Duckdice.io Scam

[holydarkness]

May I know if you have an evidence to back up this claim? That things does not carry over? because far as I know, it does carry on to another casino [in your word: book] if they share the same provider, there are instances of it.

I've had talk with several casinos' representative and they confirm this. It's also been made known publicly by several representative throughout the boards of this forum that they communicate with their "competitor" to keep gambling environment safe from abusers.

I should have said abuse such as arbing doesn’t carry over if not caught ahead of time. Information is shared. If book A limits a player, when he moves to the next book with the same provider, he’ll have the same limits. But this has to be caught ahead of time. If not, the player is in a lose lose situation. He either loses all of his bet or loses his winnings.

Imagine if this happened to you. You are playing at Stake and get banned. So you move over to Sportsbet and make a huge wager and win. Sportsbet can’t come back and grab your winnings saying that you were an abuser at Stake.

I’ve never heard that happen in my life unless there is some type of clause about a sister book. I think the 5dimes family and Bet Phoenix family had sister book clauses but may be wrong. Most of the time it applies to bonuses. They are fiat.

Why do Stake and Sportsbet has to be mentioned here?

Moving on to the topic, about abuse doesn't carry over if not caught ahead of time... I understand correctly you're suggesting that casino has to do preliminary investigation of player's past history across books and they shouldn't be allowed to confiscate winnings and voiding bets if the abuser get caught after the action was made?

It's a bit crooked principle, is it not? It's directly facilitating the abuser to keep doing what they did. Got blocked from one casino? Sure, no prob, he can move to another one. Or better yet, create another account on the same casino. Because as long as he was not caught ahead of the time he made bets, the casino has to honor the winnings.

And about "sister casino", I'll have to agree with what Mahdirakib said. It seems you need to broaden your horizon. I believe there are multiple instances it's being mentioned --either directly or simply hinted-- across many boards, but here, a public statement that's ready to be read by anyone interested, made recently, a casino representative explaining how things and detection works with them to create an abuser-free ecosystem:

[...] We were able to resolve this one quickly, as there was not 100% evidence of wrongdoing. But if a reputable site is taking weeks or months to complete an investigation, its because that time frame is merited. When innocent players get caught in the crossfire, it is certainly unfortunate, but it is the bad actors who are to blame, not the reputable operators. We continue to work closely with our "competitors" to ensure the integrity of online gaming, as a whole.

[drhouse99]

What happens at one book, doesn't carry over to another book. Most people don't even know books that have the same provider. Unless the player was notified that he is banned at all Betby books, pay him. The player made two live tennis bets. There is no abuse. He didn't know he was banned at Duckdice. A lot of times a point can be made for both sides. Here there is no reason for the player not to be paid.

Yes, moreover I verified my account before I made my first bet. And my limits was good so I wasn't restricted at that moment. They have banned me right after my withdrawal request, that was made the next day after my bets have been settled. That's really strange.

[Rating Place]

But this has to be caught ahead of time. If not, the player is in a lose lose situation.

As I have said before, the odds provider do some cross check before identifying an abuser. They won't caught anyone without having enough evidences.

Imagine if this happened to you. You are playing at Stake and get banned. So you move over to Sportsbet and make a huge wager and win. Sportsbet can’t come back and grab your winnings saying that you were an abuser at Stake.

It isn't about Stake and Sportsbet. Both of them have different odds provider. So, their actions will be individual. Now think yourself in the odds provider position. You are providing odds to FortuneJack, BCgame, Rollbit, Roobet, DuckDice, etc sportsbooks. Someone has taken benefits and abused your provided odds in any of those betting sites, then got limited or blocked. Will you consider him as an innocent person on a different sportsbook where you are providing odds?

I’ve never heard that happen in my life unless there is some type of clause about a sister book.

Seems like you aren't looking all around. It is common for the sportsbook to follow the investigation of odds provider, and to cooperate with the odds provider. Anyway, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about this.

hey mate, let me sort this out for you, first of all can you please double check your username? i can't find a user with Ykavyvu776 maybe it was changed?

It was a typo by the OP. His actual username is Ykavyvu766, which can be seen in the screenshot or the chat log.

Players don't know which books use the same provider, they can't guess. Agree that Books follow and share the same info. They shared way before the Internet. But name one case where a player had money confiscated for something done at another book? The same question for holtdarkness, name one case?  It's never been done without court order.

[holydarkness]

But this has to be caught ahead of time. If not, the player is in a lose lose situation.

As I have said before, the odds provider do some cross check before identifying an abuser. They won't caught anyone without having enough evidences.

Imagine if this happened to you. You are playing at Stake and get banned. So you move over to Sportsbet and make a huge wager and win. Sportsbet can’t come back and grab your winnings saying that you were an abuser at Stake.

It isn't about Stake and Sportsbet. Both of them have different odds provider. So, their actions will be individual. Now think yourself in the odds provider position. You are providing odds to FortuneJack, BCgame, Rollbit, Roobet, DuckDice, etc sportsbooks. Someone has taken benefits and abused your provided odds in any of those betting sites, then got limited or blocked. Will you consider him as an innocent person on a different sportsbook where you are providing odds?

I’ve never heard that happen in my life unless there is some type of clause about a sister book.

Seems like you aren't looking all around. It is common for the sportsbook to follow the investigation of odds provider, and to cooperate with the odds provider. Anyway, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about this.

hey mate, let me sort this out for you, first of all can you please double check your username? i can't find a user with Ykavyvu776 maybe it was changed?

It was a typo by the OP. His actual username is Ykavyvu766, which can be seen in the screenshot or the chat log.

Players don't know which books use the same provider, they can't guess. Agree that Books follow and share the same info. They shared way before the Internet. But name one case where a player had money confiscated for something done at another book? The same question for holtdarkness, name one case?  It's never been done without court order.

From the top of my head I have nothing, and most likely there won't be any case as such; where a casino confiscate player's money for their previous abuse on other casino or their own casino. I think I've mentioned this somewhere on other threads, casinos are not interested to make themselves rich by "stealing" player's fund... well, at least reputable casinos.

They'll refund player's initial deposit if the player is at loss. If they're in overall profit though, yes, funds in their account will be confiscated to cover these profit made from the abusive bets.

Likewise, this is also what happened to OP. Let's suppose duckdice's further investigation yield the same result, that they can't revoke the decision made and OP still got his winning voided, his fund are not being confiscated for things done in other books, they returned his fund.

[Rating Place]

But this has to be caught ahead of time. If not, the player is in a lose lose situation.

As I have said before, the odds provider do some cross check before identifying an abuser. They won't caught anyone without having enough evidences.

Imagine if this happened to you. You are playing at Stake and get banned. So you move over to Sportsbet and make a huge wager and win. Sportsbet can’t come back and grab your winnings saying that you were an abuser at Stake.

It isn't about Stake and Sportsbet. Both of them have different odds provider. So, their actions will be individual. Now think yourself in the odds provider position. You are providing odds to FortuneJack, BCgame, Rollbit, Roobet, DuckDice, etc sportsbooks. Someone has taken benefits and abused your provided odds in any of those betting sites, then got limited or blocked. Will you consider him as an innocent person on a different sportsbook where you are providing odds?

I’ve never heard that happen in my life unless there is some type of clause about a sister book.

Seems like you aren't looking all around. It is common for the sportsbook to follow the investigation of odds provider, and to cooperate with the odds provider. Anyway, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about this.

hey mate, let me sort this out for you, first of all can you please double check your username? i can't find a user with Ykavyvu776 maybe it was changed?

It was a typo by the OP. His actual username is Ykavyvu766, which can be seen in the screenshot or the chat log.

Players don't know which books use the same provider, they can't guess. Agree that Books follow and share the same info. They shared way before the Internet. But name one case where a player had money confiscated for something done at another book? The same question for holtdarkness, name one case?  It's never been done without court order.

From the top of my head I have nothing, and most likely there won't be any case as such; where a casino confiscate player's money for their previous abuse on other casino or their own casino. I think I've mentioned this somewhere on other threads, casinos are not interested to make themselves rich by "stealing" player's fund... well, at least reputable casinos.

They'll refund player's initial deposit if the player is at loss. If they're in overall profit though, yes, funds in their account will be confiscated to cover these profit made from the abusive bets.

Likewise, this is also what happened to OP. Let's suppose duckdice's further investigation yield the same result, that they can't revoke the decision made and OP still got his winning voided, his fund are not being confiscated for things done in other books, they returned his fund.

that’s never happened either. Winnings have never been voided because of something that happened at another book. This would be a first as far as I know. Each book/casino is a separate entity using a similar service.

Imagine 100 different books using the same service provider and each book could void winnings because of something that happened at one of the other 99.

It can be tough on players to figure out books with the same odds provider. The settings are customizable.

[holydarkness]

that’s never happened either. Winnings have never been voided because of something that happened at another book. This would be a first as far as I know. Each book/casino is a separate entity using a similar service.

Imagine 100 different books using the same service provider and each book could void winnings because of something that happened at one of the other 99.

It can be tough on players to figure out books with the same odds provider. The settings are customizable.

I have to say I am very surprised you made this statement, because... yes, it's a known instance. The part that made me surprised and rather dumbfounded, though, is because not only I've mentioned it before, on this post, you were actually there too.

You were overseeing the case... at least that's the assumption I made because you posted there, and I find it rather hard to believe that you made posts without reading the thread or knowing what happens with the case, the details of it. Yet here you made a comment like you're oblivious about the nature of that case.

It made me have to consider that... you're not exactly following the thread?

I believe if I want to spend some time further down the pages of accusation board, I can fish several other cases, but I can't find the purpose of it, nor that it bring any added benefit.

[Rating Place]

that’s never happened either. Winnings have never been voided because of something that happened at another book. This would be a first as far as I know. Each book/casino is a separate entity using a similar service.

Imagine 100 different books using the same service provider and each book could void winnings because of something that happened at one of the other 99.

It can be tough on players to figure out books with the same odds provider. The settings are customizable.

I have to say I am very surprised you made this statement, because... yes, it's a known instance. The part that made me surprised and rather dumbfounded, though, is because not only I've mentioned it before, on this post, you were actually there too.

You were overseeing the case... at least that's the assumption I made because you posted there, and I find it rather hard to believe that you made posts without reading the thread or knowing what happens with the case, the details of it. Yet here you made a comment like you're oblivious about the nature of that case.

It made me have to consider that... you're not exactly following the thread?

I believe if I want to spend some time further down the pages of accusation board, I can fish several other cases, but I can't find the purpose of it, nor that it bring any added benefit.

In your example, the player made an account at Betcoin. The player opened up a second account and the odds provider notified Betcoin that he opened a second account. He was penalized for multi-accounting.

The player can go play at other books using the same provider and not be penalized or have winnings taken away. It’s a new slate.

The one thing that may carry over is betting limits. If a player was limited to $100 at Betcoin, there’s a chance his limit with start off at $100 at the next book.

In this thread, if all of this occurred at Duckdice then I got confused. I thought the player was an abuser at another book using the same provider.

[holydarkness]

In your example, the player made an account at Betcoin. The player opened up a second account and the odds provider notified Betcoin that he opened a second account. He was penalized for multi-accounting.

The player can go play at other books using the same provider and not be penalized or have winnings taken away. It’s a new slate.

The one thing that may carry over is betting limits. If a player was limited to $100 at Betcoin, there’s a chance his limit with start off at $100 at the next book.[...]

Sure, there is a degree of possibility toward that scenario, but what's written between the lines lean more toward an exchange of communication between casinos instead of internal issue.

Why? Three things.

One, Betcoin's representative said that they will continue to work with their competitor to ensure the integrity of online gaming. I don't think they'll need to bother mentioning working with other casino if the case is not about cross-casino abuse.

Two, if the case was about multi-acc within their platform instead of cross-casino abuse, I think Betcoin will not write this,

Quick update on this case:

Within 4 days after receiving his withdrawal, this user had his friend deposit and play under a different account for him. [...]

They'll instead more likely to say, "another different account". And why would that player asked his friend if his case was a multi-acc abuse? He'll more likely try to have yet another account on his own. He already has a habit of it.

And three, the most obvious and interesting thing, that's why I'm saving it for the last, casinos don't need their odds provider to tell them that a player on their platform has an alt. Sure, there might be cases of it, and I am also sure they will welcome these notification, but they have their own detection system for that.

In fact, and this is the interesting part, how exactly do you propose the providers do their detection? Of multi acc abuse?

Casinos act as their middleman, the data that's given to them goes through the casinos first, and more likely than not, casinos retain some of those data for privacy reason. Not all the data they gathered from a player were given to the provider, only those that's needed. Casinos are the one who read and analyze device fingerprints, IP address, and the likes. If a case of multi-acc abuse happens, they should be the one detecting it first, rather than the providers.

I'd like to think that they have their own field and method. Casino detect abusers in form of multi-acc, bonus abuse, and other things related to their platform. Provider detect technical details like arbitrage betting, value betting, the use of automated service, taking advantage of glitches, and other things related to the game system. They both have their own material to detect abuse; casino from the account related details, and platform from the gameplay.

Now, this just goes more interesting, you might not realize the implication of what you said above, when you proposed it earlier, with the provider telling the casino that they have a rogue player, you're proposing that the casino have a rather poor security algorithm that they can't detect what their provider can. In this case, Betcoin, the one rated A+ by you. Can of worms.

In this thread, if all of this occurred at Duckdice then I got confused. I thought the player was an abuser at another book using the same provider.

And finally, going back into the track. I honestly started to think that within short future Cyrus will begin deleting conversation I had with you because most likely than not --with me [almost] always willing to address matters that people put into my plate-- it goes further and further from the topics that we alwas ended up OOT.

To answer your on-topic question, based from the narrative so far, unless duckdice managed to unearth information that can sway the current situation, it will be a,

"No, DuckDice is the one who flag the account and voided OP's bets, but it goes back to other casinos, the decision was asked by their provider for previous abuses on another casino."

[Rating Place]

In your example, the player made an account at Betcoin. The player opened up a second account and the odds provider notified Betcoin that he opened a second account. He was penalized for multi-accounting.

The player can go play at other books using the same provider and not be penalized or have winnings taken away. It’s a new slate.

The one thing that may carry over is betting limits. If a player was limited to $100 at Betcoin, there’s a chance his limit with start off at $100 at the next book.[...]

Sure, there is a degree of possibility toward that scenario, but what's written between the lines lean more toward an exchange of communication between casinos instead of internal issue.

Why? Three things.

One, Betcoin's representative said that they will continue to work with their competitor to ensure the integrity of online gaming. I don't think they'll need to bother mentioning working with other casino if the case is not about cross-casino abuse.

Two, if the case was about multi-acc within their platform instead of cross-casino abuse, I think Betcoin will not write this,

Quick update on this case:

Within 4 days after receiving his withdrawal, this user had his friend deposit and play under a different account for him. [...]

They'll instead more likely to say, "another different account". And why would that player asked his friend if his case was a multi-acc abuse? He'll more likely try to have yet another account on his own. He already has a habit of it.

And three, the most obvious and interesting thing, that's why I'm saving it for the last, casinos don't need their odds provider to tell them that a player on their platform has an alt. Sure, there might be cases of it, and I am also sure they will welcome these notification, but they have their own detection system for that.

In fact, and this is the interesting part, how exactly do you propose the providers do their detection? Of multi acc abuse?

Casinos act as their middleman, the data that's given to them goes through the casinos first, and more likely than not, casinos retain some of those data for privacy reason. Not all the data they gathered from a player were given to the provider, only those that's needed. Casinos are the one who read and analyze device fingerprints, IP address, and the likes. If a case of multi-acc abuse happens, they should be the one detecting it first, rather than the providers.

I'd like to think that they have their own field and method. Casino detect abusers in form of multi-acc, bonus abuse, and other things related to their platform. Provider detect technical details like arbitrage betting, value betting, the use of automated service, taking advantage of glitches, and other things related to the game system. They both have their own material to detect abuse; casino from the account related details, and platform from the gameplay.

Now, this just goes more interesting, you might not realize the implication of what you said above, when you proposed it earlier, with the provider telling the casino that they have a rogue player, you're proposing that the casino have a rather poor security algorithm that they can't detect what their provider can. In this case, Betcoin, the one rated A+ by you. Can of worms.

In this thread, if all of this occurred at Duckdice then I got confused. I thought the player was an abuser at another book using the same provider.

And finally, going back into the track. I honestly started to think that within short future Cyrus will begin deleting conversation I had with you because most likely than not --with me [almost] always willing to address matters that people put into my plate-- it goes further and further from the topics that we alwas ended up OOT.

To answer your on-topic question, based from the narrative so far, unless duckdice managed to unearth information that can sway the current situation, it will be a,

"No, DuckDice is the one who flag the account and voided OP's bets, but it goes back to other casinos, the decision was asked by their provider for previous abuses on another casino."

Books pay providers for integration of betting software and information, nothing more. Bets are between player and book. If I open up Book A and use Betby as a provider, I can’t take winnings for something done at Duckdice.


Odds providers can profile players for a book's use. https://betby.com/en/sportsbook/






Apologies to Cyrus for previous off topic discussion.

[holydarkness]

Books pay providers for betting software and information, nothing more. Bets are between player and book. If I open up Book A and use Betby as a provider, I can’t take winnings for something done at Duckdice.

Odds providers can profile players for a book's use. https://betby.com/en/sportsbook/

[Image snip]

[Image snip]
Apologies to Cyrus for previous off topic discussion.

Your post above easily contradict your own previous post. If books only pay and use those things from their provider, how do the provider notify them about multi-acc like you previously suggested?

They can profile bettors based on their bets, this goes in line with what I previously said, that casino and provider works in tandem to detect abuses: casino from player's personal data and fingerprints, and provider from player's gameplay. This does not answer my query to you on the same post about how do you propose the provider to notify casinos [on above case, betcoin] that the player were utilizing multi accounts? That [judging from how the email written and what implied by your statement] they didn't know about it and need their provider to tell them, indicating their security system is so poor. This is a top-tier casino we're talking about, one that's been here for a while and marked as A+ [certainly means very secure and trustworthy] by your own standard.
 
Let's make things easier, as always, let me try to see from your eyes, so let's turn the table.

Instead of me keep providing instances that you seemingly find hard to accept --since you still insist on your arguments despite betcoin's statement that they communicate with their competitors-- why don't you provide us the proof that said only limitation carries on? That one abusive behavior of a player on one casino will be treated as a clean slate by the provider when they move to other casino. And that when a player do a syndicate betting, arbing, or whatever other practices that the providers frowned upon that it made them ask the casino to disable the account, all they need to do is move to other casino and everything is forgiven.

I'd like to think that, given your confidence in this matter, it must have been written or explained somewhere that you're privileged to stumble upon and I did not, thus, I might be wrong.

[Rating Place]

Books pay providers for betting software and information, nothing more. Bets are between player and book. If I open up Book A and use Betby as a provider, I can’t take winnings for something done at Duckdice.

Odds providers can profile players for a book's use. https://betby.com/en/sportsbook/

[Image snip]

[Image snip]
Apologies to Cyrus for previous off topic discussion.

Your post above easily contradict your own previous post. If books only pay and use those things from their provider, how do the provider notify them about multi-acc like you previously suggested?

They can profile bettors based on their bets, this goes in line with what I previously said, that casino and provider works in tandem to detect abuses: casino from player's personal data and fingerprints, and provider from player's gameplay. This does not answer my query to you on the same post about how do you propose the provider to notify casinos [on above case, betcoin] that the player were utilizing multi accounts? That [judging from how the email written and what implied by your statement] they didn't know about it and need their provider to tell them, indicating their security system is so poor. This is a top-tier casino we're talking about, one that's been here for a while and marked as A+ [certainly means very secure and trustworthy] by your own standard.
 
Let's make things easier, as always, let me try to see from your eyes, so let's turn the table.

Instead of me keep providing instances that you seemingly find hard to accept --since you still insist on your arguments despite betcoin's statement that they communicate with their competitors-- why don't you provide us the proof that said only limitation carries on? That one abusive behavior of a player on one casino will be treated as a clean slate by the provider when they move to other casino. And that when a player do a syndicate betting, arbing, or whatever other practices that the providers frowned upon that it made them ask the casino to disable the account, all they need to do is move to other casino and everything is forgiven.

I'd like to think that, given your confidence in this matter, it must have been written or explained somewhere that you're privileged to stumble upon and I did not, thus, I might be wrong.

Odds Provider means odds provider, that’s it. Just go to the Betsby or OddsMatrix and read what services they provide.

I’ve read your examples, the book isn’t a middleman. The Betcoin case isn’t similar. You have to first understand what an Odds Provider is before making any judgements on this case.

The communications between Betcoin and competitors are to better the industry as a whole. It’s a cat and mouse game.

When I don’t know what I’m doing or see someone better, I step down. That’s why I asked you to take over the accusation list. I could see that you were a lot better. Sportsbooks are my arena.

[holydarkness]

Odds Provider means odds provider, that’s it. Just go to the Betsby or OddsMatrix and read what services they provide.

I am not sure I get the point you're trying to convey with this. Is it that odds provider provide well... services of odds and that's that? They don't dwell in abuse detection and other things alike? It'll be nice if you can rephrase so I can understand better, or perhaps just explain to us what odds provider do and what they provide?

I’ve read your examples, the book isn’t a middleman. The Betcoin case isn’t similar. You have to first understand what an Odds Provider is before making any judgements on this case.

The communications between Betcoin and competitors are to better the industry as a whole. It’s a cat and mouse game.

Thus, in other words, a ban due to violation happened on other casino can carry to other? Since they communicate with each other?

When I don’t know what I’m doing or see someone better, I step down. That’s why I asked you to take over the accusation list. I could see that you were a lot better. Sportsbooks are my arena.

So tell us, in short, as you seemingly missed that question, can you point us out to the statement where providers' decision to ban an account does not carry over to other casino?

[Rating Place]

Odds Provider means odds provider, that’s it. Just go to the Betsby or OddsMatrix and read what services they provide.

I am not sure I get the point you're trying to convey with this. Is it that odds provider provide well... services of odds and that's that? They don't dwell in abuse detection and other things alike? It'll be nice if you can rephrase so I can understand better, or perhaps just explain to us what odds provider do and what they provide?

I’ve read your examples, the book isn’t a middleman. The Betcoin case isn’t similar. You have to first understand what an Odds Provider is before making any judgements on this case.

The communications between Betcoin and competitors are to better the industry as a whole. It’s a cat and mouse game.

Thus, in other words, a ban due to violation happened on other casino can carry to other? Since they communicate with each other?

When I don’t know what I’m doing or see someone better, I step down. That’s why I asked you to take over the accusation list. I could see that you were a lot better. Sportsbooks are my arena.

So tell us, in short, as you seemingly missed that question, can you point us out to the statement where providers' decision to ban an account does not carry over to other casino?

You are looking at it backwards again as in guilty until proven innocent. Show me one case where it has carried over. This would be insane. You are putting way too much authority in an Odds Provider. The whole dispute is between book and player. The book is using evidence from the Odds Provider showing that an infraction occurred within their book, not in another book.

[holydarkness]

You are looking at it backwards again as in guilty until proven innocent. Show me one case where it has carried over.

Uhh... this one?

This would be insane. You are putting way too much authority in an Odds Provider. The whole dispute is between book and player. The book is using evidence from the Odds Provider showing that an infraction occurred within their book, not in another book.

The bitter truth is, odds provider has much authority. They're the one who hold the fund. They can ask casino to hold payment, pending investigation, and ask it to be voided if they deemed it fit. I know for a fact that there are instances where when voided bets got overturned and paid, they happened because casino pays from their own pocket. The providers refused and did not acknowledge that bet, they didn't "liquidate" the winning, so they settle themselves to ensure their customers' satisfaction and long term reputation.

And that statement of yours is a bit wrong, I believe in many instances the book does not use evidence from the odds provider to show infraction happened within their book, they were told by the provider and asked to show the evidence on providers' behalf. The one made the decision to void game-related issues [though not all] are the providers.

Those things said, I am fully aware that none of my questions I asked above, many of it, got addressed or even touched by you. But I am pulling a full-brake on this topic. I think I have [yet again] derail the thread by having discussion with you that's completely unrelated to the case. If you still interested to pursue this, make a thread about it on off-topic.

One thing that I'll say to close this discussion, and for you to mull overnight:

Unless you have stumbled upon that specific statement I previously asked, about things does not carry over to other casino and it'll be treated as a clean slate, you should probably ask yourself what's the most likely outcome for that scenario I asked above,

Suppose a player usernamed holyD played on BC, and Betby found him cheating, arbing, value betting, you name it, and things lead BC to ban holyD from their platform, and then holyD moves to Rollbit, and Betby identifies this is the same person, same IP, same betting preferences, same strategy, you name it since you're the expert on sportsbetting.

Will Betby just, "oh, never mind, he is now on Rollbit, his past abuses was in BC, so it is forgiven. Peace, yo. Clean slate and all, yoo-hoo!"?

[Rating Place]

You are looking at it backwards again as in guilty until proven innocent. Show me one case where it has carried over.

Uhh... this one?

This would be insane. You are putting way too much authority in an Odds Provider. The whole dispute is between book and player. The book is using evidence from the Odds Provider showing that an infraction occurred within their book, not in another book.

The bitter truth is, odds provider has much authority. They're the one who hold the fund. They can ask casino to hold payment, pending investigation, and ask it to be voided if they deemed it fit. I know for a fact that there are instances where when voided bets got overturned and paid, they happened because casino pays from their own pocket. The providers refused and did not acknowledge that bet, they didn't "liquidate" the winning, so they settle themselves to ensure their customers' satisfaction and long term reputation.

And that statement of yours is a bit wrong, I believe in many instances the book does not use evidence from the odds provider to show infraction happened within their book, they were told by the provider and asked to show the evidence on providers' behalf. The one made the decision to void game-related issues [though not all] are the providers.

Those things said, I am fully aware that none of my questions I asked above, many of it, got addressed or even touched by you. But I am pulling a full-brake on this topic. I think I have [yet again] derail the thread by having discussion with you that's completely unrelated to the case. If you still interested to pursue this, make a thread about it on off-topic.

One thing that I'll say to close this discussion, and for you to mull overnight:

Unless you have stumbled upon that specific statement I previously asked, about things does not carry over to other casino and it'll be treated as a clean slate, you should probably ask yourself what's the most likely outcome for that scenario I asked above,

Suppose a player usernamed holyD played on BC, and Betby found him cheating, arbing, value betting, you name it, and things lead BC to ban holyD from their platform, and then holyD moves to Rollbit, and Betby identifies this is the same person, same IP, same betting preferences, same strategy, you name it since you're the expert on sportsbetting.

Will Betby just, "oh, never mind, he is now on Rollbit, his past abuses was in BC, so it is forgiven. Peace, yo. Clean slate and all, yoo-hoo!"?

The odds provider doesn’t hold the money. They don’t make payouts. Their software is integrated with the book to put up lines and grade wagers as win/loss/push/void. All money transfer is between book and player using a payment processor.

With your example if holyD gets banned at BC for something found at Betby, then BC hands down the penalty. Now holyD moves to Rollbit, the odds provider should have holyD banned or limited at all platforms so when holyD signs up with Rollbit, it shows account banned or limited. Opening a second account would then be multi-accounting. Once a wager is accepted, without a ban on another account or a second account open at Rollbit, then the player must be paid winnings unless something such as bot use.

The player made two wagers, pay him.

[SheldonCobb]

Share your opinion and reviews about Dukedice here

https://www.reviewbloc.com/report/dukedice.io

By sharing your reviews, you are directly contributing to the fight against crypto scams, making the cryptocurrency community safer for everyone, and protecting others from fraudulent investments and platforms like this.

As a rule of thumb, please check the updated warning lists from the IOSCO and other real-time reviews from Bitcointalk, Chainabuse, Scamwatcher on situations like this.

[blckhawk]

Share your opinion and reviews about Dukedice here

https://www.reviewbloc.com/report/dukedice.io

By sharing your reviews, you are directly contributing to the fight against crypto scams, making the cryptocurrency community safer for everyone, and protecting others from fraudulent investments and platforms like this.

As a rule of thumb, please check the updated warning lists from the IOSCO and other real-time reviews from Bitcointalk, Chainabuse, Scamwatcher on situations like this.

It's Duckdice not Dukedice but I appreciate your effort of spreading the word about reporting scam websites and scam casinos in that website but a little advice for you, careful about bumping threads as you might be accused of necrobumping and at the same time make sure that you're following some kind of post interval so you don't have the issue of moderators deleting your post or people noticing it and calling you out.