[...] The gamblers who had funds inside their accounts in Betnomi should get more than they have as a compensation for the time they waited, that’s just my opinion. [...]
To be fair, they claimed that they returned users' fund according to today's market rate... or at least at a certain recent time.
Good for them that they are cleaning their reputation. When I see this thread marked as "SOLVED," I then check the OP and still find that he has some negative feedback. Maybe if it is confirmed that the problem has been settled, the negatives will be removed so they can start with their new gambling site, which is still under the same operator.
We can't find a lot of stories like this, so this should be in the directory or whatever you call it so people can see that there are still a lot of legit crypto gambling sites that are willing to fulfill their responsibilities to their gamblers.
Calling it solved by themselves is kinda like... a bold self proclamation. They made this thread, and claimed everything is solved without waiting for others to come and voice their concern. The issue pointed out by AHOYBRAUSE for example, it is not clarified yet, or perhaps mine. And that's amongst probably several other questions that the community have. I think calling it "solved" is way too premature. And the new gambling site is not under the same operator, only Sorsis and probably a handful of the staffs he trusted will be in the new project... I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Betnomi has scammed many, many customers. Many also have reported them, but Betnomi just write that the terms are violated and that there was fraud. Or bets were placed to exploit the system. They used all kind of excuses so that they don't pay out players. From the beginning I warned people about this site. I got red tagged by DT members, but when they reliase I was right, then they removed the red tag. DT members should be cleaned, there are many clowns here on the forum with a DT status who don't know anything about gambling and just write to get paid. And because of them, many people got scammed since they defended Betnomi for a long time because Betnomi paid them to continue their fraud! These DT members defended all the scam accusations, Royse777 is the biggest clown of all. That idiot should be removed from his DT status, since he was also involved and the owner of bitlucy, another scam site.
Umm... what? The DT did what? And Royse did... what? |
|
|
|
As I previously said on the now nuked thread, please move your thread to investigations board, your post contain personal and very sensitive details, such information can only be posted on that board. Either that or remove those details from your opening post, if you want to keep this thread on this board. I'm not allowed on the Investigations board. Please advise what I should do  "An Error Has Occurred! The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you." I am not aware that investigation board has a rank limitation. Last I check, newbies have threads on that board. Let me try to ask moderator to move your thread into that board on your behalf. Alternatively, you can remove the sensitive details so your thread is "eligible" to be on this board. Doxxing out of place is heavily frowned by the forum. Let me know which step you'd like to take. |
|
|
|
We have completed the refund process for the final set of withdrawal requests. Out of these, two have been denied due to fraud (account was previously banned). Three of them have been forwarded to the risk management team of our odds feeds and game providers. Apart from these five instances, all other refunds have been 100% completed.
We will process or deny the remaining cases based on the results of the review conducted by the third-party risk management team.
It was never our plan to stop Betnomi as it was going amazing before pause but it was my duty to make sure everyone was made whole.
Thank you all for your patience.
GekkeBelg and AHOYBRAUSE, do you mind to do us a favor and confirm this? Check your refund wallet and see if your funds on betnomi have been returned? As the claim above said it's the final set and it's completed, I believe even if yours are in the last of the list, they should be processed by now. |
|
|
|
By replying in Lock the 1xBit thread I believe your topic has a list of scam accusations against 1xBit. Unfortunately, I am wrong but did you have intention to not list those scam accusations against 1xBit like because you don't want to indirectly shill their brand name on search engines? Here is a list from logfiles and it was created in 2021, not updated recently. [List] 1xbit scam accusations. Scamming gamblers since 2017It's actually more to because the list is limited to cases from 2023 and 1xbit doesn't have case since then... not in a good way, they didn't have a complaint on this forum because everybody know it's a bad casino. Another reason is because their reputation is already known [thus, an idea of how reputable 1xbit is by reading this thread no longer needed] and that their representative is no longer here, while this thread is for those who still have representative, as well as to help those representatives to know what active cases against them are still active. But that is possibly a fatal oversight from me. I will be adding 1xbit entry with a list that logfiles and you created, to cover the complaints globally, with "multiple" as the complainants, and the warning sign [like those casinos above with very poor reputation], the format will be like below. What do you think? 1xBit - 1xbit_official [ !!!] |
|
|
|
BC.Game Support, I believe you can get his BC ID from his bets and ticket number? If not, I believe this screenshot will help, it's partial, but I think you can zeroing into the account by matching it with other details provided by OP.  Do you mind to consider to place him in an exclusion as part of the Gamble Aware regulation? I believe he admit from other casino that he has problem with gambling addiction from his other account, as unearthed by AHOYBRAUSE and confirmed by OP himself from his deleted post, recalled archive below, Is it illegal to have 2 accounts in bitcointalk.org? Can you focus on the claim itself? Obviously not because you might be sucking some bonus to make such useless posts. As you can see rollbit gave me reason before aswell. Is that why you are mad?
Maybe I'm addicted, maybe my English is not the best but I'm not spending my time here if I hadn't reason. I already provided a lot of evidences here.
And OP, you haven't respond to my previous question: how is this not a good thing that they didn't cancel your bet and prevent you from losing more? Given your bet is a losing bet.
|
|
|
|
As I previously said on the now nuked thread, please move your thread to investigations board, your post contain personal and very sensitive details, such information can only be posted on that board. Either that or remove those details from your opening post, if you want to keep this thread on this board. |
|
|
|
Regarding the license, I know it goes to credibility and that's why you guys are asking, but if the license they hold now is verified or able to be verified and noone has been scammed, do we really need to see proof of this or that?
Some will say we need to k now if they are liars or not(which is fine if they respond to what you want), but if they don't show proof and they didn't scam, what's the end game here?
Personally, what I hope can be the outcome of that point is a way for blackjack-fun to clear their reputation and invalidate JPR's claim, both inside and outside this forum. One of the accusation by JPR is the validity of their license. Granted, anyone reading that thread will understand that his accusation is baseless, borderline a witch-hunt. But, as OP said that JPR also attack them outside the forum, they can perhaps use this occasion as a media to thwart that baseless accusation --that Blackjack-fun ever operated without license-- that can reach people outside the forum, perhaps those who do further DD after reading the smear campaign, or OP themselves can redirect them to read this thread to get a better insight. |
|
|
|
The legal team has responded, indicating that requests for company documentation cannot be accommodated due to the presence of signatures and personal information within the requested materials.
As what the community wanted to know is whether the statement that you never go license-less, that your Curacao license was valid through 31 December 2023 and your Anjouan license has already been active by 1 January 2024, may I perhaps suggest to provide a proof of documentation that's strictly limited to these aspect without revealing other personal signature and information? So perhaps only the name of the licensee on that certificate and its expiration date. Or perhaps your legal team has a better way to validate this matter? An email from Anjouan informing you that your license is active and from Curacao telling you that theirs was expiring, perhaps? House blackjack provably fair:
(Suggested by Bitcointalk community)
Press My bets and then on the bet.
[image snip]
And this is available on every game that's playable on your platform? I think this is enough. Pmalek, do you have further question regarding PF? |
|
|
|
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?
Yes it affects. One point later I could be interested of selling my bet for $780, not by ~$300 or even counter betting. Odds are important, and the timming is important aswell, otherwise why would we want better odds than 1.01?  They stated they didn't place my bet on the odd 2.15 because of a definition in odd options... it makes no sense. I proved they changed the odd before accepting my bet so it is a trick basically they are selling 80 apples by the price of 100, to see if the customer is not paying attention. Which will make you... lose more? Because you placed more fund on a losing bet. How is this not a good thing that they didn't cancel your bet? I mean, I am not taking their side by saying what they did is nice, I am trying to understand your logic and POV. As for the counter-bet, is it realistically what would happen? You placed a bet, got the odd changed to a greater multiplier and your bet cancelled, will you bet on the opposite side? Especially coming from someone who would want a better odds than 1.01? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
