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

Hmm... why not?

For the sake of making the list look full and neat, my two picks will be 36 and 39.

I see. Thank you for this release of your investigation. I hope the outcome of this thread can be used to determine the flag he raised on Coins.Game as well as the verdict of the accusation.

I'll try to notify GekkeBelg through PM, see what he's gonna say about this findings.

He what? Did you accidentally use wrong account or something? That's why you deleted the post immediately? AHOYBRAUSE leave you no feedback at all.

---

Thank you for this. I somewhat trusted your instinct on this one. I was just venturing and amusing an idea of OP knowing that the problematic bets will be that one, instead of others he made, because he knew from the beginning as he deliberately followed a specific tip instead of doing what he claimed he did: just following the crowd.

And his account got permanently locked after the payment, so even if he is not part of this cluster, I believe based on claim on the other thread [that he can replicate a bug] shows that he have other account, or perhaps he was just trying to stir the pot by making false statement.

I've asked BC to look into his details, see if they can reverse-check the details and fingerprints of his account to another ones on BC.

Interesting, because after I send correspondencies with their team, they assured me that the dev team have looked at it, just to be sure everything works smoothly, and they said everything works smoothly. So, at least from 28th, we can be double sure that the bug is fixed, if we take BC's words for it. And you tried the bug just yesterday? With what? Your account was permanently banned and opening an account to circumvent restriction is not allowed.

OP, it's been two weeks since you're last active. Can you please provide us an update? Has Rollbit managed a communication with you and resolve the case privately? Or have you, perhaps, send them your username in private manner?

It's actually recently "promoted" by a bumping service, OP probably stumbled upon them during those horde of meaningless posts. 


Umm... this is a scam accusation board.

---

Did you, by any chance, utilize the betting method I mentioned above?

I may be wrong, but I think what they refer as minimal bet was that, literally, placing the bet at the lowest possible allowed by the game. Though it's logically their fault and gamblers are allowed to play with what's offered as a wagering option for them, there are actually some bugs that allows this "minimal bet" to be manipulated, as depicted on this old case.

So basically, the gambler placed the smallest allowed amount to be wagered. If he won, he'll be credited with the winning. If he lose, though, due to a rounding error, he'll still be credited a fraction of the fund.

OP?

Ahh!!! I am not sure why I am happy for you! It's been way too long!

I was just from CG and noticed the recent development, go straight here and found that you've updated the thread.

I understand that the recent discussion on CG, the password protected pdf, is for level 3 KYC? I thought that was also for level 4. Anyway, for SoW, they accepted these documents:



As your source of fund are the proceed from crypto trading, I think it falls under the category of "sales of shared [sic] or other investments / liquidation of investment portfolio", and it should be an easy one. On which platform do you exchange your crypto to fiat? I believe on your bank statement, whenever you do a withdrawal from the exchange, there is a report of incoming fund, with the name of he exchange's company as the sender? That should do.

Also, if you're having a full time or part time job, I think adding the proof of payslips wont hurt, just in case.

I am doing my weekly sweep across the board to update my list and wanted to bump this thread. It came to my awareness that OP has other thread in gambling section, and above is what's being said the latest.

OP, if I may ask you to provide the IP evidence? Given their representative's absence, I think marking this thread as either active or unresolved is way overdue. But I can't decide which, or whether, I should change the status to active or unresolved, and I was hoping your added evidence can help me decide better.

Or is it out of the window now that you're pursuing legal course?

This is why I have multiple threads discussing a scam accusation at once, discussions are pouring from two [or more] simultaneous sources. OP, can you please lock this thread and focus it on the scam accusation board? It'll be more board-appropriate as this one is intended to discuss about gambling [not a possible scam case within the gambling platform itself]. Meanwhile, I'll address what I wanted to know and repeat what I asked on your "main" thread.

To give an added context [and please, anyone curious, please move your question to that thread], I suggested OP [weeks ago] to prove his innocence by publishing the page of IP log of his friends and GF [the 7 numbers] with the IP being actually censored, of course, with only the browser details being visible, to prove that those accounts logged in with the same IP are indeed from different people, given that it's accessed from different device and browser.

I believe we can safely assume that the chance is somewhat minimal for all seven people [OP, his GF, and his friends] to prefer the exact device and browser. And thus, proven that the IP log of each user shows different details, is probably good enough [though still not solid] to open for a possibility that what OP said is true.

Speaking generally, casino requires KYC prior to investigation and informing the user about their findings, I believe, is to get the user to perform KYC and obtained their data to prevent future abuse in case the user was found to be in violation and got their account blocked. Understandably, no user will want to perform KYC if the casino said, "we detect you of multi-acc, can you please perform KYC so we can get your data?" [This paragraph is more intended for readers of this thread in general as I believe you should be quite familiar with this].

Nonetheless, I have to agree that their request to OP is a bit excessive. OP already performed KYC level 1 and 2, which should be enough to prove his identity and help casino flag the user if they abuse the ToS, I don't see the necessity of level 3 and 4 KYC if it's simply to investigate a bet.

Addressing your question why Stake only mention about the KYC on AG and not the suspicious bet, I think that's going back to their SOP, that the KYC should be done first [disregarding how intrusive and unnecessary the level 3 and 4 KYC for now], and only after it's done, Stake will inform the findings and let AG do their investigation. Much like what I wrote on the other thread, a very similar one where KYC being dragged for so long, this is sadly just a beginning of a very long phase, because only after the OP finished their KYC, the real investigation began.

---

I believe someone with an once of a brain will be able to understand that when I said "working for the forum", I am not talking about being staff or anything, but rather in sense of helping the users of the forum. Users. This means both the gamblers and the casino. Certainly you understand that a casino and their representative counted as a user of the forum too, and thus, both parties reserve an equal treatment? If they're being the wrong one here, then they're wrong, if they scam their user, they will probably be tagged, but if they're the victim of a gambler who try to extort them, don't they reserve the right to be treated as a victim and the bad actors who try to scam them being exposed?

As for jumping on every post and defend the casino, I believe my previous post, the one that you quoted, explains my position during each cases. Unless you jumped from reading that post straight to write something? I can understand that it's quite a long text, some will find it difficult to follow, let alone digest them. It's ok, I understand.

For bitcointalk have nothing to do with casinos, I believe there were a discussion and thread about this, about how they co-exist and depending on each other, I'm too lazy to dig it out though. But please amuse us, how do you think bitcointalk has nothing to do with casinos, while they actually have a board about gambling, that facilitates announcement and communication for casinos?

Maaaan.

---

Here is a fact: you accuse someone of siding with casino, that 99% post of that user is defending almost every casino, that he is partial and biased. One can even dare to say you make a defamatory statement regarding that person. And when he stepped up and explained things, with supporting evidence that what you say and believe is wrong, your response is what we can summarize as, "yeah, I don't care, I don't even bother reading it, it's such a waste of my time".

Based on that reaction, I think it's safe to assume either of the two possible situation: one, you actually read them, realized that you made a mistake and wrongy lashed out at someone else [again], but too proud and too little of a man to admit that he made a mistake [it's ok, you know? Misunderstanding happens, we understand that] so you pretended that you didn't read them. Or two, you did not read them. Which... somehow actually more awful. You accuse someone, a serious allegation, if I may add my personal opinion, that someone then tried to explain the situation according to their side and tried to defend themselves, and you don't bother to listen [or... read]. Inferred from this, is it safe to assume that it's your trait and it'll basically be your reaction to the ruling made by AG and/or Stake themselves? "Yeah, I don't care. I'll let someone who has more time than me to read your explanation, I am not reading that explanation of what actually happened. I know what happens. I believe in what I know."

Hmm?

---

AHOYBRAUSE, I think I need a little help to understand the context here. And as you've been here for a while too, and quite familiar with that latest news of Porter...

So far, the narrative is: OP is KYC verified level 2, made bets and withdrawals and other activities normally, and at one point got his account frozen and asked to perform further KYC [level 3 and 4], and got stuck on that process ever since, and is in the middle of sorting this thing out with AG.

Can you tell me where does exactly the information about the problematic bets was the one related to Jontay Porter? Do I miss something? I didn't see it being mentioned anywhere on AG, nor by Stake's representative. I can't find any decision or ruling regarding it, yet OP sounds so sure about it. Is there something --that I missed-- that helps OP sure and zeroing in into those bets amongst every other possible bets he had?

I mean, OP himself stated that he just follow trends. Logically, at least if it was me, I'll still be clueless of which bets is the root of my situation, unless I've suspected it from the beginning that it'll be a problem. But, given I am just following trends, I should have no way to suspect anything, as I am basically following and placing my money on what other people picks instead of specifically follows one instruction.

Or is there a way to be sure that the problematic bet is that one without having to wait for Stake to release their statement?

Simplest things to answer first, which I marked in bold.
Who am I work for in order to provide detailed information for every casino complaint on this site? I think we can say "the forum", I get detailed information of [almost] every casino complaint on this board [correction, not the entire forum, as I don't monitor other boards] because I attended most of those cases, get to know them personally, made my notes and findings... and I have a very good memory.

Do I work for casino? And do I aware of every ToS they have? Nope and nope. I am not their representative, and I am sure as hell don't memorize their ToS. I barely read them. Not to mention they're constantly updated. The familiarity is because most cases here shared the same violation of a section or two on the ToS, so I basically recycled what I know from previous case to other case.

Do I think it'll lead me to a job with these casino? LMAO! I really laughed at this while I'm actually at a very pissed condition reading your allegation against me. Anyone knows how much does a casino staff getting paid? It never crossed my mind, but this is interesting. I'll make sure I ask a representative in my contact later. If you have to know, the answer is NO. I don't need a job offer. I have a steady job IRL and I live comfortably enough. The extra fund from the forum is nice, I will admit that, but it's not like my life depended on it. I have my own business, so I can't exactly stick to a timeframe, but I accessed the forum on my spare time to "give back" what I get from life.

Now, moving to a more serious --which made me pissed-- points:

Siding with them. Umm... I am not? Why would I? It doesn't make sense as --to reply to your confusion on what am I benefitted from those cases as well-- I literally get nothing from the outcome of every single cases. Definitely not a job offer, as I've explained above.

Zero.

The casino does not [understandably] thanking me for hounding them on routine interval to give their response when they're slacking and the user who complained here are mostly people who come with the sole purpose of seeking resolution [or those with disposable alt account] who barely came back to the forum once their case come to an end, so I either a-stranger-on-the-internet who helped them get their rights or an-asshole-on-the-internet who help exposing their scam attempt.

The only "benefit" I get from all of these activities I do on my spare time [while I can actually binge-watch those series which the list growing into a worrying number] was... well, still nothing. Unless we can call a satisfaction that I feel after I managed to help exposing a scammer as a benefit?

Just to assure you that I am not siding with casinos, especially Stake, as you're currently dealing with them, here, if you read through my post history, you should've easily stumbled upon this recent one:


Is there a logic why would I reminded and warned a user that their timer on AG and CG against Stake almost ran out if I am siding with Stake? Wouldn't it be more logical to let it roll and have AG and CG close the case due to the complainant's inactivity? After all, as you're so sure yourself, AG give no mercy and will reject a case or marked it as resolved if the complainant didn't answer in time.

Why would I bother reaching to several users to get them to reach each of their Stake's contact just to get the accusations against them resolved? I basically combed the forum just to get a contact from Stake, so I can hound them with the cases they currently have. If I am siding with them [or other casino] wouldn't it be easier to turn a blind eye?

Oh, here, case with another casino, just to assure you that I am not just doing it with Stake, that I don't take side, a post where I am trying to get the TXID of a user that'll help him get their initial deposit back. I was very possibly pissed the representative and was at the end of his patience and he's probably almost cut contact with me just because of this stunt I pulled. How is this me siding with a casino?

And what benefit do I get from it? Here:


Purely that.

Simply knowing someone get a deserved outcome [though... that'll be a poor example, given the OP is accused of multi-acc abuse], and that they get what's rightfully theirs, their joy of finally getting their fund or situation cleared, that's enough to make my day.

I am 99% defending casinos on the forum? How? Unless... you concluded that from the last ten or so pages of my recent posts? The current one that [I think] I just got out from a very dirty and muddy pit of a cluster of case. Yeah, that'll look like it, as I pressed three of those users while "taking it easy" with the casino, but here's the twist: those three users are the same user, weaponizing his mental health to extort money from casinos, moving from one casino to another. Do you prefer me to side with this specific kind of... human-being, be kind and welcoming them nicely [but hey, in my defense, I did, initially, before the fact that they're the same people came to my awareness] instead of pressing them and exposing the discrepancies in their story?

And there almost no post from the 223 pages of my post that I am siding with OP of a case? Again, how? I mean, for the love of the hole of a certain fox goddess, how could I be siding with casinos if I have a thread consisting a list that literally exposes their trustworthiness in form of their track record of cases against them? From time to time, it works as a "leverage" to push casino to get a resolution [note and disclaimer: a resolution I seek was the real truth of the case, not the casino simply giving up and ruled the case in favor to the OP due to the pressure, that'll be an extortion and that's against my goal] because they don't like seeing the oranges and the reds on their section.

Interestingly, though, if you bother to look at that thread, you'll see I don't give any mercy to Stake [though I also didn't give any special treatment to other casinos]. How could you think I am siding with Stake if I have a thread which post depicting them as this:



In fact, one can justifiedly argue that I actually go a little bit too harsh with them because I have to stay true to the rules of "status" that I set when I compiled the thread. They did not attend to any cases. Their representative whose role is to monitor, compile, and forward the cases against them never shows themselves and say anything, and as such, I automatically wrote the cases against Stake as "active" due to the absence of their representative:


All of those said and vented out, I am sorry if I rant and lashed out, I usually just brushed the accusation of me taking side and the question of my neutrality with sarcasm [umm... I think I ranted some too on those several occasions] but those people who accuses me with what you said are usually scammers who at the verge of their scheme being plumetted, and thus they resorted to a smear campaign. Snd I didn't mind them much, or those who get slightly irritated by my barrage of question. I can understand that.

You, though, I actually "rooted" for you, I think your case is a misunderstanding from Stake's side and I spent a good effort to get to the bottom of this [as well as other cases], and what triggers your accusation against me [unless I am wrong] was a simple explanation from me on how arbitrator works.

That's all I wanted to say regarding where I stand on this and every other cases. I haven't reply to your other point, but let's wait until tomorrow, I'll take it to sleep, see if some sleep will help. I'll give your whole case a refresher course, reading them again, in case I missed something later tomorrow.

---

Saint-loup, I'll address your query tomorrow too. Hopefully I am very much rested and not spiked with annoyance when I do that.

With some headache caused by a specifically notorious user on other cases [hopefully] closed, I am circling back to this one.

Eva, blackjack.fun, if I may suggest a way to prove you're never without license, as per JollyGood inquired, while still maintaining the sensitive data of your... company details [though honestly I don't think I understand what kind of sensitive data contained within a certification that should be protected], can you perhaps provide a screenshot with sensitive data being covered like below? I am completely aware that it's a different format and different licensor, but I believe the essential information are mostly the same




I even think you can provide something like this, if you want to extremely guard your details, as --I believe-- what's being inquired by JG is just the date the certification became effective. So I believe the master license letter head, the name of your website, and the date visible is enough.

---

You know what? After taking a long break and revisiting this thread, I think there is something fishy here. You were right!

[CC: Pmalek]

LMAO, I believe every DT1 and DT2 are being mentioned. It's supposed to be the post for Complete overview of users on DT1 and DT2 and their ratings, with all 471 users being mentioned. A harmless mistake, funny one actually.

To be honest, I don't think I perfectly grasp what you tried to say with "casino wants to help" part, but I assume what you mean was that if a casino wants things to be resolved smoothly, that they care about their user, they should be more responsive to the customer during the earlier phase when the communication happens through their live support, before it gets escalated to an arbitrator, and even after it gets to that phase [arbitrator phase] because resolution can't be reached during the private communication, it should revert back to the private conversation between the support and the user, and only updates the arbitrator later on, when a resolution is achieved.

Two things about this.

First, the why casinos don't resolve things earlier [during the live support phase] and need to drag things ever so slowly. Contrary to what you probably believe, they actually do solve things on earlier phase. I believe there are probably around hundred of complaints arriving at the support division's desk every day. Some are as easy as forgotting a password, or losing 2FA, the others are a bit more complicated like a missing bet, or a pending withdrawal, and others need more efforts like an uncredited win, or voided bet, or KYC failure, you got the gist of it.

Amongst these hundred of cases, most were clearly resolved during that "early phase", because if they weren't, then certainly this board will be flooded by threads every growing minutes. Few that can not be cleared under that phase are the ones that landed on this forum and the arbitrators. From my experience, most of these few are due to the casino already made their ruling, mostly are because the gamblers doing things that violates their ToS. They've investigate the case and finds the damning evidence, made a decision and close the case. The gamblers wanted the case retried, and thus they escalate to arbitrators and this forum.

Second, the why can't the case moved back to private discussion, I believe mostly it's because as what mentioned above: they've actually made their decision and the resolution with arbitrator as well as the forum are because the case being retried.

There is little to no added benefits in taking another fly at the case and conducting things in private again, as they'll come to the same conclusion. Thus, they provide the evidence of their findings to the arbitrator. Likewise, suppose the gamblers are the one being wronged here, don't you agree they will want a transparency? What's the point of having similar situation being discussed in private again, given they've provide everything to the casino and the casino unfairly decide that the gamblers are the wrong one here.

Also, I don't think they can simply say, "Ok Thomas, we'll take it back from here. We'll be in touch with this user privately, we both will come back to you when it's closed".


It's ok, you're doing great now.

---

I don't think I get about this part too. I can't find Stake explaining this on AG, so I am not sure where does OP get this explanation from. Far as I know, casino will require the KYC process to be completed first before they conduct the investigation of the account, which is where OP's current situation [and where he's stuck] right now. Only after the account being verified will an investigation, findings, and ruling be made.

OP, can you perhaps explain more about this?

Be that as it may, if it helps resolving this way too long case, isn't it worth trying?

Maybe your email was forwarded to the security division through their internal system that removed the subject you originally wrote and replaced it with your stake ID or other format according to their SOP, or they simply probably missed the fact that the password was there on the subject and too proud to admit it, or maybe there are other reason, whatever that is. If providing another document, that minimize whatever possible risk of inaccessibility, helps put this headache to rest, I think it's worth doing.