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? |
|
|
|
If you check their advertisement topic here you will see that they (supposedly) barely request for KYC, only if they have some suspicion.
I wasn't required to fill any form on registration, they only requested me to do it after doing the withdrawal request.
I just think they behaver is predatory, like I said before, I don't mind doing the KYC.
I only think they are scamming me because they blocked me and they don't handle my withdrawal requests.
I believe the advertisement topic you're referring to was this one? We see there is a lot of confusion regarding our KYC policy, and we are sorry for it.
We have reviewed our KYC policy multiple times and we have made a few adjustments according to your feedback and suggestions, but we still need to remain under some regulations and rules.
When we started to operate, we had KYC mandatory for all users. A few months ago, we have disabled it. Generally, KYC on Leetbit is not mandatory. The option to fill up KYC is there, and it must stay there because of protection, regulatory and retention reasons. The only reasons why we MAY ask you to fill out the KYC are:
1. Going against our terms and conditions and/or Leetbit's rules (abuse, suspicious behavior etc...)
*Applies to depositing more than €2000 or requesting a withdrawal (ONLY if the account breaches regulator T&C)
2. User birthday reward/bonus (to prove your birthday if you want your bonus paid - optional)
More information about our KYC can be found here: https://www.leetbit.io/en/pages/KYC
This means doing KYC is not mandatory, but we have that option available due to the points mentioned above.
Just some additional insights: In more than 95% of cases, all KYC that we did were regarding birthday bonuses/rewards I understand that in an ideal world, or perhaps even just in normal circumstances, their action is questionable and directly opposing their own statement [dare I say it's even a commitment?]. However, I think what happened here, you might triggered their "suspicious behavior" alarm. Though it's not necessarily a detrimental action [at least the jury is still out for this matter]. On their ANN thread, you mentioned that, Hey there,
I've used many bookies that I found here, and I had good experiences in casinos such as, bcgame, nitrobetting, stake, gamdom and 500.
But after a while they limit the winners and I have to move to the next one.
That's why I have to play in the "less" reputable ones.
I am not trying to defending them, but the limitation across several books might also [accidentally] make you tripped over their alarm. Perhaps it's your betting pattern, the same situation and strategy that you utilize that resulting you to be limited on those casinos that raises their red flag. Again, what you did might be unintentionally abusing their system, but that's probably the source of all of this situation, the bottom of our barrel. Given you've comply to their KYC requirement, I am on the same page with mahdirakib, that it'll be best to wait and see if you passed it and everything goes back to normal [with worst case scenario you're also being limited on this one] and not your fund being confiscated. IF it comes to that, them confiscating your fund with no clear reason or explanation, IMO, only then we can call it a possible scam and I will invite their representative to give their explanation here. For the time being --though it might be not the outcome you wished to happen-- I think this is a case of premature accusation, where the scam is not yet proven. I am not blaming you for being too quick on raising a scam accusation thread, I can understand your concern and worries with the prospect of this case, considering the casino is somewhat less reputable than most that arrives on this board on daily basis. However, given there is no clear indication of fraudulent behavior from them, I am marking this as "invalid" for the time being on my list. I hope you're ok with that. When the situation develops, I will update the status accordingly. |
|
|
|
Oh, sorry, it seems there is a typo and mistake from my side too. The casinos are "leetbit" and "leebet".
Regarding KYC, to confirm, you've done it when you first using their service, or only recently when your account got locked and you asked to perform it?
They asked for KYC a day after my withdrawal request. Okay, I don't mean to be an asshole [though it's pretty much self-proclaimed on my personal text] but let's see if I get this right: Their ToS specifies that you're required to fill a form upon using their service, and that they may ask for further identification when you attempted withdrawal. Then you ask for withdrawal and they ask for KYC. And umm... you think [claimed, more precisely] they scammed you because they said somewhere that they usually [but not never] does not ask for KYC? |
|
|
|
Hey,
It's leetbit, not leebit, title fixed, it's the URL used to access the site, thanks for pointing that out
As for KYC, i did it already, and i have no problem doing it.
Oh, sorry, it seems there is a typo and mistake from my side too. The casinos are "leetbit" and "leebet". Regarding KYC, to confirm, you've done it when you first using their service, or only recently when your account got locked and you asked to perform it? |
|
|
|
The gambling site does not have an official account on this forum. [...]
OP made a typo, he's referring to leebit [with an i], but typed leebet [with an e]. They're two different casinos [yes, both seemingly exist... I wonder how many times people misaddressed and misaccessed both sites] 
OP, I understand that the basis of your accusation is that they require you to do KYC although they claimed they usually don't request it? [I'll put aside where can we read that statement is for the time being] Two things. One, the most obvious first, the word "usually" does not translates to "never". Usually means under normal condition, situation that mostly happens. Never means... well, not ever. Two different things. Second... or perhaps, further, they actually require you to identify yourself prior to accessing the site, according to their ToS. 
Edit: Oh, and OP, change your title. It's leebit, not leebet. |
|
|
|
Hello dear members,
This player placed his complaint on Casino Guru also, and we provided their Complaints representative with all the evidence regarding this case. We detected a big fraudulent activity from the player's side as he tried to use the hole in the system and unfortunately succeeded but just a bit. We've noticed that after we spoke with the payment provider that provided us with the history of the transaction of the mentioned player. He tried to find the hole in the system. This is the story: The player put the amount on our site 15sudt for the deposit, and on his wallet put the amount of 1098 usdt. Our system is made to show the the amount that is deposited and not that is got entered, so even though he enter the amount of 15ustd on the balance has shown the amount of 1098 and the payment provider "Coinspaid" immediately do the refund of the rest amount, so 1083 is getting back on his wallet and start playing with that amount on our site, which is a BIG fraud. He was also connected with another player from the same country who did exactly the same thing, so we've lost a lot of money regarding this fraud, so we declined their winnings and banned their account permanently. Unfortunately we are not able to attach the details here on the forum as those information are very sensitive and are not protected. We are not running away from this matter, and we will accept any complaint so we have all the evidence prepared. We would like from the player to notify our licensor Curacao, and we will react immediately because we are the damaged side.
Thank you for your understanding.
Joya Casino Representative
Hi, thank you for finally coming here. Do you mind to rephrase or perhaps ask someone else from your team to explain the details of the situation? I am sure I don't understand what transpires. I tried to see if your explanation on CG is more understandable, but when I made this post, that entry of yours is still made private. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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]. |
|
|
|
Detecting if a user has multiple accounts is not that hard even if the casino do not ask for kyc.
The problem here is that since the casino promote itself as decentralized and all you need to login is to connect your wallet then prohibiting multi-accounting doesn't really make sense!
BTW, doesn't dex mean decentralized exchange?
I have to agree on this part, prohibiting multi-acc when the only means of login is a wallet will be extremely problematic. People change their wallet from time to time. If someone gets flagged because he uses different wallet address [after emptied the first one] from the same IP, that's actually more hassle than their counterpart, the centralized casino. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
After contacting Razer on twitter, i managed to get paid. He confirmed that there was no reason for my account to be flagged. Thankfully, all good now, but it's important to note that we should not be in this place from the beggining. Anyways, thank you all for your responses and your advices. Good Luck!!!
Thank you for making a follow up and informing us about the final situation of your case. I am marking this as resolved on the list. I'd very much appreciate it if you can lock this thread to prevent further meaningless discussion. The button will be on the bottom left of the page. |
|
|
|
[...] Through further research and seeing many similar online reviews, it’s clear that Sportsbet.io routinely rejects withdrawal requests under dubious circumstances—commonly when users have won significant amounts. Accusations range from the need for unnecessary verification to outright allegations of multi-accounting. This is starkly different from other reputable sites like Stake.com, which conducts its verification upfront, ensuring transparency and fairness from the start.[...]
I didn't mean to be rude or condescending or looking lowly at you or the likes, but the amount disputed on this case is actually quite insignificant for SB, so there is no reason for them to pull a scam attempt. I believe it's just a small misunderstanding or they simply needed to run a check on your account and bets. It'll be a completely different story if they still refuse your withdrawal although you've completed KYC and other things they requested. But if the situation here is simply they asked for your KYC when you attempted withdrawal, as irritating as it is, that's within the scope of the ToS you agreed to them. You can rest assured that if you did nothing wrong or fishy, they'll more than happy to process the withdrawal and resume service to you once you passed their KYC. I am suggesting you to perform it. Meanwhile, I'll try to notify Steve, see if SB found one thing or two that might trigger a flag or push them to perform further investigation. He was online few hours ago. Hopefully I can catch him up before he gets too busy handling other matters. |
|
|
|
[...]
But they are really certain that your accounts are link, then they should be able to provide some proof to you or through a mediator. I hate how some of this platform advertise as being decentralized, yet they still have the ability to block your funds.
I covered this part on the other [older] case. Even though signing up doesn't require credential and other details, that we only need to connect a wallet, the balance and winnings we get from the platform does not directly tied to our wallet. We still have an account on their platform from those wallet-sign-up, the balances are still stored on that account and need to be manually withdrawn. |
|
|
|
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: [image snip] Makes this case even weirder. This is correct, Rollbit is one of the few [I actually honestly can't mention other casino that allows this] that allows multi-acc, as long as the other ones are not violating their ToS, or that the other account are being used to circumvent limitation and/or exclusion. |
|
|
|
[...] I'm more concerned about the "pool" discrepancy anyway. Here you can see the difference of what they say it is and what it actually is (assuming the pool isn't separated into different wallets?) BSC-USDT Pool (2,249,965.31 USDT) as stated on-site: https://imgur.com/133it4tWallet address of withdrawals/deposits (577,624.18 USDT): https://bscscan.com/address/0x59fec88dab27afc0836904231cea7a8601343d3aThey don't have any links to the pool wallets on site. So could be a stretch, but who's to say they're not just stealing the money from the pool by switching the wallet every now and then? 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.
They actually do:
5.2.2. l) Not to use multi Profiles, meaning two or more Profiles owned, directly or indirectly controlled by the same individual or legal entity.
[...] I missed that. [...] 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 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?
How does any of this have any grounds. [...] 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. Also holydarkness what do you mean by "fortunately" they don have other kyc issues. IF you look at any complaint site thats the majority of their issues ? 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 and how is it hard to believe when you yourself on this thread said that level 2 should suffice in answering and returning of funds but now its a different story?[...] I believe what you're referring to what I said is this? [...]
Nonetheless, I have to agree that their request to OP is a bit excessive. OP already performed KYC level 1 and 2, which should be enough to prove his identity and help casino flag the user if they abuse the ToS, I don't see the necessity of level 3 and 4 KYC if it's simply to investigate a bet.
[...]
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? just say you are an advocate for stake. Ive complied with everything from these people and its still hard for you to believe? i dont know what more i have to prove to a person like you but you obviously are one of those guys thaat refuse think a casino cant defraud their customers. Honestly dont know why you keep frequenting this thread giving stake every benefit of the doubt and throwing words like "fortunately" they dont have any other kyc complaints
[...]
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 posting my photos. Firstly, i did not use a vpn. Secondly, i would be willing to post my bets but they are not letting me access the sportsbook section of the site, so i cant go to "my bets". You can see that here. https://imgur.com/xRRzIr9 You are right the last link is not working. Check here https://imgur.com/3BQeP9lThanks 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.
Rollbit has been a very trusted platform and it's currently running their promotional campaigns on this forum and that's why I believe you won't get rugged by them because they aren't going to damage their reputation for $9379 as that's not a huge amount for them.
You'll see many wrong results on Google as most of the results can be manipulated ones. I believe you may soon get an answer from Rollbit's representative. I would suggest you to continue contacting them as share everything transparently with them, and I believe that they'll allow you to withdraw the money that you have on their platform.
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. |
|
|
|
I have just noticed your topic and what I can say is that your efforts are remarkable and so helpful for the gambling community to take notes before joining a casino, we can see that legitimate casinos are resolving the cases which most likely are the players fault either breaking the rules or just impatience for a team response. However, I was wondering if you could mark the scam casinos with a special table for having several unresolved cases and put them in something like a blacklist, one such casino is 1xbit.
In my case with Pineapple telegram Poker it worth to mention that the team stopped responding to the case some weeks ago, It would be better to provide a different note than "in progress".
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 honestly think Rollbit is illiquid or something haha.
A guy I knew bet a few thousand on a soccer match and was literally accused of rigging the game. They would not pay him until days later and he had to literally explain why he placed the bet on a conference call with the owners. His reply was he was gambling lol
They own a sportsbook... they let people bet on sports... a lot of times they will be weird and throw a fuss. They are very dodgy but they usually do end up paying... but you have to put up a fight for no reason. I'm assuming some people just don't put up that fight, I wouldn't use them.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
