I am snipping the second half of the post in order to stay focused in one [easiest] issue and clearing them before moving on. One question: you do request for a self-exclusion?
And regarding the possibility to unban, as stated [and better explained by Kirito89 it should not be possible. They theoretically can, but they should not do that, as it will be ethically wrong, not to mention violating some regulations. If you still insist that they can, in a sense that there are prior instances of them unfreezing an account before its exclusion period runs out, you are more than welcome to provide it.
Here's how it went down.... - I asked for my account to be closed, not self-excluded.
- Afterwards, the support agent provided a copy & paste message that said I would be self-excluded for 21 days and if I make a new account or sign into another account, they would permanently ban me.
- I ended the chat by saying "tired of being harassed by the staff members for trying to help. ok bye".
- Then, I was banned for self-exclusion immediately after.
- The next day, Razer deposited funds to my closed account and sent me an email that he did that.
- I asked for my account to be re-opened, only to be pawned off to 3 other agents who said it was impossible to do so.
It's likely that Razer pawned the ticket off to 3 other staff members because him and I both know it's possible for him to unban me. I don't have any proof of them unbanning an account from self-exclusion, I just know that from experience with owning websites that have a user database, it's definitely possible for them to reinstate my account. Also, I never closed my account on the grounds of having a problem with gambling. I closed because I was being treated unfairly, which seems to be pretty evident from this whole entire thing I see. Thank you for giving more details of the account closure. I am not sure I am correct, but the way I see and understand it, I think you unintentionally [as you never intended to undergo an exclusion] submitted a self-exclusion. According to their ToS and Responsible Gaming pages, if you wish to terminate your account, all you have to do is simply stop playing. You writing to their support and asking for an account closure might inadvertently interpreted as asking for self-exclusion, given that's the requirement for a self-exclusion   With that said, and daring to move closer to the next subject as it happen to be brushed on your reply [marked in bold], how likely do you think it is that it all happens by accident? i.e. Razer was arranging for your bonus [as I am sure you understand well, the bonus can not be instantly credited the second a decision is made, they need to arrange it with other department and it take time] and you happened to email their team asking for an account closure at a relatively close time. He reached to you to inform you about the bonus with complete unawareness that you requested a self-exclusion that's been granted one day prior. |
|
|
|
|
OP, I can't help but wondering about one thing: how will the change of odds affect your betting history? Granted, you'll be at a disadvantage with the situation where the old [and lower] odds being applied to you instead of the newer and higher odds, as you'll earn more if you have a winning bet. But your placed bet is a losing bet, and thus would 1.5 or 2.15 still matter and affect your decision regarding the bet? Will you cancel your bet on Fritz's winning because the odds changed?
|
|
|
|
I placed this bet 5919314 and while it was being processed the odd changed from 1.5 to 2.15. Instead of getting a warning about the odd that had changed, they simply accepted the old and smaller odd (how convenient...) instead of prompting me about odds be changing. So if you don't mind, I will love to ask just two questions for further clarification. 1. Did the game played as predicted, and then the casino refused to pay you the amount won or neither the initial amount used in betting the game? (i.e $1000) Or, 2. Did the game played as predicted, and then the casino paid you while using the amount for the old odd (i.e 1.5 which is $1500) instead of the new odd of (i.e 2.15 which is $2150) Or, 3. Did the game not played as predicted, and then you are requesting for a refund since the bet wasn't accepted? So which of the case are you anticipating for, as this will go a long way giving the casino representative a recap of what went wrong. Thanks #CryptoheadlinNews The game played fine, with higher odds than its initial position when OP placed his bet. OP lost the bet and thus, whether the casino paid him or not should not be a question.  OP's issue here, unless I understand it wrongly, is that since the odds changed, his bets should not be accepted in the first place, and thus, voided.
[...] I believe their support in the forum will help follow up and give a better answer. Just be patient, OP.
He's here already. |
|
|
|
another credit card statement denied for no reason. it is more than apparent that stake casino is a complete scam. i am losing hope. there seems to be NOTHING i can do.
I can see that there are three posts pending for approval on CG and are currently set as private, were you inquiring the reason of rejection in one of those posts? If you did, let's wait for Stake's explanation on CG. If you didn't demand an explanation for the rejection in any of those posts... well, make one. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
In the realm of truth, sometimes confronting it can lead to challenges, such as job losses. Yet, the essence of truth remains invaluable. As someone who deeply believes in karma, I am Rio, the individual previously associated with Chips gg.
[...]
Hi, I understand correctly that you're the one PMing Pmalek a little while ago? Thank you for stepping up. If you can provide the supporting evidence of the statements made above, it'll be very highly appreciated. You might want to make a new thread if the evidence you have and ready to share involves many other cases, and probably will be the best to stick with this thread if they're isolated only on mookis123's case. |
|
|
|
I'm not trying to argue against you or anything. I really appreciate your concern and attention to this as well as everybody else's. Hopefully this can clear it up a bit... It may be against regulation and policy to revert a self-exclusion based on the idea that I had a gambling addiction, but I never self-excluded for the reason of addiction. I was never even asked why I wanted to self-exclude like how they normally do. They need you to admit that you're a gambling addict, which I never did nor did I hint towards that. I self-excluded for the reason of being treated unfairly by the Rollbit team, which I did mention to the person who did it. When you say it's not possible, you're making it sound like it's literally impossible for them to do, which is not true. Example User Data Table:Username: Devout
Email: devout@devout.com
Password: devoutpass
Permissions: 0
Balance: 123
RewardBal: 1000
Ban: 0
SelfExclusionBan: 1
All they would have to do is change the `SelfExclusionBan` parameter from `1` (which means yes) to `0` (which means no) [...] I am snipping the second half of the post in order to stay focused in one [easiest] issue and clearing them before moving on. One question: you do request for a self-exclusion? And regarding the possibility to unban, as stated [and better explained by Kirito89 it should not be possible. They theoretically can, but they should not do that, as it will be ethically wrong, not to mention violating some regulations. If you still insist that they can, in a sense that there are prior instances of them unfreezing an account before its exclusion period runs out, you are more than welcome to provide it. |
|
|
|
Like the way these guys pose themselves, 5% return in one month equates to 60% in one year, heck these guys creating money out of thin air? Why they have not destabilized the economy yet? Just asking yourself these questions yields the answer that it is too good to be true, but if you are swayed by their words and think you are going to make money, you are only making a fool of yourself.
Dont even try to experiment with 10 to 20$ - its not worth it, rather buy a lunch bento with that instead.
Anyone reading this, the above site is a scam and if you think we are fooling you, ask yourself the above question and try to find the answer.
Except that they don't offer a 5% monthly. It is far more "enticing" than that, at 20% daily. And no, OP is not swayed by their words, he created this thread for the exact opposite of that, he warned against a scam.  [...]
Beware of this scam.
|
|
|
|
I did not look in to any aspect of the provably fair claims as it was the Curacao logo that caught my attention but others have mentioned they do not know the method you apply to your provably fair games. How can your customers/clients check the validity of the provably fair games they have played immediately after the game has ended? A brief look at the website shows a provably fair icon on the website therefore if by your own admission not all game providers offer provably games should that provably fair icon be shown or removed? Looking at this from a neutral perspective, would you assume it is better to remove that provably fair icon as it could be deemed as misleading? What questions do you have about Provably Fair, and which game are you considering? Not all game providers offer Provably Fair, but many do for certain games.
For inquiries regarding company documentation, please write to legal@blackjack.fun, and our legal team will take it from there. They are well-versed in identifying which documents are publicly accessible. Our in-house Blackjack game is provably fair, developed by the Blackjack.fun team. This is a game what started the whole Blackjack.fun platform back in the day. If I may jump in, I think the matter of license will be best to be addressed publicly as it is related to transparency. As such, it might be a better alternative if you reach the legal department yourself and consult to them which document is allowed for public consumption and can be answered and/or displayed here instead of having curious individuals to reach privately. Regarding PF, coming from an outsider who doesn't have an account on your platform and can't try to check himself, does the game is verifiable to be fair? I mean, if anyone wanted to check if their session is out of any manipulation, can they easily check that through a page in your platform? |
|
|
|
Yep, textbook scam investment. Nice work, OP. I don't think it's even HYIP, they'll simply stole the fund instead of slowly rug pulling by building a reputation, paying the investors with newest investor's money. As pointed out, the team is fake.  Hector Elis is Qualcomm's CEO, Cristiano Amon.  Hugh Gallagher is, as pointed in the opening post, TikTok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew,  And the other two were... not sure if they're famous, but they're taken from these pages below:   https://www.eduyush.com/blogs/full-form/ceo-full-formhttps://x.com/cashch/status/1746594021143876033?s=20And I don't even bother to run their company number on UK's database because this license seems... off.  Oh, by the way, I archived their page. |
|
|
|
You're saying that you know for sure that it can be reverted? Self-exclusion? Do you mind to provide a supporting evidence for it? Because if it can and they do [and that you can prove it], it's a very wrong procedure and against the gambler protect policy and it is a very serious situation.
While I don't represent Rollbit, would just like to say that a self-exclusion is not, and should never be reversed (theoretically it can), for the simple fact that self-exclusions are in place due to Gamble Aware regulations, and any self-respecting casino, at least any licensed casino will never undo a self-exclusion or a self-ban. Thank you. As always, your "insider" insight from casino perspective is very much welcome and appreciated. OP, as you can read above, casinos take that ban you impose on yourself very seriously. It is a common and known practice by casinos, not only Rollbit, to refuse to lift a self-exception. They are simply sticking to the rules instead of toying with you when they ask you to wait for the period to runs out. |
|
|
|
uploaded new credit card statement… awaiting verification again
What a coincidence it's exactly the third month since you opened the thread based on my time stamp, based on the screenshot you provided and the ongoing discussion, it's not a case of scam it's the verification process that the delay was caused by verification on the part of OP I hope OP with this you can finally verify your account, this is also going to everyone who will deposit a big amount to always ready your document and make sure it is complete to what a casino will be asked to avoid this kind of scenario. I hope it goes well this time and turned out that your account is clean. At one glance it's not good to see a title with the name of the casino that has massive advertising implying it's a scam, although there is no connection, and you have to read the whole content to understand the situation, but it still looks ugly. Not quite right. The situation is: OP tried to submit several times, each through long processing time, their verification team keep rejecting his documents for reason that goes in round. The root of the problem itself, according to OP, if we may summarize it, is that they made it near impossible for him to verify himself |
|
|
|
I'm not sure where you get your sources from, but that is completely false about them not being able to revert the self-exclusion ban. Are you saying that there is a user datatable that CANNOT be tampered with manually whatsoever? Well, if you were implying that you would be wrong. Databases can most definitely be tampered with, it's just how it works.
What if a rogue moderator self-excluded the top players at Rollbit? You think they wouldn't find a way to undo it? It's not impossible to do and likely wouldn't affect Rollbit in anyway.
Anyways, the self-exclusion is irrelevant at this point. I'm not here to argue about just that. There's plenty more points I made and proof to back up my accusations.
You're saying that you know for sure that it can be reverted? Self-exclusion? Do you mind to provide a supporting evidence for it? Because if it can and they do [and that you can prove it], it's a very wrong procedure and against the gambler protect policy and it is a very serious situation. As for your example of rogue moderator, that's not self-exclusion, that's a mod-ban, a temporary ban. And yes, that can be reversed because that is an act of a moderator, it's an action taken as a result of a violation [suppose the ban is justified] by a player against a policy or --as you said-- a rogue moderator unjustifiedly acted on his own. But for the case of exclusion, be it a self-exclusion or because the staff detects signs of gambling addiction, that should not be able to be tampered and reversed before the period runs out because it is a procedure to create a safe and responsible gambling. Those two situations, the ban by mods and exclusion, are two completely different situations. And no, it is relevant because it is one of the point of your accusation, that they can or can not [or rather, will or will not] tamper with exclusion. |
|
|
|
Awesome thanks
This situation seems dead so I hope this will show up on Google for anyone else who comes across this bookie.
not sure if this will make you feel better but on my end if you search "yas.bet scam" on Google this thread is the first result that will come out. so yeah, as holydarkness already mentioned, anyone doing some background check on the gambling site will be able to see this thread. It goes further than that, even if someone happens to not seeing this thread on their search result and got the ANN thread instead, or if they simply goes to bitcointalk and search Yas, they'll still get the idea about the risk of dealing with the casino due to the banner that greeted them on the ANN thread or their trust score on their profile. |
|
|
|
I gave your story a quick look. I'd like to address the self-exclusion situation first. I believe you didn't apply for a permanent exclusion but more to the "cool down period"? Thus, your account will be locked for 21 days or so, and after that, you'll get an option to continue the self-exclusion by permanently closing the account or to resume playing.
As with a case of self-exclusion, they have to stick with the cool-down period, they can't intervene the system by expediting the countdown or unlock it at will.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the self-exclusion part. That's not even entirely why I'm accusing Rollbit of scamming. [...] It was brought up because you said what quoted below. It seems there is a misunderstanding about how their self-exclusion works, something quite easy that needs to be straightened in this pile of accusations you raised, and that's why I tackled that point prior to addressing other matters. They do not have the ability to "unban" you during the self-exclusion period. There is a 21-days [or whatever days they assign to it] cool-down period, and after that, you'll be offered an option to extend the self-exclusion for certain period or to permanently disable your account. You'll automatically regain access to your account after that period is over. Likewise, if you choose to extend it, you'll be once again locked away from the account for the duration you choose. To put it simply, no one will be able to re-enable your account before a self-exclusion period is over. Not them, not even you. Is this part clear yet? [...]  https://i.ibb.co/0GkrSnL/2024-02-18-11-02-00-Window.png- The next morning, I receive an email very early in the morning from Razer, the founder, stating how he deposited a loyalty bonus in my account and that they'll keep me updated. - This is clearly them lowkey taunting me and baiting me to help them out. Razer knows that I was self-excluded, yet he still deposited the money on an account I can't even access. They pretend to not have the ability to unban me. - Because of how Rollbit has been to me in the past, I assume they're going to act all nice and wait for me to fix the problem via the third-party company then ban me with whatever unknown amount of money the bonus is. [...] |
|
|
|
Awesome thanks
This situation seems dead so I hope this will show up on Google for anyone else who comes across this bookie.
Both of the type-1 and 3 flags against them are active. As a result, their profile shows "warning: trade with extreme caution" and red banners will be visible on every thread they have for anyone who stumbled upon it. So yeah, anyone doing DD and got into this forum will see it.   |
|
|
|
[...]
If he did report legitimate bugs, look into them and fix them if they are serious. If you owe him money offer to send it to him via whatever wallet he wants to use. I think it's 10-30 dollars so nothing big, then click the ignore button and move on.
As a business, it's in your best interest to try and listen to any and all accusations within reason. If there is no scam, explain your case and go on about your day. No need to argue back and forth or submit to any sort of blackmail. As long as you didn't scam, you have no worries. If you offered to pay him whatever money he has coming and deny him the privelege of playing on your platform, then it's on him for not taking payment.
[...]
That's the "issue" here, they can't send the fund because he refused to give a return address. They initially asked for KYC, but after JPR refuses, they waived the KYC requirement and asked him for an address to return his fund. He refused to provide it; because after his fund returned, he's very likely won't be able to play on the platform anymore. |
|
|
|
As I stated earlier, without commenting on any specific allegation and keeping my reply in generic terms, it certainly does not look good for them. What gives them a lot of benefit of any doubt at the moment (in my view) is that their forum representative was last online in the forum on 25th January 2024 therefore they might not have seen the comments about the Curacao logo amongst others.
I cannot comment on the provably fair issue but hopefully they will post here soon to make a comment about the logo otherwise there is a real risk they could end up with either neutral or negative feedbacks from members that are not satisfied with their response.
The OP of this scam accusation has failed to prove that a scam happened, and so I see no reason to support their claims for the time being. But I do believe that they are misleading their players by showing a wrong license logo. If they don't change it, I will PM the casino admin and ask them to comment about their license information and why they are still displaying the wrong one. If they don't want to take any action and make changes to their site, I will tag them afterwards.
I am bringing to both of your attention that they've replace the license with an African license. Not sure when, I checked their page earlier today [few minutes ago, to be precise] prior to a post. Have to say that this is the first time I heard about them and I am not sure if they're a reputable regulator. I am currently inquiring about PF on that recent thread they're having.  |
|
|
|
Hello BitcoinTalk Community, I am Admin Eva, representing the Blackjack.fun project and our dedicated team. Unfortunately, our community has been targeted by an individual named JackpotRacer ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=524209), who is actively attempting to tarnish our reputation without any valid reason. JackpotRacer's actions seem to be a strategic attack, fueled by either a personal agenda, narcissistic behavior, or potential mental health issues. His relentless attacks extend not only within the BitcoinTalk forum but also outside of it, creating a false narrative and proposing a solution that amounts to nothing short of blackmail. The harassment campaign began in November, primarily focused on coercing us into creating blackjack tournaments for him. We want to bring this to the community's attention, as we believe in transparency and the support of our fellow forum members. JackpotRacer has weaponized a scam accusations thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5474047.0) to further his agenda, misleading others to achieve his goal. Notably, our decision to trigger a KYC on his account has triggered his attempts to portray himself as a victim, though we firmly believe we are within our rights to take such actions. I was one of the user who oversee that thread, alongside with several other prominent members, I don't think you should worry much about that thread, anyone who gave that thread a read can see how baseless the accusation is... well, JackpotRacer can't even spell out what's the scam about. Nonetheless, several good points that's being brought to that thread and you happen to mention here should be addressed, as follow: In light of these challenges, we've temporarily stepped back from the Bitcointalk forum to address the situation. Once this matter is resolved, we plan to return with a significant signature campaign, open an ANN thread, and continue our engagement with the community. First is this one, this is a very poor problem solving strategy. By locking your ANN, you just cast an impression that you're evasive and has something to hide. Soonest you open them for public and re-engage to the community will be better. We are reaching out to seek advice and support from our valued community members. How can we effectively counter such ill-intentioned attacks and safeguard our reputation? Any insights, suggestions, or shared experiences would be immensely appreciated.
Second, as you asked for advice for your reputation, as well as to clarify what really happens, there are two things that need your response and explanation, that is the Curacao license and the Provably Fair method. I can see that you've replace the license with... Anjuan Gaming... of Africa [this is the first time I am stumbled upon them], but it's probably better to give an explanation why for quite some time you have an invalid license in your page. I believe you're very close to get a tag or two for those matters. I'll bring these issue of license and PF to Pmalek's and JollyGood's attention by mentioning them here as well as writing on JackpotRacer's thread, redirecting them here. |
|
|
|
[...] This is their thread, though one of the representatives I know who could help escalate your issue as soon as possible has been inactive for a very long time. They have a representative on this forum who sweeps through this sub-board regularly and forwarded the issues to the respective team. I am sure when this thread has more basis [and so far, it doesn't], the representative will notify their team to investigate. |
|
|
|
|
I gave your story a quick look. I'd like to address the self-exclusion situation first. I believe you didn't apply for a permanent exclusion but more to the "cool down period"? Thus, your account will be locked for 21 days or so, and after that, you'll get an option to continue the self-exclusion by permanently closing the account or to resume playing.
As with a case of self-exclusion, they have to stick with the cool-down period, they can't intervene the system by expediting the countdown or unlock it at will.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
