[...]
Based on the data above, I have to say that it is safe to conclude there is a big likelihood of a bug exploitation, either by sequence or by testing with small amount before hitting big.
That's what you inferred from this history? Do you gamble yourself? I'd argue almost everyone who gambles has a similar pattern, starts small, increases bet as loss increases. If anyone hits a high multiplier first few rounds in a game is it immediately considered a bug exploitation? I remember that game paid like 30-40x something. It's not a unreasonable bet increase, nor a huge win. If it was possible to exploit a game, why would I be playing slots? Can you also share the wager for the last winning bet? Your wording and presentation of data makes it seem like I increased the wager unreasonably on the winning bet, I really don't think that was the case. I'm sure any gambler will say that they've had bet "patterns" similar to this before. I've already lost hope about betpanda anyways, but just think and judge fairly, do you really think this was the case given the bet history? To correct myself and to be fair, above data is simply to show that there is indeed a considerable fluctuation in amount. The data they sent me, showed me something further [that I am sure] by accident, as I wasn't asking that piece of info. I don't even need to ask my contact about what does that data mean, as... it made it clear that the last win was earned through a manipulation of bug. Even for those who doesn't gamble. To answer your question about wager, and thank you for pointing into that direction, I unfortunately can't share that publicly, but they do shared the wager history too, of which I can confirm that the point born from that data only strengthen the previous conclusion. So, unfortunately, OP, if I have to be the judge here [and I always strive to do it fairly, in case you wondered], I have to say the evidence provided by BetPanda lead to a very safe conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt, that there are manipulation of bug in the game, that you exploited. |
|
|
|
Thanks
Sure, I'll tell them that the attempt of resolution here is not working and to reach their colleague handling AG account to respond to your case on AG once it's up, if they haven't get notified and replied there themselves already. |
|
|
|
Okay, they do offer this feature for combo bets. However, for the bet you placed, the feature was not offered. Your bets on those combo are all in "normal" setting.
Why? is 1x2 market with this function.... What means all in "normal" setting? Because all matches are Early Payout? On the 5-match ticket, Tottenham is 1x Double Change, has not Early Payout... They contradict themselves, they don't want to give me money, that's clear. BC Game stole my money.
All matches had Early Payout label. Why not understand, that all Champions League matches on 1x2 have this label on there site. And another good question for your manager "how bet 1 or x or 2" without this function? how select, because is automat where place 1x2 bet no?
The label appear when you add the matches, after you place the ticket it no longer appears, so your contact only has the spell. Put to select 2 matches from Champions League 1x2, and bet, and after send you a screen.... he sent you a screen where he select only matches, not bet.....
Spells only. God, what a crappy site, and the people too... leave me be with the useless manager...
Can you help us all understand where do you infer that every matches are in Early Payout setting instead of the Early payout being a feature for specific matches that's labelled likewise, like what my contact explained? |
|
|
|
At BCGame, VIPHosts require a minimum loss amount when granting lossback. Lossback isn't granted until that limit is reached. I was very close to that limit. After depositing the balance using the code, I reached that limit, and the VIPhost system told me I was too far behind in terms of lossback after the code was applied, and I couldn't receive any. Again, before this code, it said I was very close to receiving lossback.
So Yes and No at the same time.
Okay, let me inquire to my contact for this matter and the yes-but-no of the older one. Please give some time. Due to the timeline of the case, I am reaching for that contact with cat-like fluidity, that'll be rather hard to catch. |
|
|
|
Hey holydarkness have you received any replies from your contact on my case please do update
OP, this shall serve as a reply to your PM too [addressed today, just few minutes ago], so the overseers can be updated as well. The answer to the post and the PM: no, unfortunately I still don't have a significant development worth mentioning from my side.  But rest assured that I did not abandon the matter and nudge my contact for clarification periodically, as depicted above [nudged and brought to my contact's attention just yesterday]. I'll provide an explanation here once I have a better grasp of the situation from what they can provide to me. |
|
|
|
Yes, Early Payout means this. (advantage 2 goals, 2-0, 3-1, 4-2 and many) I sent and a image where on BC.Game on Champions League matches at 1x2 market has this function. On the chat he explain me Early Payout means if team score 2 goals, I told him you better shut up, because I was winning anyway. Are many bookmakers that offer this, Bet365 same, but if you offer this, why is not applicable?  why show this on each match if is not applicable?? I bet only for this reason, for this function... Okay, they do offer this feature for combo bets. However, for the bet you placed, the feature was not offered. Your bets on those combo are all in "normal" setting. If I may, like you've pointed out for illustrative purpose with other matches, each game that has "early payout" feature are labelled as that,   Or if I may provide what my contact gave me for illustrative purpose themselves:  Now, if I understand things further correctly, your ticket for those matches were the ones I quoted for visibility earlier [the one with red boxes], of which none were marked with "early payout" label, especially the matches in dispute here. If this is understandable? |
|
|
|
Holy here.
OP, geekking, in a simple yes or no, were your deposit with details as below, credited to you, or not?
TICKET 8267591
F-1828130397730632603
UID: 10604145
Asking because I inquired to my contact following the lack of feedback from you, and my contact informed that they've resolve the issue of your deposit by 9th April. Yes, I even went back to scroll through our long chat history to zeroing into the account.
Upon confirmation of yes or no, I'll run that deposit ID again to my contact for confirmation, along with the one on this thread.
Holydarkness, hello first of all. I didn't have a chance to go back to the previous thread, so first of all, I apologize for my forgetfulness and thank you for your help. Regarding the answer to the question. At that time, affiliate manager Mark Davis and my VIPHost Lazar gave me a code (for the same amount), and it was marked as deposited two days later, but my VIPHost provided it using my lossback. I don't know how the casino marked it or if they told you it was paid. In summary: They gave me codes of the same amount (credited to my account as BCD), and two days after giving me the code, it was marked as paid, but this code was given using my lossback, and of course, if I hadn't done what I mentioned above, pursued the matter, and reported it to the affiliate manager, I'm sure no action would have been taken. So, in a rather complex yes or no, the answer is "yes, it was credited through code of same amount, but it was from the lossback"? May I know how you figure the code was for your lossback instead of to put the deposit into your account? |
|
|
|
Yes of course. It's ok?
[...]
Thank you. I understand correctly that the matches in dispute were the ones I marked in red boxes? And the result of the game was the one below? Namely that Benfica was indeed lost the match, 2-3.    However, your argument here was that you opted for "early payout" system, of which your bet will automatically win and paid when a score reached 2-0, of which Benfica did --get 2 scores ahead-- like the one you circled on above? |
|
|
|
[...]
Anyway lets ping @holydarkness here since he has direct contact to this casino.
Holy here. OP, geekking, in a simple yes or no, were your deposit with details as below, credited to you, or not? TICKET 8267591 F-1828130397730632603 UID: 10604145 Asking because I inquired to my contact following the lack of feedback from you, and my contact informed that they've resolve the issue of your deposit by 9th April. Yes, I even went back to scroll through our long chat history to zeroing into the account. Upon confirmation of yes or no, I'll run that deposit ID again to my contact for confirmation, along with the one on this thread. |
|
|
|
OP, would you re-upload your image to talkimg? My contact explained about your siituation, of which I'll need to consult to the images you provided first, to validate and/or to better understand their explanation. However, upon trying to look into your images again, I can't access them regardless of the browsers and devices:  |
|
|
|
Got their response. A quite long one. But simplified [and to answer why the need of multi-acc] this is the third account, of which the first two were bet-limited due to other violation, so this is more to a case of circumventing betting limitation.
However, OP, the offer to return your initial deposits is on the table if you're agree to it.
I cant agree with the return of my initial deposit and allow them confiscate my profits because i did not use any other account Well, sure. You're free to disagree. On that case, then perhaps the best way is to raise your dispute to AG as per acroman08 suggested, where BetFury might be able to share in more confidence with their supporting data and the arbitrator can make a call of whether their supporting evidence is valid or not. |
|
|
|
So, OP, simplest way to prove/disprove BetPanda's counter-accusation will be to agree to let me see the betting record as per what betpanda's internal database has, and certainly if you didn't exploit a bug, there won't be a noticable fluctuation in that data.
By your permission and agreement that what I see will be binding to both parties?
sure, go ahead. Thank you for your written consent and agreement. With that in hand, I inquired to my contact on BetPanda, and they returned with the bet sequence in question. And there is indeed a sharp fluctuation of which the nature of the wager and the sudden spike is questionable. I am not allowed to share the screenshot of their back-end data, but they fortunately allows me to write the sequence here, so other overseers can judge. The session that flagged were as follow: -0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.00116369
-0.01861904
-0.01861904
-0.01861904
+0.82009430
Based on the data above, I have to say that it is safe to conclude there is a big likelihood of a bug exploitation, either by sequence or by testing with small amount before hitting big. |
|
|
|
[...] Edit: wait a second, kindly explain this: [...]
In my view the arbitrariness of this action can already be seen from the fact that one deposit was actually returned to me. This was a deposit that arrived in my account only after Cloudbet had already suspended it. That means Cloudbet itself acknowledged that deposits hitting the account after suspension cannot simply be confiscated. But purely because of the timing, the deposits I made earlier that same morning were treated completely differently: those were used for bets and then disappeared with the suspension, while the very last one was refunded. The difference was only a matter of minutes, yet it decided whether my money was kept or returned.
I understand correctly that your second deposit is already returned inn full, but on the day they blocked your account, earlier before they suspend your account, you made a deposit and bet with them, and this one wasn't returned? Thank you very much for your reply. I accept your criticism, even if it is harsh. Apparently I really acted naively here. As for the current situation, I would like to ask for your assessment: Cloudbet support keeps telling me that I can withdraw my balance, but in reality my wallet always shows 0.00 and I cannot initiate anything. Could it simply be a technical issue and Cloudbet is actually already prepared to return at least my deposits? I chose them because of their good reputation, and I would really like to believe they will act fairly in the end. Well, that's the point I wanted to know through my question on edited section after I gave your thread a more thorough read: how much is already returned and how much is your deposit? Perhaps it'll be far easier to explain in details of the situation related to your deposits [the numbers and timeline of it] and the ones already returned? |
|
|
|
[...]
Well, let's see if @Holydarkness can help you and if he has a contact on hand. Hope this ends well for you but as of now this is a tricky case tbh.
I don't have their direct contact on reach, but I guess I can PM them, if... there is enough basis to consider this matter as a situation. So, OP, Heldentat, mind to enlighten us and clarify so we can understand better: your older account was self-excluded, was it a permanent self-exclusion or a temporary [timer is set to certain time] one? Asking because you said you create your second account because you deleted your first google account, thus has no access to it, implying a temporary exclusion instead of permanent one. Thank you for your reaction and for even considering to get involved. I really appreciate it. To clarify your question: it was a permanent self-exclusion. I deliberately chose the option to close the first account forever, precisely so that I could not use it in parallel or access it again. At that moment, I did not even think of this as a tool for problem gamblers. For me, it simply seemed practical: a clear and provable way to close one account permanently and ensure that I could not use it alongside another. So yes, the first account was permanently self-excluded, and the second one was created only afterwards, because I wanted to continue using Cloudbet without relying on Google single sign on anymore. Well, like it or not, harsh as it may sounds, AHOYBRAUSE is right on his first post. There is no case here and your situation is a ban evasion, or rather [to be more precise] attempting to circumvent self-exclusion. Regardless of your true aim when you set the permanent exclusion, you are not allowed to create another account following that request. Casinos will try to make it hard to re-register, but that doesn't mean it's impossible and 100% "fool-proof". I'll try to reach Cloudbet, but not to ask for their side for the matter, as the matter is clear here. I'll ask for their reconsideration to return your deposit instead. I can't guarantee that they'll say yes, though.
Edit: wait a second, kindly explain this: [...]
In my view the arbitrariness of this action can already be seen from the fact that one deposit was actually returned to me. This was a deposit that arrived in my account only after Cloudbet had already suspended it. That means Cloudbet itself acknowledged that deposits hitting the account after suspension cannot simply be confiscated. But purely because of the timing, the deposits I made earlier that same morning were treated completely differently: those were used for bets and then disappeared with the suspension, while the very last one was refunded. The difference was only a matter of minutes, yet it decided whether my money was kept or returned.
I understand correctly that your second deposit is already returned inn full, but on the day they blocked your account, earlier before they suspend your account, you made a deposit and bet with them, and this one wasn't returned? |
|
|
|
[...]
Well, let's see if @Holydarkness can help you and if he has a contact on hand. Hope this ends well for you but as of now this is a tricky case tbh.
I don't have their direct contact on reach, but I guess I can PM them, if... there is enough basis to consider this matter as a situation. So, OP, Heldentat, mind to enlighten us and clarify so we can understand better: your older account was self-excluded, was it a permanent self-exclusion or a temporary [timer is set to certain time] one? Asking because you said you create your second account because you deleted your first google account, thus has no access to it, implying a temporary exclusion instead of permanent one. |
|
|
|
No problem, thanks for all. ID: 83094331
Got it. Thank you. Please wait a little while, I've been nudging this contact from earlier today for another case with similar nature, but they're yet to nudge me back. Probably they're occupied with other things. I'll assign both of your cases to other contact if I haven't hear back from them until tomorrow morning. |
|
|
|
Mind to PM me your UID? Though I think my contact can zeroing into your account with that ticket ID, I think the process will be significantly faster with UID in hand. I'll inquire and get their side for this situation.
Thanks a lot for help me. I can't send a PM, can send you to me a PM, with your email or Telegram if you can to send ID, or is ok to post here? Can wrong something if I post the ID here? Thanks a lot again. No offense but uhh... I'd prefer my TG to be private. I need to change the username to something far more obscure than what I had earlier because... the nudges become... overflowing. And though I am always happy to help off-screen, sometimes things can get way too much to handle, not to mention the forum PMs. And... most certainly I also prefer my email to be private, for obvious reason. So, the best alternative is by mentioning your UID here, if you don't mind. There is no issue in posting UID here for public, just... some people prefer to keep their UID private. Of which, if you shared that same desire, I believe you can send me PM with that UID in 24 hours from the last PM you sent to... anyone that is. As a newbie-rank, you should have a 2 PM every 24 hours limitation. |
|
|
|
|
Got their response. A quite long one. But simplified [and to answer why the need of multi-acc] this is the third account, of which the first two were bet-limited due to other violation, so this is more to a case of circumventing betting limitation.
However, OP, the offer to return your initial deposits is on the table if you're agree to it.
|
|
|
|
New Updated:
My ticket number is 9170873
On the chat I postpone it to check that I have the answer as soon as possible and so on...nothing concrete...
Mind to PM me your UID? Though I think my contact can zeroing into your account with that ticket ID, I think the process will be significantly faster with UID in hand. I'll inquire and get their side for this situation. |
|
|
|
The player "has a tendency" to weaponize his "gambling addiction" to extort casinos. Like other mentioned, he had a prior with Rollbit, of which Razer decided to return as his PnL is negative. AHOYBRAUSE made a connection to another account, ghostingura2, of which it means he also connected to another account I personally know by heart, as I attend to three of the cases myself. I find the accusation of "extortion" to be completely baseless and frankly, offensive. To "extort" means to gain something by force or threats. I have lost a net amount of over $6,000 on razed. My financial loss is the direct opposite of extortion. Regarding my prior issue with Rollbit, you are correct. My account was closed, and my balance was returned to me over 1.5 years ago. This happened precisely because my account showed a negative PnL and because I was acknowledged as a vulnerable player struggling with a gambling problem. This prior case only reinforces the validity of my position, as it shows a casino that actually took its responsible gaming policy seriously. My case is not about other forums or other accounts. It is about Razed's complete failure to protect a player they knew was at-risk. Their negligence is what caused part of my financial loss, and it is what I am seeking to have rectified. Was it not something done in bad faith, then, to hit several casinos with gambling addiction and/or self exclusion, then write the complaint here for a... sum of fund? One casino, then another, and then the next one. Not to mention the connection to other accounts that you accidentally revealed to be your alts, of which have their own shady characteristics? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
