Audit by Pessimistic said that they have a multi-sig wallet to add layers of security. I was only glancing at this, though. And still can't find any info of their pool address. I'll make sure I ask about this when or if the representative ever answered us.

---

I missed that too. Oo. I think it's a very good indicator that I need my sleep.

Oh, a bit out of topic, peeps congratulation for getting your username changed.

I was just trying to determine how justified and in line Stake's decision was. If you bet everything you have, the whole balance, into that match and they confiscate them for the reason of rigged game [we'll disregard whether you know about this or just following a trend for a moment], then it is understandable. You bet x amount of balance, the game was sketchy, so they confiscate that x amount of fund from you. That x just unluckily happened to be your entire balance.

But if you bet [let's say] USD 5,000 on that match and you have USD 2,000 left on your account, and they confiscate this too, then this is arguably unethical. That 2,000 has no involvement with the whole situation and shouldn't be "collateral" damage. That action, if that's what they did, was wrong in my opinion.


I said, "and fortunately, currently there are not new ones", and I mean it. Fortunately currently there are not new cases against them regarding KYC. Don't you agree it will be a very bitter and unfortunate event to happen to someone else? Weren't two cases already enough?

Read again [as I believe you read my statement wrongly] I am talking about future case --explained by the wording "currently there are not new ones", referring to the absence of new case in the present time-- to try to determine if Stake has turned into a KYC nightmare. I am not talking about cases that's already happened and still in the need of mediation


I believe what you're referring to what I said is this?


Please read again, I am saying that level 1 and 2 should be enough to identify and help casino flag a user, not to return the fund. How logical is it for any platform to return a fund when someone fulfill the highest KYC level and disregarding the abuse they might or might not do?


Interesting notion. I noticed, that you have a tendency to be offensive when someone said something that is against your narrative or what you want or whatever it is that's on the slightest degree against you, regardless the purpose of those question or statement.

So I am abiding your wish.

I previously tried to disregard your spiteful accusation [that I am here only to take benefit of the casinos, working for them, wishing to be offered to work for them by dong this, and so on, while I am here purely for the community] and try to keep actively overseeing this one. I understand correctly that you see me as someone very partial, perhaps even corrupt, as I am benefitted from those cases and looking forward to be employed by them?

I am withdrawing myself from this one and taking the back seat.

Thanks for the fixed image, I'm adding that to the earlier post to complere the chronology. Can you confirm if it is in chronological order?

To answer your question about their inquiry of your betting history, did you place bet on NBA on the past few weeks? As I mentioned above in reply to ClosedForBusiness. there was a big scandal on NBA match. I wonder if you happened to be pulled into the cluster of that mess.

---

The result are not necessarily wrong per se. If you google "Rollbit scam", several of the result will show threads from this forum. And they were indeed about "scam case". But if people click into it, they'll find that those cases are actually resolved. This is why we are urging people who raise scam accusations to mark their thread as "resolved", so the search result on Google will give a better, closer to truth result.

Hello, sorry for waking an old thread. It come to my awareness that this case and the casino are currently not on my list yet. I guess I must have someow missed it. Apology for that.

I did a quick re-reading the whole case and get myself re-acquainted. I think it's safe to assume that for this case, there is no scam happened since the bet was returned. And thus, I am marking this as resolved on my list.

OP, if you feel that this status is unjustified, you're more than welcome to argue, accompanied with valid reason, and I am more than happy to reconsider the situation from your angle.

Hi, thank you for the kind words.

Regarding casinos with questionable nature, I actually mark them with three exclamation points in red, [!!!], this instances can be bees on CoinPlay and Ole7. If you have a idea to caught reader's attention better, please feel free to share them, I am happy to consider it.

As for your case, yes, I have to agree that its status can be changed, as the OP of the casino last active was on 2nd April and doesn't seem to be interested to comment further, although the last point made by the accuser [namely you] was valid.

I usually sweep the accusation board and my list on the weekend [I planned to do this week's sweep tomorrow, if time allows me to] and ask for follow ups for cases in progress, pushing things back in motion, etc., and will usually mark a case as unresolved or inactive after several weeks of inactivity. Unresolved if the one stopped responding is the representative and inactive if the one stopped is the player.

I personally don't think they are.

They're one of the big casino that currently [still] throws a lot in marketing. They'll stop or reduce their marketing campaigns if they're illiquid.

If I may guess, those recent approach made by casinos that happened to OP and your friend [I believe they are not the same person] was due to a recent scandal on sportsbetting that [apparently] have a significant waves of aftershoch reverberating throughout sportsbook.

That was --IIRC-- my initial confusion on the older case too, about how they determine a multi-acc if they're offering a decentralized system. But I guess being decentralized doesn't necessarily translates to be full anonymous. They still collect some fingerprints.

Interestingly, I don't see any prohibition to create another account on their TnC. I'll try to invite their representative here, but it might took a while for them to return, given they've been away for a while.

OP, can we get more context? Do you perhaps have more screenshot to share? The information we currently have here seems very limited.



From my previous attempt to understand the above-mentioned case better by creating an account there, all you need is a wallet. Perhaps you played from several wallet at once?

---

Ahh! That's why their name ring a bell, but I can't find their case on my list. I am updating them right now together with this case.

Reuploading your images to talkimg for easier understanding by others and rearranging them best I can to be in chronological order. We seemingly missing one image, the last line on your post of links, [https://imgur.com/undefined] perhaps you can fix it?

As someone else has notified Razer, I am refraining from doing so to avoid redundancies. I'll wait. Meanwihile, I understand that your account is currently accessible, only withdrawal being suspended. Can you err... perhaps show us your betting history? And to be clear [as this was not mentioned before] you also did not use any free VPN?

---

edit: completing the screenshot of conversation that's previously inaccesible

You should read the other thread, they asked their player to submit a statement from the company he worked for, when did he started working, his job title, and so on. Stamped and signed.

If I may ventured a guess, both of this OP and that picked a short straw and meet with a difficult operator. I somewhat "refuse" to think Stake turned themselves into a KYC nightmare for everybody. We'll need a couple more cases [and fortunately, currently there are not new ones] to see if these two are just an isolated cases [thus, a difficult operator] or it applies equally [a KYC nightmare].

I believe there is a misunderstanding from your side regarding that case about what I did [throwing more allegation] or did not [asking SB to prove for double spend]. Let me try to describe things in details the way I remembered it and see if we can find a common ground.

anonymousxm was initially suspected for multi acc and asked to perform KYC. On this matter, I asked him if he's the only one accessing SB from his home¹, his IP, his PC, those thing that can prove or invalidate multi-acc, whether we can cross the multi-acc allegation or if it's valid [regardless unintentionally due to cluelessness of fully deliberate]. Not long after this, OP [presumably] cleared his KYC and they found that OP utilize double spend method².

The situation then came to Steve's radar [I can't remember if I contacted him and notify him about it, inviting him to give his side or he came on his own, but I believe that part is irrelevant for now], he tried to get to the bottom of it, fast forward a little with some user tried to spice up the situation and stir the pot, and Steve came back with a final saying³ that he can't overturn the decision made by the team, and he suggested anonymousxm to pursue this case to a licensor, to give it another chance.

At this point, I don't think asking SB to provide a proof of their counter-accusation will be productive, do it? They're ready [as per Steve's effort] to get it escalated to the licensor, who are better equipped to tackle all of the violation counter-accusation made by SB [multi acc and double spend] at once, so why bother asking him to provide the same evidence here? If there is a merit in asking him at that point, then it must be eluded me, because I can't see any added benefit.

Meanwhile, this response of Steve, OP misunderstood it⁴ due to language barrier and thought Steve told him not to escalate it. And I explained to him that he understood wrongly⁵.

anonymousxm then escalated to the licensor, as per his commitment, and the case [apparently] got rejected with the verdict favoring SB⁶, of which I still tried to deescalate it, to consider if OP once again misunderstood things due to language barrier or to lose patience [licensor response time can be significantly longer compared to AG, CG, or this forum], and asking him to show us his last correspondence with the licensor, to be sure we are all on the same page⁷.

anonymousxm's response to this is to pull full Avatar Aang move, disappear when he needed him the most. If we may be exercise a bias, one might argue that he didn't come back because he knew he lost the case, that he's the wrong part. Otherwise, he'll publish those emails, even simply fueled by rage instead of trying to prove things.

He. Did. Not.

So, coming back to your initial inquiry, that I threw more allegation to anonymousxm, well, I believe I did not. I simply pointed out and brought back what SB initially wrote as their finding. And why don't I ask SB to prove the double spend counter-allegation, well [as explained above], what's the merit of it when both parties are inch away from taking it to the licensor who will validate everything with every possible private data accessible for them to verify?

Tell me which part do I did wrong on this case?

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

It's been a couple of days since my attempt to reach them through DM and we still heard nothing back. As promised, I am trying other ways to communicate with them and bring this case to their awareness. They don't seem to have a telegram group where I can notify them there, nor a TG contact that I can reach personally. Thus, I resort to their live support:



Let's hope this will get things back in motion.

In reply to being the forum's arbitrator, if theymos decided to have an ADR section of our own and created such board, then sure, I am more than happy to pitch in, but without his permission, I don't think anyone can open their own binding arbitration "service", and I doubt he will consider this as a new section on the forum. It was proposed at least once, that I know of. You're free to try to propose it on the meta section, though.

In reply to we should be player advocates... well, I prefer to be an impartial investigator, taking no one's side and remain neutral, as we all --those who oversee the scam accusations board-- should be.

It is a known fact that more than half of the cases on this board are actually the players trying to milk the casino. I couldn't see the ethic on advocating them. At the same time, there are casinos who love to play dirty, and I don't see the merit of advocating them as well. Thus, impartial sounds a lot better for me.

If you choose to be a player's advocate, though, it's all your call to make.


Hmm... how sure are we that it's a situation where two people exchanging ideas and opinion and not someone trying to attack someone else? I somehow feels like just receiving a punch. A weak one, but still...


On which part do I "took sportsbet's side" and threw in more allegations against the player? The part that I [as quoted] said, "probably other violation found by sportsbet's security team"?

Did you, umm... bother to read the whole thread and be sure you understood the entire situation there? Or were you randomly picked a thread, took a glance, and conclude based from several posts? OP was charged with multiple violation. He initially was accused for multi-acc, of which I tried to deescalate the situation by asking a possible innocent scenario that has potential to led to a multi-acc detection.

And, again, if you read the thread carefully, the player did not leave the thread because he saw that he won't get paid. Steve tried to deescalate the situation by having their own team handle the case, but that player eventually had to go to their licensor, which he did, and didn't get a reply.

When a licensor did not reply to a complaint, from what I recently learned, it means they found the ruling made by the casino is justified and they agreed to it and/or they find the player guilty.

So, him leaving the thread is more likely because he has exhausted every possible means and still can't overturn a verdict.

I have to admit that I did not scrutinize the whole deposit and bets flow, so I can't determine it myself [nor that it stated anywhere here, that I know of] but you're betting your whole balance on that match?

Tag as in mentioning them here to let them know of the situation or tag as in leaving them a feedback?

For the former, I was once... well, more than once, actually, informed that their employee who handle this section were taking a close monitoring to any cases and development of cases regarding stake, so you can rest assured that they know about the situation.

For the later, I can give you step by step of how to leave a feedback yourself if you want to, but I will not leave one myself for you. For the time being and from current situation [I am still waiting for their explanation why such complicated document is necessary], that'll be an abuse of DT power from me, for leaving a negative tag [feedback] without strong basis.

I will have to disagree on this "verification method".

As well established on those who frequently overseeing cases on this board, every case is unique, they should be approached on case-by-case basis. Cases that arrives in our plate are not 100% related and can be determined by wagers, lines, limits, and the whole other factor you use for profiling.

There are instances where a player was banned from casino after just a couple of bets. Will the betting history shows and get us to the bottom of the case for something like this? Will the data be enough? I don't think so. And though it sounds outrageous at first [how could a casino restrict their user from just a couple of bets], further investigation told us that the ban hammer was enforced by the sportsbook provider. The casino's hand are tied.

Another good example of how wagers can't instantly get us to the bottom of a case, someone complained about his bet got settled late, all of his bets are shown to be legit, all is good, casino acknowledge their mistake and refunded the bets, things goes further and fueled by greed, and only later on it is revealed that the player was self-excluded [after some drama] on other casino. Will player's wager help us finds out about it? I somehow doubted it.

And what about cases where players complaining for a bug or glitches, will their wagers help?



Please read the question again, I believe you're trying to answer what I quoted below? The question is if the casino got too tired to explain or finds it too obvious that they don't bother explaining that breach. They'll probably only come and say, "you breached several of our ToS." or perhaps doesn't even bother answering at all, because they deemed the forum too annoying and didn't worth their marketing time anymore [it is recently revealed that some casinos feel this way of our forum]. What then? Your explanation is you'd like to see a player answering relevant questions asked by the book.

How could they answer relevant question if there is no question at all because the casino feels like what I wrote above?



I am very sure BC also recently resort to arbitrator for a persistent case. And though I might be wrong, there are other casinos that also resort to either arbitrator or licensor when things can't be resolved. Rollbit, from the top of my head.


Ok, this is interesting. I know you say you're not attacking me personally, and rest assured that I didn't see it as such. I look at it as a good discussion. Two people trying to suggest two different ideas. These points below, though, I think it's in an urgent need of clarification.

I am taking a different approach to address the part by replying side by side, mine will be marked in blue.

1. You presume the player is guilty.

I presume every party is guilty. My method is to "strip" the players out of their lies first, to see if there are more I can dig from his story and how much he hide. All of these cleared, I'll invite the casino and listen to the story from their side, see if it made any sense. If it doesn't or I need more details, I'll demand it from them. I believe you can easily verify it from my posting history

2. You want to go through every rule that a sportsbook has, relevant or not, to see if the player has committed an infraction.

related to above about stripping. Also works for the casino. If the casino said the player breached point [for instance] 3.1.1. I'll go to that exact part and see if the allegation made sense and air-tight or they just throw random excuses.

3. The infractions doesn't even have to stand up in a court of law. You agree that what a book posts as a rule stands.

the agreement is actually between the casino or sportsbook and the players, not with me. I will be honest that I don't think I get the first part of your point perfectly, but if I understand it correctly, then... yeah, a breach of agreement on ToS can actually be filed for court room

3. You are forcing the player to show evidence even if detrimental to his job or work place.

I'm sorry, I what? Perhaps my memory is a bit rusty on this part, but I don't think I ever forced someone to show evidence that's detrimental to his job.

In fact, on one case, the player and community "entrusted" me with some private document, asking the casino to send it to me to verify, of which I politely declined. On other case, someone misunderstood my instruction and provided their ID on his thread [blurred, but still...] and I promptly reached to the user, asking them to remove the photo and ask them to reach JJ [not gonna attract more visitors here, but I am talking about the creator of talkimg] to scrub the photo from their database. How is this me forcing players to show evidence that are detrimental in nature?

4. Books such as Stake state that they can share information with 3rd parties. You may be putting a player in legal jeopardy or possible loss of job.

yes, they can, and from time to time, people overseeing the scam accusation boards will resort to those arbitrator to get things done, thanks to the private nature of their investigation. How do I exactly putting a player in legal jeopardy and loss of job by redirecting them to an ADR? The data being asked by casino on that ADR are completely out of my control, and with exception of recent [notorious] case of Stake v. KosherMania, I don't think I've encountered one that I oversee that could lead to a possible loss of job. Though again, as I can't stress this enough, those data being asked are out of my control. I did not dictate ADR's and casino's action and inquiry during their dispute resolution attempt.

5. In a situation that is he said, she said, you have stated on at least one occasion that you believe the word of the book.

I somehow get a feeling that I misunderstood what you tried to say, but if I am not and I understand it clearly, I actually mark the cases with such nature as "invalid" on my list. Meaning, the case have no supporting evidence that can help determine the real nature of the case. Thus, he said she said.

6. You do not require a book to show you how they came to the conclusion of a player's guilt using an excuse that sharing would hurt future cases. You must hold both parties to the same standard. Both parties must share all or both parties can withhold because it may hurt their future.

As explained again and again, those casinos invested a large sum of resources just to refine their detection system, which perpetually updated and require a pretty cost. Does it make sense to force the casino to explain it in public [those probably hundred of thousand of dollars of security system] to resolve one case, where those piece of information can and will be used by others to find a creative way to find a loophole.

On these cases, I believe I'll redirect them to arbitrator where the casino can freely provide those evidences in confidence [unless I am wrongly remember one or two cases, because I am typing this with less than 50% brain capacity as I am about to sleep actually when I get a notification of your reply.]

And oh, rather ironically, if I may repeat, SB actually the one that once dared to provide evidence of connected accounts publicly on this forum, and as expected, it's used against them not long after.

This is not a personal attack. I think you try to be an impartial judge. My feeling is the way you go about it is unfair to the player. It's very time consuming and player's funds are unnecessarily being held for an inordinate amount of time. If a book is holding up a player's funds for four months because of wanting irrelevant documentation, a warning should be given.

Umm... are you sure you're on the right thread? This one was only held for two months or so, with explanation actually provided not long after the incident happened.

On this specific part, where the casino must prove a player is guilty, then Sportsbet actually one of the few casinos who dare to fulfill that task. Most casino are reluctant to provide their findings and detection system in public for the fear that abusers will learn from it and find ways around it. Those casinos are most likely willing to provide their findings to arbitrator, or licensor, where evidences can be limited strictly to pair of eyes only, enough to validate the counter-accusation.

I am not sure if other casinos ever do the same, I can not recall them from the top of my head and a bit too reluctant to browse the entire scam accusations board to verify it, but Sportsbet once took a bold step by describing their suspicions of connected accounts, one that become the basis of them banning a player, in public, where the player [as expected] then use that piece of information to try to spin the story... stupidly.


Or perhaps I am simply here, on this board, to see a case done? Regardless of who come as the cheater and who come as the victim? As stated numerous times, I am not benefited from any of those cases, I couldn't care less who "win" or who I "prosecute". I am not a prosecutor representing the book, or the player. I am simply here to see it done.

Perhaps where you and I differ is the presumption we apply. I [as mentioned several times, and for the lack of better term] mostly applies the "presumption of guilt" on every cases, well... an altered version of it; they're actually officially called "impartial investigation" if I am not mistaken, though I always have this thought that "presumption of guilt" [as controversial as it can be] fits better, where every side need to prove that they're innocent, that they are actually guilty, both the casinos and the players hide something or two [like the country they resides or the KYC they claimed to be 100% pure, or to say that a player set a late bet when they didn't and to void a bet that should be valid], thus a tendency to actively question everything ourselves is needed.

Perhaps the term "whodunnit" will fits better, where every side is being prosecuted, questioned.

While you... well, I don't think I need to explain the concept of presumption of innocence, that's what applied on most [if not every] country and law system in the world.

Sadly, IMO, that concept can not be used as an approach in this board, there are way too many people with hidden agenda.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting proposal you give here, to wait for casino or sportsbook to make a counter-accusation, i.e. to let them mention the terms being breached, and let the player prove that the counter-accusation is wrong, and then the casino do a rebuttal, and the player do another rebuttal.

What are expected from us, then? We are not actively seeking for our own truth whether the casino tried to cheat their player or the player tried to cheat the casino, so we... sit, wait, and read until it resolves itself?

Further, if I may, how do you propose an approach to a case where the player is clearly breached one or several clauses of the ToS they had with a casino [like accessing from Germany when it's specifically written to be a restricted country], but the casino was way too busy to explain, or too tired with the player as it's quite obvious that they don't bother explaining? The casino is the guilty one, then? As they "can't" prove beyond reasonable doubt that the player is guilty, thus presumption of innocence dictate that the player is innocent? While it's there, plain as day, that the player is guilty, no need to be further proven.

We are currently being the witness of that situation on KosherMania's case, aren't we? They doesn't accept any of those documents, and the player and the casino are currently in a constant tug-of-war of verification.

Whether they'll confiscate the player's money or return it, I can not say, as we are yet to see the outcome of it. But from past experience, I will dare to say that a casino will not confiscate player's fund without strong supportive evidence. All they can do is to make the process difficult [perhaps borderline infuriating], but they will eventually have to return it if there were no basis of questionable source of wealth.

Unless, of course, the casino [or broadly speaking, any platform out there] itself is questionable.

Given OP's account initially have ETH 0.24 and now it is empty, I understand that OP got his account temporarily opened to allow him to withdraw the rest of his fund since you refused to let him play any longer on your platform? And this should be happened after 17th April, after OP made this post. I wonder why OP doesn't even bother to update us with the situation.

---

I believe that's BC's polite way to say OP is the bad actor here and he has bad history with KYC. Given BC decided to grant OP a temporary access to his account and fund, so his situation can get resolved, I think they no longer think it's necessary to "criminalize" OP any further, thus soften the blow with nice words.

Treating the other case I am currently overseeing as an isolated case, I find the statement above [the one I underlined] somewhat contradictive. If someone is innocent, they should be able to pass the KYC, thus they will not get caught in the net. If they get caught in the net, then they are not innocent.