Roobet.com not paying on their mistakes

[TalkStar]

After having a look on this matter it seems to me that entire topic is figuring two different word. One is "misclick" and another one is "mistake". Yahoo62278 already mentioned that it was a misclick by himself where maximum win for that bet was 2000$. On the other hand due to bug issues this bet were placed which was totally unexpected for "Roobet" team and platform controllers.

Let me share few opinions from my side;

▪︎ I don't think yahoo62278 is liable for "misclick" where its "Roobet" authorities fault. As a crypto user i use stop limit option when i trade on exchanges. As an example if i set an stop limit for my trades but it doesn't work properly than obviously exchange have to bear my losses. As a platform user we are not controlling your admin panel or website backend and its your responsibility to keep everything perfect. So in my opinion first word "misclick" mentioned by yahoo62278 was not his fault. Anyone can put any amount value and submit their bet but accepting that bet is totally platforms owners fault.

▪︎ Second word "mistake". In this area i wanna give thanks to "Roobet" team for accepting their own fault and they should make a conclusion as soon as possible to maintain their reputation and platform standard.

I am not taking anyone's side here but platform owners need to show much professionalism to continue their business. Making mistake is a part of our daily works but finding solution is the best thing. Hope "yahoo62278" and "Roobet" team will find a better way to solve this matter.

"Yahoo62278" your luck was enough wide for that misclick bet . Maybe first time in betting history and you saved "Roobet" from future unexpected limit exceeding bets.

[amishmanish]

Intent matters though.
--snip--

IMO what's most fair:

A settlement payment of some sort would be best because there is negligence in both parties. Paying out the full 9k is excessive but somewhere along the lines of x0.3 - x0.5 of the win amount would be appropriate.

Man this is exploitation...!!! Yahoo accepts that he knows the maximum amount is capped at 2KUSD.

Now, I am well aware that the max win is $2000, I am not disputing that fact 1 bit. I am also aware that they are fixing a load of bugs I pointed out in their dice game, also the reason their dice is not working right now. Their support took my advice and is taking care of the problem. I was told that they are also fixing the site where you cannot bet more then the max payout would be.

He says his over-bet was a "misclick". This conveniently gives him the leverage that "Would the casino refund his over bet amount if he did not win?". If you look at the conversation as well as the chats with their support, it looks like the problem had been solved between them. Now, by flagging them, he is using his considerable clout to label them as dishonest and a scam. It is understandable that letting go 9K is a big deal.

At the risk of earning a lot of ire, I'd say a lot of things don't seem entirely "honest" on Yahoo's side too. He says "It was a misclick". The casino says "you were well aware as you told us not to allow bets over max wins and we were implementing it".

You made this request to not allow this to happen, very apparent, in our forum launch post and as stated - we will rolling out an update for this along with our dice bug fixes (when dice comes back online). You were well aware that this was not fixed yet and you accidentally placed a bet with a value that could not pay over the max profit.

Now, could this be an honest mistake on the casino's side that the devs did not envisage this scenario. It could be because, well, why would we have "bugs" in the code then?
Is the "misclick" an honest mistake on Yahoo's part and then asking them to meet them on the middle in terms of the "compensation" he deserves?? And then opening this flag against them knowing they need to defend their position?? Well, that is a matter of opinion as well as what you think about Yahoo. It is clearly as subjective judgement, the leverage of which lies entirely with Yahoo who is a well-respected member of the community.

Roobet are an upstart. They had a good sig campaign going around and are just gaining ground. BTC ecosystem needs these startups. Members like Yahoo and the other DTs/ Legendaries going with the reasoning "Well they did it, they should pay up" must consider that this is not entirely convincing in Yahoo's favor. I think they have been responsive and if the flag continues, it'll be nothing else but exploitation of the considerable leverage that people like Yahoo have here.

I just feel sad that at the end, its always Money that wins.

PS: I want to add that the whole point above should be read in the light of Yahoo not being "The Yahoo" but some normal account. People know that Yahoo is trustworthy and professional. Imagine if a relatively unknown account said, I "misclicked", people wouldn't be so quick to give the benefit of doubt. Aspersions are raised on much smaller issues here at the forum. In giving Yahoo the benefit that it was an honest mistake, shouldn't Roobet be given some leeway for being a BTC upstart (What do i know, they may be loaded for all i know), considering they have been responsive and paid in earlier mistake too. They should probably add some bug bounty like last time.

[Slow death]

I believe it all comes down to the following:

If yahoo62278's account balance is $ 11662, then yahoo62278 should receive $ 11662.

[The-One-Above-All]

Really though they could have a valid case for calling extortion or blackmail on using the trust feedback here to leverage their "compensation" for their own decisions to proceed and their own mistakes and making false claims of scamming.

If yahoo got another 1k he should feel pretty lucky, and they should plug the hole asap.

You really only like to twist things in the worst way don't ya. Ok lemme break it down for the mentally retarded users of the forum. The bet should never have been allowed to be placed PERIOD. i raised my bet amount and went all in the bet prior on a different color. The next bet, I went for gold but didn't lower my bet. Yes that is my mistake.

Their mistake is allowing a bet over the max payout PERIOD. Whether it was going to be fixed soon or not, the bet should not have been allowed or it should have capped me at $55.55 for a 2k win. Instead they allowed the bet to play on. Even their Dev said, they will let players bet over the max win because they don't want to change how a player plays. They are comfortable knowing the player will not be paid.

There is no freaking extortion going on here. They allowed the bet, they owe me the difference. The neg is just. If you want to harass users then go harass your usual suspects and stay outta my business.

Let me break it down to you.

You knew the max win is  2000 = YES
You knew there was a bug that was currently being fixed that could allow this to take place= YES OR NO?

the 2nd question is VERY important.

If the answer to the 2nd question is YES then YOU HAVE ZERO CASE AT ALL.

If the answer is no then you have a case to complain about it being unfair that idiots can OVER BET.  You still have ZERO case to claim it was a SCAM since there is ZERO DECEPTION AT ANY POINT.

So if you had stopped there you may have been better.

When you started a SCAM thread, and even on this thread are calling him a scammer in the initial post. You already could be said to have caused his site damages.

When you start using the TRUST system and this forum to add leverage to getting compensation for something that is CERTAINLY partly or perhaps TOTALLY (if you knew the bug was there and still decided to use the site of your own free will) you own fault. That is again blackmail and extortion by many DT's standards.

I mean it is quite possible for them to argue you are using FALSE accusations and the trust system to extort them for your own mistake. I mean they paid you the 2K right??


This question is the MOST IMPORTANT

You knew there was a bug that was currently being fixed that could allow this to take place= YES OR NO?

If it is YES then you have no leg to stand on.

[amishmanish]

This question is the MOST IMPORTANT

You knew there was a bug that was currently being fixed that could allow this to take place= YES OR NO?

If it is YES then you have no leg to stand on.

He did say this in the initial post:

I was told that they are also fixing the site where you cannot bet more then the max payout would be.

So I guess he did know. Yet, people here are basically trying to convince this BTC upstart to "pay up in the name of professionalism". This is pretty self-centered hand wringing. If its all so professional, maybe people should stop talking in such glowing terms about the philanthrophic and idealistic vision behind bitcoin. Just accept that its all money, honey.

I would love to quote the story about "people inside the money machines of the world" that i read on the blog of some old adopter here. It was in the Signature of one of the prominent members. Can't find it at present.

[TMAN]

Fuck this is a shitty situation, it’s a coin toss for yahoo or the site. Shit, sorry dude this isn’t cool.

It really is 50/50 there is a solid case for both sides of this.. personally I believe you should give some and the site should as well. 

I don’t believe you should of tagged them, I do believe this thread is the best way to get a resolution that suits both parties. Especially with all the bug work you are doing..  fuck this is hard. IMO the site should compensate you as they took the full bet and you couldn’t cancel it. On the other hand you knew there were bugs and had been helping, yet as you said if it had lost the site would of told you “tough titties”

Good PR for the site would be a public settlement and IMO it should be 50% of the total winnings. You win? They win by making it right.

More importantly I don’t have the temptation of taking TOAA off ignore seeing all his posts

[The Cryptovator]

It really is 50/50 there is a solid case for both sides of this.. personally I believe you should give some and the site should as well.  

Good PR for the site would be a public settlement and IMO it should be 50% of the total winnings. You win? They win by making it right.

I proposed it previously, but look like no one responding on that, yahoo62278 or Roobet. That means no one agreed on this proposal.

So finally yahoo62278 won the bet. Due to both side mistake. So I think it would be reasonable to pay at least 50% of wining money pay to yahoo62278. Roobet should learn from it and this would be a lesson for them and other casino as well.

If yahoo62278's account balance is $ 11662, then yahoo62278 should receive $ 11662.

By considering the current situation I can't agree with you. Both side have mistakes and both of them should paid for that.

[suchmoon]

Doesn't look like anyone else is tagging them either, so maybe I should move this to reputation instead of scam accusation? My feedback is correct and I don't think countering is really warranted. Opinions?

I wouldn't counter nor would I add a red tag as you mentioned they already fixed the bug. If they left it as it was then I would consider red trust since allowing overmax bets can be "high risk". Your own red trust is probably appropriate because they did take your bet and customer support seems to be confirming that they would have taken the whole amount if you had lost so they should pay the win too.

If you had lost and they took your $300 (or if someone else comes forward with proof of losing over max bet) then I'd say you could add an "implied contract" flag on them.

Overall I'm not happy with their handling of this so I'm adding a neutral to make sure there is a record of some sort even if this particular scenario gets resolved.

[The-One-Above-All]

Have we even got the story straight here.

Some are still claiming it was a bug, then I see it mentioned it was an intentional design (for some reason)


If you choose yourself to bet on a site where they have told you

1. max win is 2k
2. you can bid as much as you want but you will only get a max win of 2k

then you choose to go ahead and use the site under those conditions and then  bid MORE THAN YOU NEED to win the 2k, then THE SITE HAS MADE NO MISTAKE nor HAS IT SCAMMED YOU.

What is the FAIR??

Fair would only come into this if YOU WERE FORCED into using their website knowing how the 2 rules above. You chose to use it under those 2 rules right? Nobody MADE you use their site knowing their operating policy at the time (however unfair it does seem)

The title says their mistake
You claim you were scammed by them and they are scammers

Both seem bogus claims and are libel or actually by DT members standards defamation and blackmail/extortion rolled into one big clusterfuck.

The casino have counter arguments that could actually make it plausible you are extorting them using the trust system and using false accusations to do so.
You are also opening the fucking flood gates for any other user that spots this thread that feel this applies to them also.

If they offer you 1k you have done well out of it considering everything.

If they offer you  500 bucks take it.

If they offer you  your entire stake of 300 (extra) whatever it was ,take it

If they say you get not one penny more and they will let it go. Drop the issue and make sure you have not left any false accusations or any other reasons for them to claim damages.

I think we are being more than generous suggesting 1k. If they gave you that I would be shocked. However, if they are going to allow themselves to be leveraged using the feedback here (however inaccurate) when clearly it was the users mistake so easily now. Others will try similar in the future.

When you KNOW and are fully AWARE of the conditions you will be operating under and you CHOOSE to go forward then FAIR becomes something that is pretty subjective when you start claiming it is their mistake YOU DECIDED to go ahead and then make the fuck up yourself.

Yes the original conditions to us do not sound fair but is it fair you decided to proceed under those conditions and then cry for them to change those conditions you were willing to proceed under.

Fair gets rather complex.

As you know we don't really like you since you are a known supporter of undersirables here and have previously attacked honest members and made false accusations against them.

However, that does not matter/has not factored into this opinion. If this had happen to myself I would have accepted the 2k gladly and just said to myself it would be poor class and embarrassing to make a fuss in public about conditions I clearly went forward under, for those only to be brought into play due to MY OWN mistake. If I got anything extra even a refund on my entire stake amount that I over bid on. So all the winnings you go PLUS whatever ever you Over bid. I would have been very happy with.

If a person spots a clear weakness in the reasoning above then feel free to point it out. There is always an outside possibility we have got something wrong and need to adapt that opinion. It is not something we have investigated at length.

[inthelongrun]

Weird case. An interesting one. Upon reading, both sides have legit reasons. As a person with minor in law and a degree in accounting, I give a slight edge on yahoo62278. 

I had a slight background in programming and I know starting a casino does have priorities. Setting maximum winnings is a priority and very important but isn't at par with setting maximum bets? If you program a certain limit on winnings then you gotta have to set the maximum bets too. These two features are like bow and arrow which won't work without supporting each other.       

In the end, I agree with Coolcryptovator and TMAN proposals that both sides will meet halfway.

[actmyname]

Given that the maximum win is $2000 and that the maximum bet whilst maintaining house edge (in this particular instance) is $55.55, shouldn't yahoo get $2000 + ($323.949 - $55.55)?

And check out this scenario which complicates things in regards to betting:


Suppose someone bets $1000 on red.
It would be -ev to bet on any other option that pays out red numbers.

But depending on the outcome, both sides will have differing arguments...

[The-One-Above-All]

Given that the maximum win is $2000 and that the maximum bet whilst maintaining house edge (in this particular instance) is $55.55, shouldn't yahoo get $2000 + ($323.949 - $55.55)?

And check out this scenario which complicates things in regards to betting:


Suppose someone bets $1000 on red.
It would be -ev to bet on any other option that pays out red numbers.

But depending on the outcome, both sides will have differing arguments...

This is what we are suggesting, his winnings plus the over betting amount is the most sensible conclusion to it.

[Kami90kaza]

Given that the maximum win is $2000 and that the maximum bet whilst maintaining house edge (in this particular instance) is $55.55, shouldn't yahoo get $2000 + ($323.949 - $55.55)?

And check out this scenario which complicates things in regards to betting:


Suppose someone bets $1000 on red.
It would be -ev to bet on any other option that pays out red numbers.

But depending on the outcome, both sides will have differing arguments...

This is what we are suggesting, his winnings plus the over betting amount is the most sensible conclusion to it.

i am new here but this is stupidest suggestion i ve ever seen
edit> no offense i have noting against you just saying ,i read all comments

[examplens]

if there is a maximum win $2000 as he appeared $11662? I think it is one line of code enough to solve that, and the winner will never see a number higher than 2000.
the obvious omission of Roobet devs side. Yahoo has nothing with that and they need to pay them his full win. Mistakes happen and they must accept it.
Any discussion about accidentally click is meaningless, he could also lose then he would be to blame for his loss, but it is not, he wins and casino refuse to pay them.

[HCP]

i am new here but this is stupidest suggestion i ve ever seen

Why? It's a fairly logical solution and it's exactly what "brick and mortar" casinos do... they return the overmax bet (in this case that would be $323.949 - $55.55)... and then payout what needs to be paid out... which in this case, is the max win of $2000.

To me, the bigger questions in all of this is... has anyone else playing on the site placed an "overmax" bet?

[amishmanish]

Any discussion about accidentally click is meaningless, he could also lose then he would be to blame for his loss, but it is not, he wins and casino refuse to pay them.

This community is seriously becoming sycophantic and a circlejerk.

If this had been a newbie account, the first question would have been "So you misclicked, huh?". They would then have been flayed on the point that "So you knew they were fixing the bug". How many times have you seen discussions regarding newbies explaining their "honest mistakes" and the community coming down heavily on them.

Yahoo has a reputation for being professional. He should get his extra bet refunded and any bug bounty that the casino wants to offer. Yet, all these people coming here conveniently accepting that his mistake is not even open for discussion, aren't being completely unbiased.

[cabalism13]

Any discussion about accidentally click is meaningless, he could also lose then he would be to blame for his loss, but it is not, he wins and casino refuse to pay them.

This community is seriously becoming sycophantic and a circlejerk.

If this had been a newbie account, the first question would have been "So you misclicked, huh?". They would then have been flayed on the point that "So you knew they were fixing the bug". How many times have you seen discussions regarding newbies explaining their "honest mistakes" and the community coming down heavily on them.

Yahoo has a reputation for being professional. He should get his extra bet refunded and any bug bounty that the casino wants to offer. Yet, all these people coming here conveniently accepting that his mistake is not even open for discussion, aren't being completely unbiased.

As long as there an evidence this will still be an issue to be discussed, Not all of the users here care about for some reputation of the gambler.
But if I'm also on yahoo62278's position I may exactly dissatisfied to this even if its a misclicked bets. But also I may agree as well to TMAN to go on a 50/50 basis to both parties, with that both parties can move on and fix what needs to be fix.
And as for the negative, Disagree... This is not a scam, first of all yahoo62278 has been paid back the only thing is its not what he expected to received.

[cryptofrka]

It is not really important how we will call it, it is important that they should pay the full winnings.

It is extremely funny that somebody's explanation is 'we let the players bet how they want'. Yea, the world is full of idiots wanting to bet 1000$ on a roulette number to win 2000$. That by itself is borderline scam and fixing it does not change the fact it was explained like that in the first place.

If the bet was taken, paying the bet is the only way forward.

I for one will never play at Roobet after a situation like this, how you handle your mistakes says more about a company than anything else.

[Get-Paid.com]

From reading all these posts it looks like there isn't any one side who wins here.
What don't you guys reach a compromise in order to settle this?

[The-One-Above-All]

It is not really important how we will call it, it is important that they should pay the full winnings.

It is extremely funny that somebody's explanation is 'we let the players bet how they want'. Yea, the world is full of idiots wanting to bet 1000$ on a roulette number to win 2000$. That by itself is borderline scam and fixing it does not change the fact it was explained like that in the first place.

If the bet was taken, paying the bet is the only way forward.

I for one will never play at Roobet after a situation like this, how you handle your mistakes says more about a company than anything else.

No, your post does not address the irrefutable points that I made above. HE knew the conditions , HE CHOSE to accept the conditions, HE fucked up and brought into play the conditions HE knew HE agreed to operate under.

Get it now?

He should have chose to go somewhere else.

Give him the amount he over bet on back as we suggested earlier.