I'd like to begin with a full disclaimer that I am not a representative or part of any casino, so I am most certainly didn't know how exactly they work and why, and my answer is completely based on my assumption, at least, "assumption", as it's hinted here and there the why they does so on several threads. [Maybe Kirito89 can confirm my assumption below, as per his own platform's policy and system?]

Though it'll be very ideal and nice if it can be actualized, the why they didn't catch multi-acc abuser right away from their first bet, or even straight from the first time they sign up, is because it'll be a huge waste of effort, or a very expensive ones, to filter out users right from the first time they sign up. I assume there must be a good amount of user signing up on daily basis. To manually check them one by one through so many filters in matter of seconds before sending them a verification email will be... fun. Not to mention the false positive.

So instead, they developed and perpetually fine-tuning a fraud detection system that flag users through several parameters, so these multi-acc abuse detection is not an instant matter. Instead, it's a process that happens and verified gradually [to prevent false positive] through several filters while the abuser playing in the said platform.

I appreciate this gesture and decision to deescalate the situation.

---

OP, Eoveriero, can you please confirm if you've got the amount said above in your account and if it's withdrawable? After that, please mark this one as solved and lock the thread to prevent further pointless discussion.

As you're not familiar with flag system, I'll assume you're also not familiar with what I mean above in marking as solved and lock the thread. Marking the thread as solved can easily be done by editing your opening post and change the thread title to "solved" or the synonym of it. Locking the thread can be done by clicking the "lock topic" button on the lower left side of this page.

It's is a "review site", yes, in a way. But it also facilitate as an ADR [alternative dispute resolution], to help mediate issue experienced by casinos's users. To raise a dispute to FortuneJack there, go to "Safety Index explained" tab, there will be a bright orange box to submit a complaint

If I may add to emphasize as well as explaining why providing adequate evidence is an essential matters on raising a flag, the lowest flag [type-1 flag] will require at least one DT support to be activated [and there has to be more DT supporting it rather than opposing it, but let's not confuse you with that]. No matter how many non-DT supporting it, if there's no DT give their support, the flag won't be active.

Meanwhile, the statement written and has to be confirmed by anyone supporting [or opposing] a flag is,


No DT will support if there is not enough evidence that make them sure to the best of their knowledge that the flag is warranted [this is the reason why I previously said that my support is yet to be decided]

Hi,

It's nice that we can... meet again in different topic.

I understand the previous experience with casinos left a very bitter taste in you, but some statements are not quite true. Some casinos do still request their complaining customers to CG or AG and will fully cooperate there. I will not mention the name of the platform or the specific post saying this as I don't want people to think I am promoting them. But... well, there are.

As for how complainants will not be winning a case in Curacao ^{[master license holder]}, call me naive, and though I have no way to prove the otherwise, I still hope some cases are actually solved in favor of the players. There are complaints raised against Rollbit that they redirected to their licensor and we never heard back from the complainants.

Though there's a possibility that their silence simply means the situation is not solved yet, I'd like to give a benefit of doubts that the cases are actually solved in favor of the complainants in a way or two and they doesn't feel the need to be bothered enough by updating the development here, because if it doesn't, wouldn't it be more likely than not for those complainants to come back here and venting their frustration instead of accepting their "defeat" in silence?

May I suggest you to pursue other means of resolution before escalating it to a flag? Raising a complaint to an ADR like CasinoGuru, perhaps? I can guide you to raise a flag [though my support on the flag is yet to be decided] if you want to go straight to it, but... I just think you might be interested to try to deescalate the situation?

Botswana? That country sandwiched between other countries in Africa? You asked a lawyer in Botswana if Curacao, an island in Carribean, is part of their country?


Used to, many years ago, and for fun as well as within minuscule amount, so it'll be better to say I am not. Why?

There is a regulation in Curacao. If your lawyer won't take case there, may I suggest that it's probably because you don't have a strong case that he's willing to take or sure to win? And I noticed you said a Dutch lawyer? Not any? Means you haven't exhaust all of your options of lawyers who will take your case?

Nope, the type-1 flag will still be there and welcoming them once they see betnomi's post. After all, that's the specific purpose of the flag, to warn newbies and guests.




Boredom? Or, the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes.

Unless I'm wrong, initially --and probably still-- the preference for dark mode instead of light mode is to reduce eye strain, as you've established on your very own opening post, as well as Cantsay here, as well as to reduce glare [flashbang, anyone?] when accessing apps and platforms during bed time when our eyes already adjusted to the dark of our room.

So, if your concern and needs are based on those two initial reason of dark-mode preferences, there is little to zero sense on arguing specifically designed dark mode by the web developers because it feels like "pro". I don't think most people here "love" dark mode for aesthetic reason. They simply doesn't like being blinded by the sudden burst of brightness. Simple as that.

I use the "default" light theme on my tablet and laptop [though I rarely access through my laptop] and have my android phone force set dark-mode that let me experience the forum as what depicted by libert19 because more likely than not, I won't access the forum through that tiny screen unless I really have to, meaning I only use them if I'm the road and didn't bring one of my tablets or laptop, or when I'm ready for bed and got notified for something interesting by the notifier. And that dark mode works just fine.

At this point, what you can do is either wait here and got nothing or try to escalate to their licensor and get your case tried. Rollbit has give their agreement to fully cooperate there. I know this is not ideal and is not the resolution method you're hoping for, and --as I've previously mentioned-- I tried to suggest a way for them to solve this without having to go to GC, but they're firm with their decision as they're sure they have strong evidence of you having multiple account, that they can only provide to their licensor.

No, it would not make sense for three reasons.

One, the chaos that ensue when they left lingered for a quite long time and echoed probably to a lot of boards on this forum. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of users heard about the case.

Two, even if someone happened to be clueless about the case and interested to buy the account, they will appraise the account from their own, or from a guest account, and not from betnomi's own [I extremely doubted betnomi will, "here's the account, here's the password, see our trust score for yourself and then kindly return the account to us"] and the trust [and newbie flag] will still be there.

Three, I don't see a reason for buy an account with such a specific name tied to a brand. Never buy an account here, so I wouldn't know, but I assume they'll prefer an account named "popcorn123" or "rachel_something" than a "betnomi"

You don't need to file a "class action" to raise a flag. If you have a case and the DTs find your evidences are compelling and reasonable [some will prefer to have it beyond doubt], they'll support. For the time being, I agree that the best way is to wait and see if they'll response, there's a chance it's just a... glitch, or probably multiple things simply coincided.

I read correctly that your "normal" bets are also limited? Not only the bets with Free Money? Is it possible that they're asking for KYC? It's quite a known practice for a platform to limit someone's bet during a KYC process.

As a campaign manager, not to defend them. And that duty was long finished before the situation happened. Their campaign ended before all of this clusterfuck. In fact, if you read and follow the discussions about betnomi, you'll learn that icopress also suffered a damage from their act and he's been trying his best pursuing betnomi's representative to clear things up, so that can be considered as taking some responsibility.

I will try this again.

I can't stress this enough that I am in no way benefited from this case, at all. I am not in bed with Stake, I am not on their payroll, I am in no way affiliated with them, there is literally zero benefit for me on whatever outcome we get from this case, so I "couldn't care less" if Stake is the one who is wrong here or you understood them wrongly. What I do care is simply a resolution is reached on this case, no matter whose side it is. And currently all I can do is giving the narrative from what I understand to help you attain another point of view and/or to understand what happened more clearly.

Yes, I wrote the "second prong" part based on my assumption, that the permanent exclusion can't lock itself on tetaeridanus due to the "crash" on their database, but the part of "first prong", the external prevention is what casino guru found out after they thoroughly read Stake's explanation. So that part is an established fact.

I can understand if you won't accept this explanation-with-partial-assumption of mine, and I'm really sorry that you're in your current situation [not the addiction, I was talking about your family and your debt]. I believe this is where we part ways? I'll wish you a good luck and hope you can get out of this tunnel [not abyss or hole, tunnel, you just need to keep going, one step at a time] you're currently in.

I want to begin that I am not against you or trying to support Stake, I am trying to always be neutral and see from as many perspective as I can. On this matter and from the point established above, I'm afraid I have to give you a pill that'll be quite hard to swallow, namely... Casino Guru has a right stance and understanding on this matter.

Their final ruling [which didn't favor you] was,


Granted, their explanation could probably be a bit hard to understand, and from the postscript you added through edit, I take it that you probably understood them wrongly.

If I may try to better explain the situation, your self-exclusion on tetaeridanus didn't take full effect and prevent you from betting on casino is because you permanently self-exclude your other accounts before. It is a two pronged situation.

The casino should take the self-exclusion and give their best to protect you by immediately closing your account and prevent any credential related to that account from opening other accounts in the future. This means, from the "inside", the existing account were "bricked" by rendered unable to place any bet, and at the same time, from the "outside", the owner should not be able to create another account with the same credentials.

If I may throw a wild guess, their registration prevention probably try to read and stop you by reading the "analog" data like email address, username, name, DoB, nationality, and the likes, while their self-exclusion prevention within the account itself utilize parameters a platform usually use to detect multi-acc like your IP, screen resolution, geolocation, device data, etc.

This is how the self-exclusion work and the keypoint that CG tried to explain [I marked in blue] and how they honor the responsible gaming duty: by blacklisting the credentials to prevent future re-registration and bricking the account at the same time.

But, because you use other credentials to create other accounts, these "external" attempts to protect you through self-exclusion by denying you to create another accounts are bypassed because their database didn't match the newly inputted entry with the old ones that's on their exclusion list. This explains why you could create three [or four] other accounts from the first one you created and submitted self-exclusion.

Now, focusing and applying this on the tetaeridanus account, as I previously mentioned, it's a two pronged situation.

From the "outside", they can't prevent you from creating another account because you use different credential from fishermansj [your latest one prior to tetaeridanus], their system to automatically reject your account trying to sign up were bypassed by these differences on database. While from the "inside", or the second prong, the why your self exclusion for tetaeridanus were not effective by taking the self exclusion permanently, is because their system which responsible to "brick" your account read different data, thus crashed with each other.

Previously, for instance, they detected the entries [IP address, screen resolution, browser version, etc.] belonged to mrperun, or ready2323, and has to be denied, yet at the same time, these entries were belonged to fishermansj, and at some point, were yet to request self-exclusion, thus the database crashed. Same thing happened with tetaeridanus. They read that the entries are for ready2323, or other accounts, yet it also belonged to the newly created account under the name tetaeridanus that's yet to request self-exclusion, and they crashed again. And this is why the permanent self-exclusion couldn't lock itself on its place.

Of course this is only a hypothesis I get from reading the narratives of your case from the available resources [the casino guru's description and yours here]. I hope you can understand what I am trying to explain here.

Roll back a little... do I understand correctly those three previous accounts [four if we include your forgotten one] were permanently self-excluded? So, to put it out chronologically, you created mrperun on 24 April 2021, asked for permanent self exclusion at one point, granted and got your account disabled, and then, with that older account considered inactive, created set2323 on 30 July 2021, realized your addiction is kicking back in, and asked for self exclusion, and they complied. Same thing happened to account fishermansj and tetaeridanus?

Thank you for the more detailed-yet-still-simplified chronology. I understand they never give any explanation of what ToS --other the multi-acc-- you breached? Usually [if not most likely] a casino will at least narrowed things down to one or two clause on their ToS that you breached; for example [and this is literally an example for illustratory purpose, not a real clause on any ToS of any platform]:

"According to our system, you breached one of the terms you agreed upon signing up, specifically terms described on point number 13.1,

13.1. You are not allowed to enroll to a bet near the end of a live match.

for this reason, we believe..."

And I understand you are yet to heard from Stake after Symphonized's last reply to inform you implying he'll forward this matter to Stake team?

---

That's... an interesting two cents. If I may ask for more context, did you register while you're still in German [thus registered within the prohibited jurisdiction], or did you register after living in Japan?

Thank you for taking time digging those emails. I didn't mean to sound so demanding, just wanted to be through and through, I thought there are four accounts prior to tetaridanus? Can you perhaps provide us with the last one? Just to be sure we covered every ground.

And to be sure, none of those accounts are being used during the self-exclusion, or if I may phrase to an even better question, none of the accounts are active [in sense that you've asked to deactivate them] prior to tetaridanus?

OP, my initial appearance here was to... tell someone to edit their post to prevent a scammer taking advantage of the situation. I only had a chance to read your case just now.

Do I understand correctly about two things as below:

1. Simplified the chronology was, you deposited, went all-in, you won, they confiscated the fund under multi-acc accusation, proven to be wrong, returned your fund, but block your withdrawal?

2. [you've acknowledge this yourself, so this is kinda just a formal confirmation] you're from France, which is a prohibited teritory and violation of such allows them to sanction your account?

---

Yes, Symphonized here attended the thread under the capacity of person in charge that forwards all of scam accusations to Stake's staff.