Update on poster jeffyeps prop bets at Stake on January 26. jeffyeps is a big player with multiple 5 figure deposits and withdrawals. His first day playing at Stake he made bets totaling $80,000. He's been playing at Stake for 3 years. Jan. 26 : Poster jeffyeps makes two prop bets, one a parlay and one straight, that include props on NBA player Jontay Porter. Both bets won at Stake paying out $42,463.48. Jan. 27 : A US Sportsbook, Draftkings, sends out notice that the 3-point player prop bet on Jonyat Porter was the biggest winner for the players on Jan. 26. Draftkings paid all players. Jan. 27 : Stake suspends the account of jeffyes. Stake's claim is that jeffyeps broke their ToS on having multiple accounts. jeffyeps had previously passed level 1 and 2 verification. Stake is now asking for more. Feb. 24 : jeffyeps files a complaint in scam accusations here at BCT. jeffyeps also files a complaint with AskGamblers. Stake keeps denying verification https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-stake-holding-43k-for-over-a-month-no-update . Stake has done this on multiple occasions, sometimes delaying payouts up to 5 months. Mar. 20 : Similar to Jan. 26, a lot of wagers were made on Dontay Porter props. Draftkings contacted gambling regulators for unusual betting patterns. The regulators went back looking at more prop where Jontay Porter was involved with unusually high amounts of tickets. While still under investigation, it looks as though the Jan 26 and March 20 bets were rigged. Prior to March 20, no one suspected the Jan 26 game and all bets were paid at other sportsbooks except for jeffyeps bets at Stake. Approximately Apr. 27 : Stake decides to confiscate jeffyeps' deposits and winnings. Analysis : 1. No honest sportsbook with a license in Curacao is going to accept prop bets paying out $42,463.48. The most common limit on NBA props for Curacao sportsbooks would be winnings of $500. 2. Stake had no intention of paying this player. The player was a large player and Stake took the wager knowing that either the player was going to lose or they weren't going to pay the player. Big crypto books can get away with this tactic since they will get forum backing. Players profiled as losing players that don't hit for a large amount will get paid hassle free. If a player gets profiled as a winner, a substantial amount is won or the player gets caught in a random KYC search, then it will be different at each book. Some books ban, others limit wager amounts and some confiscate winnings and deposits. 3. Even though Stake was unaware until months later, because the game was fixed, Stake should have kept jeffyeps' winnings and returned his balance. There are no claims that jeffyeps was involved in fixing the game. jeffyps completed all verification including proof of employment and funds. more on the game here https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39808900/nba-eyes-raptors-jontay-porter-betting-issues |
|
|
|
Update on poster jeffyeps prop bets at Stake on January 26. jeffyeps is a big player with multiple 5 figure deposits and withdrawals. His first day playing at Stake he made bets totaling $80,000. He's been playing at Stake for 3 years.Jan. 26 : Poster jeffyeps makes two prop bets, one a parlay and one straight, that include props on NBA player Jontay Porter. Both bets won at Stake paying out $42,463.48. Jan. 27 : A US Sportsbook, Draftkings, sends out notice that the 3-point player prop bet on Jonyat Porter was the biggest winner for the players on Jan. 26. Draftkings paid all players. Jan. 27 : Stake suspends the account of jeffyes. Stake's claim is that jeffyeps broke their ToS on having multiple accounts. jeffyeps had previously passed level 1 and 2 verification. Stake is now asking for more. Feb. 24 : jeffyeps files a complaint in scam accusations here at BCT. jeffyeps also files a complaint with AskGamblers. Stake keeps denying verification https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-stake-holding-43k-for-over-a-month-no-update . Stake has done this on multiple occasions, sometimes delaying payouts up to 5 months. Mar. 20 : Similar to Jan. 26, a lot of wagers were made on Dontay Porter props. Draftkings contacted gambling regulators for unusual betting patterns. The regulators went back looking at more prop where Jontay Porter was involved with unusually high amounts of tickets. While still under investigation, it looks as though the Jan 26 and March 20 bets were rigged. Prior to March 20, no one suspected the Jan 26 game and all bets were paid at other sportsbooks except for jeffyeps bets at Stake. Approximately Apr. 27 : Stake decides to confiscate jeffyeps' deposits and winnings. Analysis : 1. No honest sportsbook with a license in Curacao is going to accept prop bets paying out $42,463.48. The most common limit on NBA props for Curacao sportsbooks would be winnings of $500. 2. Stake had no intention of paying this player. The player was a large player and Stake took the wager knowing that either the player was going to lose or they weren't going to pay the player. Big crypto books can get away with this tactic since they will get forum backing. Players profiled as losing players that don't hit for a large amount will get paid hassle free. If a player gets profiled as a winner, a substantial amount is won or the player gets caught in a random KYC search, then it will be different at each book. Some books ban, others limit wager amounts and some confiscate winnings and deposits. 3. Even though Stake was unaware until months later, because the game was fixed, Stake should have kept jeffyeps' winnings and returned his balance. There are no claims that jeffyeps was involved in fixing the game. jeffyps completed all verification including proof of employment and funds. more on the game here https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39808900/nba-eyes-raptors-jontay-porter-betting-issues
|
|
|
|
|
It turns out that every book except Stake paid the bet as a winner. That bet was in January. The second time the game was rigged in March is when people caught on to games being rigged. DraftKings blew the whistle in March and regulators went back and looked at more bets. Stake had zero intent to pay the player. No one thought the January game was rigged until it happened a second time.
The player posted at BCT in February. Stake didn’t know the game was rigged until March.
|
|
|
|
[...] Now, attempting to bring us back on track, to the topic being discussed, I believe you haven't give me an answer to this question? How do you propose this to be done? Do you want me to invite Steve and/or Jeremy to come back here? Far as I know, once they mark a case as settled [or handled externally, for this case], they're not returning to the thread. So your statement above has a very high chance of being missed.
I'd go "resolved". He took it to Steve in private and we haven't heard back. You could reopen if OP comes back. Oh sorry for being unclear, I was not talking about the OP of this thread and his case. I was talking about your open proposal to Sportsbet's representatives. As previously mentioned, SB's representative have tendency to not revisiting a thread when they consider it closed. But I think I can invite either one of them, or perhaps both, to answer your question below... if you still want to proceed? Then I’ll do it this way since I said I don’t want to pile on Sportsbet. If Steve or Jeremy deny that Sportsbet is taking deposits for first time offenses, I’ll hunt down cases. Otherwise I won’t clog up the forum and will just comment on new cases. [...]
I’m not really looking to rehash any old cases. I’m sure Jeremy reads the thread. If he disagrees with anything I’ve said then I’d be happy to show evidence requested but I’m not looking for a fight on old cases since there doesn’t seem to be any value to others. |
|
|
|
I am biased. I always go in with the assumption that a player is innocent and a book must prove him guilty. His betting history isn’t good for his case which is why I didn’t declare him innocent at that point.
With the exception of books with licenses in the UK or US, no honest books give players limits where they can win $45k on prop bets and that's rare. I'm sure Draftkings won't do that again. Books that do this are going to take your money if you lose and take your money if you win on a $45k win prop bet. NBA prop bet limits are normally between $300 and $2000 offshore. I'd guess $500 is the most common. I just found something that I'll quote below although I think he's talking about US books.
If I went by which is more likely, I’d say the player is guilty. At the same time it’s very likely that Stake was going to steal his money either way.
Since neither can be proven, take away his winnings and return the rest of his balance. Dangerous precedent if Stake can steal whenever they want.
[...]
I'm gonna drop the first paragraph of yours as things will spiralling down if it gets another oxygen. What I'd like to address is the last paragraph [well, from my quote, not from your original post], whether stake should return his deposit or not. Ethically, yes they should. They can't prove that the user is colluding, neither can the player proves he's innocent. If this is his first "offense", then jeffyeps entitled --again, ethically-- to a degree of benefit of doubt and get his betting fund returned. But legally? Stake has the full rights to do what they currently did, especially as there is an indication [as you acknowledged yourself] that his bets are somewhat questionable, and that he's not innocent. I believe Jeffyeps made a wrong assumption when he said that he has scrubbed the ToS and didn't find any that justifies Stake to confiscate his fund, since the term only said voiding a bet. Well, unfortunately he only scrubbed the sports-terms, not realizing that it is a "sub-terms" of a larger one, where the point previously mentioned resides]. The question is [and I believe it should be the closing question of this topic as we're once again have been way out of the topic] what will you do and say on his thread? Now, attempting to bring us back on track, to the topic being discussed, I believe you haven't give me an answer to this question? How do you propose this to be done? Do you want me to invite Steve and/or Jeremy to come back here? Far as I know, once they mark a case as settled [or handled externally, for this case], they're not returning to the thread. So your statement above has a very high chance of being missed.
I'd go "resolved". He took it to Steve in private and we haven't heard back. You could reopen if OP comes back. |
|
|
|
It’s not for nefarious reasons but you are obviously siding with Stake. No one has proved the player did anything wrong and you think Stake can steal. There are no clauses that the player has broken.
Think logically. When people rig a game they make big bets. The line starts moving, a trend is set and honest people jump in on the bet. These people did nothing wrong.
I don't think I'm siding with Stake and I don't think Stake can steal, I'm simply [apparently] being the only one who read their ToS regarding this case. And being someone who read a ToS to get a better understanding of a case shouldn't directly translates into me siding with one party. Let me break it down, currently they're at the moot point. Stake can't prove if OP got tipped or simply followed a trend, but the fact remains, jeffyeps placed a bet that's later become problematic and Stake suspected him that he's in a breach of 4.19. with a nail on 4.19.e. [that I'll have to say, it's a rather "clever" way for them to cover themselves], thus 4.21.  It'll be a different case if Stake accuses jeffyeps out of the blue that he placed bet on a rigged game, or whichever point they can select from 4.19.a. to 4.19.d., for this, Stake will arguably tries to cheat from their player. The problem here is there was a basis. A game was rigged and made in collusive manner. Regardless he simply followed a tip or not, Stake reserves the right to withhold or retain the amount that otherwise payable to him as they consider the event may have occured or likely to occur. They can't exactly be said stealing from someone who give their consent to consequences they'll face upon some clauses in a list of agreement, can they? But allow me to turn the table, for argumentative purpose and not for nefarious reason. How sure are you that you are not biased and siding with the player? You require player on other cases to provide his betting history for your profiling. Has you profiled jeffyeps? What does it say? Here, below are the snippets of his bets that he previously provided. I believe analyzing betting history to profile someone is your forte?   I am biased. I always go in with the assumption that a player is innocent and a book must prove him guilty. His betting history isn’t good for his case which is why I didn’t declare him innocent at that point. With the exception of books with licenses in the UK or US, no honest books give players limits where they can win $45k on prop bets and that's rare. I've never seen anything close to that. I'm sure Draftkings won't do that again. Books that do this are going to take your money if you lose and take your money if you win on a $45k win prop bet. NBA prop bet limits are normally between $300 and $2000 offshore. I'd guess $500 is the most common. I just found something that I'll quote below although I think he's talking about US books. If I went by which is more likely, I’d say the player is guilty. At the same time it’s very likely that Stake was going to steal his money either way. When I've previously said the player did nothing wrong, the meaning was nothing wrong that has been proven. Since neither can be proven, take away his winnings and return the rest of his balance. Dangerous precedent if Stake can steal whenever they want. Adrian Wojnarowski
@wojespn
Betting limits on NBA player props vary by sportsbook and customer, but are typically around $1,000 to $2,000. “People were trying to do whatever they could to bet Jontay Porter props [against the Clippers],” the source said. “And then, just a few days ago, the same thing. We had a bunch of people trying to bet under for more.”
7:59 PM · Mar 25, 2024
·
1.2M
Views from ESPN Senior Advisor |
|
|
|
You can't edit a thread [as in the opening post] unless you're the OP of the said thread. I believe you know this. Were you trying to say that you'll edit the post quoted above with lists of cases? If so, I'll suggest you to create a new and separate thread instead of posting it here.
It'll rather be OOT if you post it here... though with careful and proper wording, I think you can make it a bit on-topic.
Talking about OOT a little... that guy on Stake who bets on Porter, I wonder what made him think the repercussion for such violation [be it deliberate or his claim is true that he's just following a trend] will just earn him a slap on the wrist, get the bet voided, and he will ultimately still get his funds returned. I would love to see the world he grew up in.
Then I’ll do it this way since I said I don’t want to pile on Sportsbet. If Steve or Jeremy deny that Sportsbet is taking deposits for first time offenses, I’ll hunt down cases. Otherwise I won’t clog up the forum and will just comment on new cases. How do you propose this to be done? Do you want me to invite Steve and/or Jeremy to come back here? Far as I know, once they mark a case as settled [or handled externally, for this case], they're not returning to the thread. So your statement above has a very high chance of being missed. The Stake player did nothing wrong. He was unfortunate to bet a game that turned out to be rigged. The player wasn’t in on it. Exclude the winnings and give him the rest of the money. Stake can’t steal the money from every single player that happened to bet that game. Other books aren’t stealing that money from anyone except those in on the fix.
Even those deposits will most likely have to be returned since it’s still under investigation. DraftKings blew the whistle and I don’t think there’s been a conclusion to the case.
How sure are we that he's innocent? Just like Stake can't prove that he got tipped to place the bet, that player can't also prove that his claim is true, that he's simply following the trend. I personally find it quite raising an eyebrow that [if he's simply following a trend] he placed a bet that's significantly higher than his usual bets, or that he bets on props. Maybe you can look into his betting history and do a profiling on him based on the data? Oh, by the way, if I may ventured OOT just a bit further, to straighten things, in case there is any doubt about my "bias", that I made those statement on that thread based on assumption, Stake's ToS actually covered about holding the fund for such circumstances. I had it screen captured in one of my device in case the necessity ever arise. He simply did not "scrub" deep enough. And no, this is not me being partial and siding with Stake. I still condemn their decision to drag cases for months and I still like to see myself as impartial on that case [despite that user seemingly think I am a devil's spawn]. I'm simply stating a fact here. A clause is written on their ToS, so I pointed that out. It’s not for nefarious reasons but you are obviously siding with Stake. No one has proved the player did anything wrong and you think Stake can steal. There are no clauses that the player has broken. Think logically. When people rig a game they make big bets. The line starts moving, a trend is set and honest people jump in on the bet. These people did nothing wrong. If Stake had 500 people make that bet can Stake steal the balances of all 500 people? |
|
|
|
It wasn’t my intent to beat up on Sportsbet here with an onslaught of cases. But to answer your question it’s going to come across that way. A little later I’ll edit this thread and post cases where Sportsbet takes winnings and deposits. Even with accused first time offenses, Sportsbet wasn’t returning deposits. With Stake we just saw a case where Stake grabbed a guys deposits. It was the Porter rigged prop bets.
My opinion is if you are profiled as a loser, Stake and Sportsbet pay fast. They know you are giving the money back so they aren’t going to bother you. If you are profiled as a possible winner or hit for a lot of money, there’s a decent chance of having KYC done and it can be extensive. The other options would be to limit your wagers, give you a second set of lines or change your margins and it can be done fast.
This type of thing is by no means new to the sports betting industry. They’ve been profiling sports gamblers prior to the Internet when people had to walk in casinos. Limits were changed for some. Beards (people making bets for a winner to hide identity) are used to enter casinos.
What is new is that these online casinos are stealing money from winners and those hitting for big money.
You can't edit a thread [as in the opening post] unless you're the OP of the said thread. I believe you know this. Were you trying to say that you'll edit the post quoted above with lists of cases? If so, I'll suggest you to create a new and separate thread instead of posting it here. It'll rather be OOT if you post it here... though with careful and proper wording, I think you can make it a bit on-topic. Talking about OOT a little... that guy on Stake who bets on Porter, I wonder what made him think the repercussion for such violation [be it deliberate or his claim is true that he's just following a trend] will just earn him a slap on the wrist, get the bet voided, and he will ultimately still get his funds returned. I would love to see the world he grew up in. Then I’ll do it this way since I said I don’t want to pile on Sportsbet. If Steve or Jeremy deny that Sportsbet is taking deposits for first time offenses, I’ll hunt down cases. Otherwise I won’t clog up the forum and will just comment on new cases. The Stake player did nothing wrong. He was unfortunate to bet a game that turned out to be rigged. The player wasn’t in on it. Exclude the winnings and give him the rest of the money. Following the trend on one bet makes it ok for Stake to steal your balance? I follow the trend on tons of plays. Stake can’t steal the money from every single player that happened to bet that game. Other books aren’t stealing that money from anyone except those in on the fix. If you had bet that game, should Stake steal your money or just cancel winnings? Even those deposits from the fixers will most likely have to be returned. Stealing the whole balance is illegal. DraftKings blew the whistle and I don’t think there’s been a conclusion to the case which is why the money is being held. |
|
|
|
|
This is the way things should be handled. A player got cleared in one day, not 5 months.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the information. I’ll make changes and deep dive into all three but will take a little time. |
|
|
|
Umm... how sure are we that those reviewers did not get what's rightfully theirs instead of getting things settled but didn't bother to come back to update the review? For example, cases on this forum are occasionally left unattended and not updated by the user once they get what they want and their case got resolved, people need to infer it themselves from the flow of the discussion and exchange of communication with SB's [or other casinos'] representatives.
Likewise, from your own example, how sure are we that the the player eventually got his fund back but he simply didn't bother to revise his entry on trustpilot?
And that is just from reviewer who are legit innocent. We still have to consider butt-hurt people who loses big or caught cheating on SB and tries to vent up their anger by creating a misleading review.
I don't read the reviews one by one, thoroughly [and not reading Stake representative's responses either], but if those "disputes" are transferred into this thread, I think at least half of them will be invalid due to the lack of supporting evidence?
I do a lot of research for grading purposes, not just here and Trust Pilot. I’m sure that most cases posted publicly aren’t valid but Sportsbet, Stake and 1xbet are bad with confiscating deposits and winnings. I am once again find myself in a confusion reading your post and think it's a bit contradictive. Perhaps you don't mind to explain it better? 1xbet-and-bit aside as their nefarious reputation is very much well established... about reviews for Stake and SB, if most cases that's being posted on trustpilot are not valid, then wouldn't it imply they're a smear campaign or people throwing muds or venting their anger for being busted? And thus, them confiscating deposits and winning are either a false statement made by the smear campaigners and mud slingers, or a valid one from those who got their account blocked and got angry at SB and Stake [and perhaps any other big casinos out there] and try to make them pay by giving low rating and scalding review? It wasn’t my intent to beat up on Sportsbet here with an onslaught of cases. But to answer your question it’s going to come across that way. A little later I’ll edit this thread and post cases where Sportsbet takes winnings and deposits. Even with accused first time offenses, Sportsbet wasn’t returning deposits. With Stake we just saw a case where Stake grabbed a guys deposits. It was the Porter rigged prop bets. My opinion is if you are profiled as a loser, Stake and Sportsbet pay fast. They know you are giving the money back so they aren’t going to bother you. If you are profiled as a possible winner or hit for a lot of money, there’s a decent chance of having KYC done and it can be extensive. The other options would be to limit your wagers, give you a second set of lines or change your margins and it can be done fast. This type of thing is by no means new to the sports betting industry. They’ve been profiling sports gamblers prior to the Internet when people had to walk in casinos. Limits were changed for some. Beards (people making bets for a winner to hide identity) are used to enter casinos. What is new is that these online casinos are stealing money from winners and those hitting for big money. |
|
|
|
Personally I have very good experiences with Crashino, Betplay.io and Blackjack.fun. They deserve better than D in my opinion, especially also cause they have been years around by now.
I'll take a look at all 3. Most likely the only one that can jump out of the Ds is Blackjack.fun. The other two are less than a year old. Peeps Place if you are not rating DirectBet, and not allowing to post DirectBet, then you don't have right to quote post from DirectBet thread.
If you accuse DirectBet from quoting then he have all rights to defend himself.
I strongly believe that if a person gets mentioned then it is fair enough to allow the person defend himself, its even more when its a brand, they should be allowed to defend them self, talking about DirectBet They've been out of business for a long time. That post goes back 10 years. Only one post has ever been deleted in this thread. The only thing that gets deleted is overly repetitive posts. For books their only rule is not to post about another book since the intent here is not to get into a bookie vs bookie fight. Posters are free to post whatever they want. |
|
|
|
OP, Were you paid? POSTED ON APRIL 27, 2024
Dear Sir,
We appreciate your patience during the review of your case. Please be assured that our top priority remains to ensure a secure and compliant environment for all our users.
Furthermore, we are pleased to inform you that the restrictions on your account have been lifted, and you now have full access to the platform.
Should you have any further questions or require assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Once again, we appreciate your understanding and cooperation throughout this process.
Kind regards, Even if paid, holding your money for 5+ months and requiring unnecessary documentation is unacceptable especially when Stake can share your information with a third party. You needed help from multiple entities just to get the case settled in 5 months. It was a fishing expedition on the part of Stake. |
|
|
|
Update | SportsBooks | | | Rating | | | Year | | | Country | | | KYC | | | MISC | | | Promos | | | Support | | | ANN thread | | | | | --------------------- | | | -------- | | | -------- | | | ---------- | | | ------ | | | ----------------------------------- | | | ------------ | | | ---------------------- | | | ------------ | | | | "A" rated books | | | Betcoin | | | A+ | | | 2013 | | | Curacao | | | 1 | | | Racebook, Poker, Two Books | | | | | | | | | | | | | Nitrobetting | | | A- | | | 2021 | | | Costa Rica | | | 1 | | | Racebook and Poker | | | | | | | | | | | | | "B" rated books | | | | | | | | | | Fortune Jack | | | B+ | | | 2019 | | | Curacao | | | 2 | | | opened as casino 2014 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Bitsler | | | B | | | 2015 | | | Curacao | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Cloudbet | | | B- | | | 2013 | | | Curacao | | | 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | "C" rated books | | | Betfury | | | C+ | | | 2020 | | | Curacao | | | 3 | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Maverickgames | | | C+ | | | 2020 | | | Isle of Man | | | 5 | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Roobet | | | C+ | | | 2019 | | | Curacao | | | 5 | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Trustdice | | | C+ | | | 2019 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Wolf | | | C+ | | | 2019 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duelbits | | | C | | | 2020 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Owl | | | C | | | 2021 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | 500.casino | | | C- | | | 2016 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | | MBet | | | | | | 2017 | | | Cyprus | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | coinroyale.com | | | C- | | | 2016 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | | mint.io | | | C- | | | 2021 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | - | | | | Parlayplus | | | C- | | | 2019 | | | - | | | 2 | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sportsbet | | | C- | | | 2016 | | | Curacao | | | 3 | | | Racebook | | | | | | | | | | | | | Stake | | | C- | | | 2019 | | | Curacao | | | 4 | | | opened as casino 2014 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rollbit | | | D+ | | | 2021 | | | Curacao | | | - | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
1. Theymos has given you the OK to start binding arbitration although Theymos himself won't force the arbitration or be involved. I don't post private emails without permission but I think this section here is ok If holydarkness wants to offer a binding arbitration service, then that has always been allowed, and my permission is not required. . Theymos said no sub-forum but could be proposed in meta if you would like. [...] Lastly, if you were to run a binding arbitration section where both player and book agreed, it would be a great asset to the forum. All of us posters could ask questions and throw in our input. Currently, no arbitration service considers poster input and thoughts. You would make the final decision. I would also like to propose that arbitration be all or nothing. The player loses his whole balance if wrong. This cuts down on false accusations. If a player has already been paid his deposit but not his winnings, he must post up his balance returned before proceeding with arbitration. Sorry it took me a while to reply, it's quite a heavy chunk to digest, and I need to mull over it over the weekend. First thing first, to straighten things up, perhaps it's a poor wording either from your side or theymos's reply, but I do not " want" to start a binding arbitration service in a sense that I am wishing to start a service of my own, where I give final say, like AG or CG. Up to this point, taking every other past cases into consideration, I still like to think that I am not conceited enough to say that I have enough experience, influence, power, and whatever it needs to confidently give the final say of a case. What I have in mind at the beginning of this discussion is an improvement of the forum by having a section where we can do our own ADR. The whole service is "supervised" by the forum, as it is part of their [new] board. Thus, theymos's approval. There was a discussion about this in the past, quite a thorough one, proposed by someone else, but I can't find the discussion no matter what keyword I tried on ninjastic. It goes deep and thorough enough, discussing about how it will be a paid service, how a case will be mediated, [if I'm not mistaken] even who oversee and made the call, the whole process. IIRC, my opinion on that topic was that it is not feasible. One, it was meant to be a paid service [the proposal was that the fund paid by the user of the service will be used to pay those "mediator], why would someone undergo a paid one when there are those that offer same thing for free? Second, the bias accusation and the backlash of the findings. There are instances where a complainant got angered at CG's or AG's decision for not ruling into their side, and they accuses those ADR for colluding with the casino. I spent good amount of time, several times on several different occasions explaining things and disproving their counter-counter-counter-allegation. Similar thing can extremely likely happen to our arbitrator. Cases on point, even now, with the current situation where I am [or anyone else] not benefitted from any cases, there are disgruntled users who throw accusations at me, about how I am siding with casinos and under their payroll, etc., not that I'm losing sleep over those allegations [jokes on them, I have chronic insomnia], but still, I foresee those accusations will goes wild if there is any, even the smallest infraction, sign that I am gaining advantage from those cases by having an independent ADR service. I think those risks can be somewhat mitigated if the ADR service is a section by the forum. This idea, I can still consider. But if the proposal is me having my own service, with me being [one of] the "prosecutor" and the judge [since I will be the one with final saying], I am very positive in believing that it will not be a popular and acceptable proposal. Bottomline, at this point where I stood right now, I am not completely disagree with a proposal of having an ADR service board, of course, my stance will shift up or down with as it progresses and discussion about details of this service unfold, but not a service of my own, with me having the final and bindings saying. I haven't reach the level of King Solomon's wisdom. If you'd still like to discuss this matter further [be it a proposal of a board or perhaps a group of ADR team], I'd suggest you to [as previously said] open a thread on meta, we're clearly has been waaay OOT here. I think many members will be interested to discuss the prospect further and give their insight. I will pitch in if you ever created that thread [just... mention me, I rarely visit meta]. good points. It’s a no win situation. The losing side always says you’re on the take. You already know this from the forum as is. I'll have to think it over a little more too. The bad wording is on my part. Theymos asked me to clarify more. I said he answered what I wanted to know. |
|
|
|
people definitely should come here for help. Deposits get taken elsewhere. Easiest examples https://www.trustpilot.com/review/sportsbet.ioOne guy had his money confiscated because it was dormant for 4 months. There was no follow up to say he got paid. Umm... how sure are we that those reviewers did not get what's rightfully theirs instead of getting things settled but didn't bother to come back to update the review? For example, cases on this forum are occasionally left unattended and not updated by the user once they get what they want and their case got resolved, people need to infer it themselves from the flow of the discussion and exchange of communication with SB's [or other casinos'] representatives. Likewise, from your own example, how sure are we that the the player eventually got his fund back but he simply didn't bother to revise his entry on trustpilot? And that is just from reviewer who are legit innocent. We still have to consider butt-hurt people who loses big or caught cheating on SB and tries to vent up their anger by creating a misleading review. I don't read the reviews one by one, thoroughly [and not reading Stake representative's responses either], but if those "disputes" are transferred into this thread, I think at least half of them will be invalid due to the lack of supporting evidence? I do a lot of research for grading purposes, not just here and Trust Pilot. I’m sure that most cases posted publicly aren’t valid but Sportsbet, Stake and 1xbet are bad with confiscating deposits and winnings. |
|
|
|
A lot are pre-emptively taking the side of Sportsbet. That being the case, I'll play devil's advocate, even though 95% of the time the player is in the wrong. BCT has been able to get deposits back most of the time for first time infractions. Outside of BCT, both deposits and winnings are being confiscated by Sportsbet for accused 1st time offenses whether true or not.
I don't have any idea if the player is guilty or not of a first time infraction or multiple infractions. We all should wait, including myself, before taking sides. Just trying to level the playing field until we find out.
I have no idea of what happens outside the forum as focusing myself on cases [of casinos, not specific to one casino] on this forum only is already more than enough to take a better portion of my free time, but if what you said is true, then those people better start learning about the forum as it'll [apparently] give them better chance to get their case resolved. people definitely should come here for help. Deposits get taken elsewhere. Easiest examples https://www.trustpilot.com/review/sportsbet.ioOne guy had his money confiscated because it was dormant for 4 months. There was no follow up to say he got paid. |
|
|
|
|
I know that I'm being overly repetitive in saying that bets tell all, but the bet tells all here. The OP made a bet on an NBA playoff game. There's no ill intent here and the book promotes itself as no KYC. Just pay the player his $264.
|
|
|
|
Nope, nothing similar to these. I did not use any kind of strategies to gain advantage. Dont forget that the reason they dont pay me is because according to them they have indications for multiple accounts, nothing wrong with my bets etc.
A little fun fact ( I guess this might have been mentioned before in a different thread ), as long as you don't abuse any bonus or sports limit restrictions, it is allowed to have multiple accounts. This is from the Q&A section:  Makes this case even weirder. This rule isn't used frequently but should be for all casinos. Players may not even realize that they made multiple accounts. No harm, no foul. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
