Those conversation above aside, I am curious about one thing, I asked something that brushed the topic, but I think I didn't get specific and thus we didn't get a chance to talk about it.

Why does bonus matter to you? You're about to self-exclude yourself from the casino, and hopefully from any other casino. You ideally will not use that bonus to place another bet, so why is it so crucial for you? And, to clarify, it's USD 200?

I thought this part was partially covered by khaled0111, the Provably Fair method that they provide are only applicable for their in-house game. Games from other providers are... somewhat questionable.

If this is true, I think they should make a clear distinction, a different page or even a simple border in their page separating their PF game and the ones that can't be verified.

Just curious, does the article or source where you got that information was the one back in 2019? If it does, I wonder if they're still the partner of Stake. Did you happen to ask for confirmation whether they're currently still providing for Stake up to these days? That statement is rather ambiguous as they did not specifically confirm that they're related to Stake.

Won't hurt to show us here, though it probably didn't prove much. I am not sure how detailed session log that Coins have, but hopefully it includes the device details. Surely those accounts are accessed from different device? Or did you happen to lend your phone to them too during registration?

Let's see if I get this correctly, your husband, Catalin, had an account on Rollbit, safe to assume that he had it for a while, given he finally realized he have an addiction and requested a self-exclusion. You're living in the same household, and you heard about Rollbit from a friend? A friend? Not your husband? He have a gambling addiction problem and you never heard of him mentioning Rollbit or seen him playing on it?

When exactly did he ask for self-exclusion, if you don't mind me asking?

Umm... to be fair, you kinda did, you're saying if you close your account permanently, you'll lose +- $500 in weekly and monthly bonus, quoted as below. Unless you try to convey a different message?


While regarding this part of the post,


First of all, let's get one thing clear: you find it difficult to limit yourself, and you're really concerned that you'll lose your weekly gambling bonus [the technicalities and details involved in it, I'll leave that to AHOYBRAUSE], and it didn't occur to you that you need to exclude yourself? You're still trying to limit your time gambling instead of completely leaving the platform?

The lower part of the page you quoted their statement above actually describe the situation very well, which I think you conveniently left out because it didn't fit your narrative,



Now, I am not sure about time, deposit, and other limitation, and I've been trying to find more about that since I read your post, but they surely set one way of limitation that you can utilize: a duration of self-exclusion. The fact that you didn't know about it heavily implies that you have never visited their self-exclusion page.

I would say that you're awfully prepared. You took a photograph that their last log-in date was before 26th, they logged out, and never logged back in since? You got the news that you're suspected of multi-acc abuse by the 29th according to the email date. You're saying you took that picture before you even know you'll need that to prove you're not guilty?

If I may jump in, yes, you get it correctly. The odds changed from 1.5 to 2.15 and it shouldn't affect OP's situation as his bet is a losing bet. However, he argued that he'll probably have a change of mind and took a different decision due to the odd change. Thus he insist it should be voided.

I assume BC choose to be the bigger man and out of a good gesture, they granted that request and voided the bet, thus OP got his balance back. Of which... he immediately use them to place another bet, which become the root of this recent issue.

It is worth to mention [in case you missed this piece of relevant information] that OP is a gambling addict, he raised an accusation against other casino [using his bitcointalk alt-account, which unearthed by AHOYBRAUSE], demanding a refund because he was self-excluded in one of his account but was able to made bets with his other account. He did not mention that he has two accounts on that casino during the self-exclusion request, arguing that they should have known because he made correspondence with... two of the casino's representative, through both of the email addresses, simultaneously. That case settled in his favor, and few days later he had this case with BC.

I asked BC's representative to put him in exclusion during his initial case, but that piece of information seemingly missed by their representative. I am currently in touch with a staff of BC, I am trying to get him placed in exclusion. Not because I have issue with OP [I see him much like other cases I attended] but simply and honestly because OP clearly need external help for his condition.

---

OP, ghostingura2, I am still waiting for that quote of their rules that said bets made from a cancelled winning shall be voided as well.

Can you assure us that you're doing the right thing by explaining how exactly you determine those users had defrauded you, or that those who had their account already closed prior to your shut-down are scammers that doesn't eligible for a refund? Especially given in one or two cases, what happened was, their account got closed, they tried to get a resolution here, and before we can even hear from your side, any explanation at all, betnomi locked itself from any access. Stayzor's situation seems in an even worse shape, snippets of his complaint on CG,



He got his fund locked because your platform shut down. He... scammed you? How? Please assure us that it is an justified decision and not an empty air, that he scammed you, by providing explanation regarding his situation. Preferably with supporting evidence.

Hmm... this is interesting. For the sake of my future reference, can you quote me the rule from their site that specify this? That any other bets that's made with a fund from a cancelled winning bet shall be cancelled as well?

"Those shilling services" have their own farm, mostly low ranked, either newbie or Jr., as it became difficult to get to higher rank with the merit system being introduced. They're quite unlikely to buy a high ranked account. There are members who paid attention to changes in posting habit. A high ranked account who suddenly post shills are very likely get caught and rendered useless with tag [some even probably got banned], I am quite sure that is not a risk those shilling services are willing to take; paying so high for a high profile only for several post before it rendered useless.

If they don't bother to clear everything and keep on with their shady practice, ignoring the active and ongoing accusations against them, their new account will quite likely get similar tag from several DT. Not sure if all DT who tagged betnomi account will also tag the new account, but I believe some will. It's what happen with 1xBit and their new platform.

No, I am saying it will be a sure-bet, namely whatever the outcome of the game is, you'll get something. Compensating your total lost, at the very least, suppose your bet on the losing team is higher than on the winning team. Your case become more... serious because you seemingly placed a counter-bet when you know your first bet will be a losing one. Unless I am wrong?


So, #...9437? Given it is the only bet that has issue and got affected. There are no problem with other betting tickets. You sure about this? I am sure BC is more than happy to arrange it that's what you wish, but I don't think you'll be happy once it's voided.

The correct link for "scammer's profile link" will be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=202115, that's betcoinAG's profile link. It might be a minuscule details, but suppose your situation escalated to where a flag is raised [which I doubt, because Betcoin is rather attentive], it'll help if you have a proper format and link.

Moving to your situation, I am uploading both of the images you presented on this thread, re-uploaded to talkimg.



I can see that on the first image we only see half of the conversation [the scroll bar is midway to the bottom of the line] do you have access to the earlier part of the conversation? Can you provide it here? Might be irrelevant, but let's make sure every ground is covered.

Next time, please upload image to talkimg, it's an image hosting platform made by a reputable user of this forum and dedicated for the forum. And please don't make consecutive posts [posting another post before another post made by someone else, at a close time], it is not allowed by forum rules. If you have anything to add, you can edit your latest post and add those information into that post.

They will. Unless you have proof that said otherwise. Like said by several other members above, we've reported several in the past, and they got their post removed.

---

I happened to have a post or two on their thread in the past and thus their thread appeared on my "show new replies" page. I took a glance yesterday when only two of those shillers made their posts on the thread and decided to leave the thread unopened for a while until an organic discussion re-appear. It seems the marketing team made a poor decision and it back-fired, putting them in a spotlight in a negative way and discouraging other, more serious, people from engaging into the discussion.

With this user coming out, I think the implied question from my previous inquiry needed even more urgent attention and answer: what make those user denied? They have cases that you barely bother to answer so we can get a better understanding from both sides. And two of them happen to have large sum of money. Is that the reason? Lest we got an impression that you paid small amount of fund just for the sake to make people think you show an act of kindness and generosity and thus your reputation got fixed.

Because by doing so, you'll win with whatever outcome a match is ended? You bet for the winning of both parties. I am not sure that is allowed.


And you lost USD 1,000 [or 1,400 USD, not sure which, it kept changing] because you can't counter-bet with the winning fund of the said match?


You're asking to void the bet... that you lost? Under the argument that you can't counter-bet it because the fund [that should be gotten from the other bet, the missing bet] did not reach your account in time for you to place the said bet? If it is a bug and you're truly seeking for a fair outcome, shouldn't the one being voided is the buggy-glitchy one, the #...9437, instead of the one where you can't place a counter-bet, #...1082, since #...1082 didn't have any problem? You sure you want them to void #...9437? You won that bet, so they would remove some balance from your account.

As OP already made a thread here, let's not. Bringing the issue to their ANN thread will split the attention of anyone involved and doubles the effort of those who oversee the case. Focusing a case in one thread is always much preferred.

OP, do they ask for you to perform KYC? Anything to get your account unlocked? I'll hail their representative here so they can take a look into your issue. For the time being, please complete this thread with supporting evidence in the preferred format as below:


And just to tackle the "preliminary" questions, do you use VPN? Have anyone in your home played at betcoin from the same IP or device [shared PC, perhaps]? Is this your one and only account?

To confirm and be clear, you're sending them the front side of the envelope, the back side of the envelope, and the content of the envelope, every single page of it? And nothing is covered or obscured by anything like what their representative claimed on CG?


Regarding the Chilean bank, can you get a simple statement from your bank containing your full name and addres, the date of your account registration and the account type, and the date of when that statement is made, printed in a paper with the bank's letterhead. No need for a stamp or signature.

Like... Placing a bet against the one you previously placed? Like a sure-bet? Is that even allowed? Anyway, pure curiosity, why do you even bother clicking the copy button for that bet ID? I mean, I can understand if you misclicked it due to it being in a close proximity with the bet ID in question, like being next to it or so, but they're very far apart, and the bet amount were not even close.

I have to agree that the initial ruling that bet ID #...9437 was initially lost, disappeared from the history, and later on revised as a winning is a curious thing, annoying perhaps, but I still don't think that counts as a bug. A glitch at best. Regarding this, BC.Game Support, can you shed some light into this matter and tell us how could this event occured? Does the sportsbook provider revised the final result or something?