can reply to multiple user through multi-quote, and if you want to add something after you made your post before someone else made a post, you can add them through "edit" feature. Consecutive posting is frowned by the forum

OP, I'm curious of the amount being confiscated by this platform. I don't think you've mentioned it? Or did I miss the number?

---

I understand that through your manual review, your findings that support your suspicion of multi-acc abuse are as I bolded? Given OP played with his friend and they tried to withdraw through OP's address, wouldn't it explains a lot about the irregular login pattern, gameplay, and transaction?

They always played together, hence the relatively similar login and logout pattern. They played on the same table, as they intended to compete against each other. Thus, same gameplay. And the transaction behaviors... well, that's kinda self-explained.

Actually, no. You only wrote and ask them to disable your account, without specifying the reason behind it, as proven by a screenshot provided by their representative above, showing your correspondencies with them. You simply said, "disable my account."

I previously asked if you specifically mentioned to them that you need your account closed because you gambled too much to know if they act according to Gamble Aware regulation, where any respectable casino will not and should not cater another account being opened by a gambler for whatever reason, if he requested for a self exclusion.

However, it seems this is not your case, as you simply wanted a break, and you did not ask to be excluded [if they have any feature like that on their platform].

---

I actually looked at the ToS [and smiled a little because it does written in red]. If I may...



though you're the one that knows best what's your ToS about and the nature of each clauses in it, may I argue that the no multiple account terms were to enforce players to "play fair and square", to discourage any attempt of abuses of bonus and/or limitation, thus it's written in red altogether in one sentence.

Departing from this, and if OP is proven to only have one active account at a time, and that the previous account was permanently closed for no harmful reason [it's closed simply because OP needed a break], can it be argued that OP does play fair and square, and as such, he does not breach your ToS.

Can you perhaps mull over this and considering to give OP an exception? Given, again, he technically does not breach your term and/or does any harm to the ToS. His only mistake here was asking for his account to be disabled when he needed a break instead of just leave the account be.

My two cents.

Pmalek, ding...ding...ding...ding...ding...!!!


Nope, I am not advising icopress to raise a scam accusation against you, only LM. I simply asked him to exercise some caution in the following days. There's never any harm in practicing extra caution against any attempt to scam by anyone, is there?

But... those green text I snipped, you're saying you're not the one contacting LM?

Just to understand more about this. The reason you stated on your email to them last year to disable your account, it's this? You happened to mention to them that you need to close your account because you gambled too much? Or you simply [as the casino wrote above yours] asked for it to be disabled without specific reason?

---

You don't know he has multiple or you can't find more because he only have two [the one being closed and this new one being opened]?

A bit out of context, but to clarify, some casino actually allows multi acc, as long as it's not used with malicious intent like bypassing limitation or abusing bonus.

Basically, yes. With OP admitting that he breached their ToS by accessing Rollbit from restricted area, there should be nothing more for Razer to address. But from time to time, Razer surprises me with his decision, as a good gesture. So probably, he'll surprise us too with this one, where the case can be marked as resolved with OP locking the thread and editing the first title [i.e. OP agrees that the case is resolved as well].

Although... even without Razer's reply [which is justified on this case] or that he come with a similar decision as we currently have, that OP is already in profit and Rollbit will not spend another cent for him, I think I will change the status as resolved after 24 hours, as I am just waiting and see if Razer will want to say something.

Let's just say I much prefer every T's and I's are crossed and dotted.

Yes, I have to say that I agree, given OP breached a ToS for a while and managed to make some profit about it. Nonetheless, Razer's reply here with the findings might help seal the case, so I can officially mark it as "resolved" on my list.

I will try to inform Razer about this, see if he has certain approach for this case and [perhaps] allow you the rest of the withdrawal and permanently lock you up right after. But personally, I think, if you're in overall profit, they wouldn't settle with allowing you to withdraw the rest of them, as those fund will be allocated to cover their loss due to the breach you made.

Depending on the situation on LM's case, and under what condition and/or reason did he send USD 600 to JPR, I don't think a level 2 or 3 flag can be issued. No one enters a written or implicit contract with JPR. Best case scenario will be a type-1. It can be argued to be based on this situation [which he failed to address]:


Unless... a simple fleeting thought that I still have to take a deeper look at, but currently I think blackjack.fun can actually raise a level 2 or 3, a breach of agreement from the ToS side, as below, which he violates when he deliberately use the bug for his advantage [a petty revenge to other user] and effectively [3.10.] manipulate the market or element of the service in bad faith [the petty revenge] and/or [4.1.5.] disrupt and affect the activities of other customer and BJF's service, and [clearly] didn't make them whole with the whole accusations JPR made inside and outside the forum



For this to be true, though, we'll need to know if that's the ToS that JPR entered and agreed upon sign up and not an updated one that take into effect only after he left the platform.

TBH, I've left that matter quite a while too after taking another spin at this whole situation. What I base my opinion from, is that [the reputation of Anjouan aside] during the absence of license, there were no one reported or complained of being scammed by them. So yeah, misleading at best, but I personally am not interested to pursue this matter as it [far as I know, based on current narrative] doesn't cause someone to suffer financial loss.

I asked them to clarify it simply [if I may be honest] so we can cross it out of the list and address the more on-point topic that OP raised: clearing their name against JPR. Of which... Amongst the muds he sling, one can be easily cleared by clarifying the situation of that timer-bug exploit.

---

Do you mind to create a thread on scam accusation board about this? So it will be well documented and, upon supported by evidence, he can be tagged? Lest other campaign manager fall into the same situation.

If I may ventured a guess, he probably targeted campaigns who work with users who are against him. icopress, you might be interested to take a note about this attempt and be a bit more careful in the following days?

Ok, this is a quick one. I was about to update my list and marking it as "invalid" while waiting for you to submit the supporting evidence, and it got resolved. Guess that indeed solves what I should write on the list.

Anyway, lock this thread, please? And mark the thread as resolved by editing the title of your first post? Thank you