BitBet Stole ~$7,000 from me (10 BTC)

[Beans]

There are way to many companies like this in Bitcoin. We need to stop supporting these crooked business practices if we want bitcoin to succeed.

You are roughly in the position of a Colorado bug on a potato plant discussing what "we" should be doing if "we" wish agriculture to succeed.

Shut the fuck up and get lost. You're not even part of Bitcoin in the first place. And the reason Bitcoin doth succeed has a way lot more to do with MP than you can begin to comprehend.

So basically, you don't even have a point to your argument. Another comparison that makes zero sense. According to you comparison, customer support is irreverent to business success.

You don't even have a clue who I am. You just presume as usual that you know everything. There's always a few people like you on the forum, self entitled know it all but lacking common sense. You may think your something special but your not. Why don't you stick to posting when you have something that makes sense. Every time I've seen you post anything, it's always swearing and spreading your crack pot ideas. Grow up, get out of your parents house and get a life.

[1714008277]

1714008277

[1714008277]

1714008277

[deadweasel]

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

[sangaman]

I contacted a lawyer that accepts bitcoin . I'll keep you updated.

Best of luck to you, getting a lawyer familiar with bitcoin is huge. Let me know if I can help. I don't know if this possibly violates any fraud/theft criminal statutes or if it would be at all practical to pursue them but I wouldn't mind seeing these thieves punished. Most important is that you (and others affected by the same policy) get their money back and that nobody uses this site anymore.

[MoneyMorpheus]

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?

[Bugpowder]

Don't expect BitBet to change a policy that supplies a sizable proportion of the S.BBET dividends.

How many of the #bitcoin-assets chatters are here because they own shares in BitBet and my complaint threatens their dividends?

Bugpowder is yet another #bitcoin-assets guy.
----------------------------------------

I'm a bitcoin-assets guy, because that's where people that know what's going on in the bitcoin space hang out. That said, I don't currently own shares in any MPEX listed security, nor any other bitcoin denominated security. I don't like the counterparty risk associated with virtual shares in virtual companies in a virtual world now that bitcoins have tremendous fiat value. Everyone is a hustler in the bitcoin space (much like the general financial services space), and its hard to avoid getting burned at least once, particularly since getting legal relief is usually impossible.  10BTC is a small price to pay to learn this lesson, relative to what others have paid in the past (myself included).

Good luck collecting on your non-currency based gambling transaction with a virtual company run out of deep eastern Europe.

[deadweasel]

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?

Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?

[MoneyMorpheus]

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?

Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?

Thats the thing, some people take precautions, some not; some use protection, some end up with unexpected kids

Or more seriously, some people are adverse to risks, some love them...

Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.

[snackman]

5. Not reading or not caring about BitBet's FAQ and the open, fully explained, warnings about the rare potential for this very situation on this very forum;

According to reddit, this situation is not rare at all:

This policy is ridiculous and can't possibly be legal.
If I try to put down a thousand dollars on a roulette table after the guy waves his hand, the bet is rejected and I get my thousand bucks back. The dealer doesn't stuff it in his pocket and call me a fag.
Either you accept a bet, or you don't. If you accept it and they lose, you get to keep the money. If you accept it and they win, they get more money. If you don't accept it, YOU DON'T GET TO KEEP THE MONEY.
Scumbag shit at its finest. I don't care how many times you've been defrauded by somebody double-spending, you don't get to make up for it by fucking stealing from people.
EDIT: Looked into this some more, and holy shit! These people are RAKING IN stolen money from bad bets. As per the FAQ, they consider them "gracious donations" to their investors. In March they stole 23 BTC, and April they stole almost 26.
Fuck these people with a red hot iron. Someone else in here posted a whois of the website, the owner needs to be put in cuffs for grand larceny.

Should this thread be moved to the Scam Accusations board?
-------------------------

Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.

Alternatively, BitBet could simply refund the money to the withdrawal address that I submitted at time of bet.

[deadweasel]

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?

Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?

Thats the thing, some people take precautions, some not; some use protection, some end up with unexpected kids

Or more seriously, some people are adverse to risks, some love them...

Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.

My guess because bets are anonymous.  I haven't checked in a year or so but last time I was there you send to a BTC address and if you won, it was sent back.  Never did I need to put in a piece of identifiable information.

I just checked, now you need a login.  They could *probably* do this if they were so inclined.  I'm just trying to figure out why they should when snackman was trying to scam all the legit bettors out of their winnings?

[snackman]

This is apparently not the first, or even the second time, that BitBet has scammed its users.

Hopefully it's the last.

[SgtSpike]

This is apparently not the first, or even the second time, that BitBet has scammed its users.

Hopefully it's the last.

Apparently it won't be, since some people here seem to think stealing from its users is a commendable practice.

[MoneyMorpheus]

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?

Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?

Thats the thing, some people take precautions, some not; some use protection, some end up with unexpected kids

Or more seriously, some people are adverse to risks, some love them...

Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.

My guess because bets are anonymous.  I haven't checked in a year or so but last time I was there you send to a BTC address and if you won, it was sent back.  Never did I need to put in a piece of identifiable information.

I just checked, now you need a login.  They could *probably* do this if they were so inclined.  I'm just trying to figure out why they should when snackman was trying to scam all the legit bettors out of their winnings?

Thats the thing, how you know he was trying to scam the other bettors of their winnings and not trying to place a legit bet? Its a very thin line. I haven't actually check what he bet and at what time, but if the bet was still open at the time he initiated the transfer I don't see how he was doing this; and even if he did initiated the bet late, how do you know he was actually trying to scam and not making an honest mistake?

A good policy will only affect the scammers and not the honest people as well. From what I read here I have a very reasonable doubt he was actually trying to scam the bettors. If someone here can explain with details how he was trying to achieve this I might change my mind, but the system already rejects late bets, how is it that this late bet is different than the others? This is actually the fishy point that keeps bugging me.

Don't get me wrong, I never bet on the betting sites, mainly because I'm too paranoid and most of them look like they where not professionally done. I'm adverse to risks and I think that I'm not only risking in loosing the bet but in being scammed as well. Anyone could actually put up a decently looking betting site and wait for the fish to bet and take their money. I never actually checked them but I saw some fishy sites every now and then posted in the forum. If snackman was actually trying to scam the bettors I think it is bitbet's duty to show irrefutable proof of this; not only because it the right thing to do, but because I'm pretty sure it will affect their reputation if they don't. Right now if you google bitbet scam you will find 61600 results, which 3240 are posts from this forum. At the moment the amount of people adopting btc are comparable to the amount of people buying iphones (keiser's report), if this site wants to capture the emerging market, it should have clear, just and user friendly policies. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of newbie mistakes to be made on a lot of sites related to btc, and if the user actually made an honest mistake then the site is actually scamming the user. Investors of this site should actually be more worried about the site reputation than the measly 10 btc divided threw all of them. I don't actually get how come the support haven't tried to clear this up yet, my only clue is badly paid third party support...

This is at least my point of view, anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong or to show proof the snackman was indeed trying to scam the rest of the bettors.

[davout]

Apparently it won't be, since some people here seem to think stealing from its users is a commendable practice.

Seriously, how would you handle the case "someone sends an unconfirmed TX right before the bet ends, TX confirms after the bet has been decided" ?

Refund?
You want to discourage scammers, not have to guess every time whether the request is legitimate or not.

[davout]

and if the user actually made an honest mistake then the site is actually scamming the user

Your reasoning flaw is here, the site can not, and should not have to guess whether the request is legitimate or if a scammer is trying to get a refund on an attempted cheat.
It makes perfect sense from a business perspective to take a very clear position should this kind of stuff arise.

[moderate]

Apparently it won't be, since some people here seem to think stealing from its users is a commendable practice.

Seriously, how would you handle the case "someone sends an unconfirmed TX right before the bet ends, TX confirms after the bet has been decided" ?

Refund?
You want to discourage scammers, not have to guess every time whether the request is legitimate or not.

Just add a reasonable fee for this kind of refund, it is more than enough to keep scammers away. Charge, let's say, 5% of the amount received. There is also the case "someone sends a transaction not so right before the bet ends, TX confirms after the bet has been decided", refund at 5% fee, too, obviously.

I can't even start to understand why you think this is not the proper way, and stealing is the correct choice. MP really got a legion of fans.

[Bugpowder]

Apparently it won't be, since some people here seem to think stealing from its users is a commendable practice.

Seriously, how would you handle the case "someone sends an unconfirmed TX right before the bet ends, TX confirms after the bet has been decided" ?

Refund?
You want to discourage scammers, not have to guess every time whether the request is legitimate or not.

Just add a reasonable fee for this kind of refund, it is more than enough to keep scammers away. Charge, let's say, 5% of the amount received. There is also the case "someone sends a transaction not so right before the bet ends, TX confirms after the bet has been decided", refund at 5% fee, too, obviously.

I can't even start to understand why you think this is not the proper way, and stealing is the correct choice. MP really got a legion of fans.

The underlying theme of any MP-affiliated business is that the rules will be set up to protect that business's bitcoins at all costs, despite their user-unfriendliness. The unfortunate fact is that even though its very unlikely that OP was trying to scam, bitcoinland is full of people that can and do scam any service or person that has an exploitable weakness. The level of fraud among bitcoin users is tremendous, much higher than any other consumer financial environment. Hence, rules that seem reasonable based on real-world experience where perhaps 2% of transactions are attempted fraud leave bitcoin businesses too exposed, as this is an environment where perhaps 20-50% of transactions are attempted fraud.

[SgtSpike]

Apparently it won't be, since some people here seem to think stealing from its users is a commendable practice.

Seriously, how would you handle the case "someone sends an unconfirmed TX right before the bet ends, TX confirms after the bet has been decided" ?

Refund?
You want to discourage scammers, not have to guess every time whether the request is legitimate or not.

Refund.

If you don't want people to bet right before the bet ends, then simply reduce the potential winnings gradually right near the end.  For example, if they bet 10 minutes before the bet ends, only give them 10% of the winnings they would have had if they had bet 100 minutes before the bet ends, and spread the other 90% across to the other winners.  If it's 25 minutes beforehand, give them 25% of the winnings.  Etc, etc.  But if they lose the bet, they lose 100% of their bet.

It's not complicated, and you avoid stealing people's money without good reason.

Again I ask, what is your affiliation with this site?

[fcmatt]

The operator of bitbet should return the coins and stop treating the FAQ as an excuse to take other people's property.

[fcmatt]

If you don't want people to bet right before the bet ends, then simply reduce the potential winnings gradually right near the end.

This is already the case, which shows you still haven't read the FAQ.  

I am reading the FAQ and if the website is coded this poorly I am amazed anyone in their right mind would use it.

"What if I created a bet address but can't bet right now?

Once you enter a receiving address and are given a send-to address, you have 3 days (72 hours) to send your bet. If your bet does not make it within 72 hours then that address will be reclaimed. BitBet will be unable to send you your BTC back, as they will have probably been allocated to someone else's bet! Always make sure that you send your first bet on a created address within 3 days of its creation. "

[freethink2013]

You should at least report the domain name for fake details.

http://www.whois.us/whoiscompliance/ComplaintMain.jsp I suggest you report both PoliMedia.us and bitbet.us

Then we can find out who's really behind this scam. As far as I can see they are some failed company  Norsena aka "Polimedia"[1] that's currently in Forfeited Existence[2] in texas. There's no privacy in .us domains. Let's see how soon the site changes domain name lol. polimedia.us points to that joke exchange that also takes most revenue .

Registrant Name: MARTHA MCCULLER
Registrant Organization: NORSENA
Registrant Street: 14781 MEMORIAL DR.
Registrant Street: APT 2454
Registrant City: HOUSTON
Registrant State/Province: TX - See more at: http://www.enom.com/whois/default.aspx?DomainName=PoliMedia.us#sthash.MFi6lY2k.dpuf

Here's the Norsena Co. details
http://www.wysk.com/index/texas/austin/8xt3ltu/norsena-inc/profile
Tax Forfeiture 02/08/2013 02/09/2013

bitbet.us make almost half their income from people like the op. The "Shareholders" aka apologists/paid shills on this thread should consider that and remember that being part of this fraud makes you a co-conspirator.

[1] http://www.enom.com/whois/default.aspx?DomainName=PoliMedia.us
[2] http://direct.sos.state.tx.us/help/help-corp.asp?pg=ov