Roobet.com not paying on their mistakes

[cryptofrka]

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

Get it now?

The fact you are calling your opinion irrefutable is all the proof I need to not discuss this with you any further.

I do not care at all what happens here, I just provided my opinion about a really borderline policy which is shady enough to at least discuss it and make everybody aware of it.

I'm not placing any bets there, period. And that's the last I will say about this topic.

[1714470398]

1714470398

[1714470398]

1714470398

[1714470398]

1714470398

[1714470398]

1714470398

[1714470398]

1714470398

[1714470398]

1714470398

[Welsh]

I know a few users have stated that this is a shady practice or borderline. Well, most gambling sites have it in their terms that if a bug has been found whether it is known by them or not that the bet would be refunded, and not paid out. As Suchmoon points out Roobet also has this written in their terms. Gambling websites are perfectly in their right to wave off any bet that was the result of a bug within the system, and refund the initial bet amount. Instead, Roobet actually paid to the maximum win which I think is the best possible scenario in this.

You could argue that this is common sense to not allow users to bet if the amount goes over the maximum win. However, several bigger gambling sites allow you to do this. If I recall correctly Skybet  used to have a cap of 100k on certain sports. The return will always show that you are going to win just 100k, and not over which seems to be the only difference here. For example, if you were betting £20, and it displays the maximum bet is 100k you can still bet more than that on their website. So, in theory you could bet £25, but it still displays the win amount to be 100k.

The only difference I can gather from this discussion is on Roobet it displays that you'll win more. However, if they have stated that their maximum bet is x amount then the normal process that other gambling sites would have taken would have been to apologize, and refund the original bet amount rather than paying out for the win. This is subjective, and can sometimes lead to users feeling outraged, but what has happened here is one of the better outcomes of this situation as per their terms which you agree to when signing up, and using the website they don't actually have to pay out if the bet is subject to a bug of the system.

It is an annoyance for the customer, but if the customer knows about this in advance, but still bets knowing they would only be paid the max bet amount then that isn't any better than a gambling site which has it in their terms that they will only pay out to the maximum bet amount.

If you had lost the bet amount then that would have been a different circumstance, and would have been a even bigger shitstorm, because if you knew that you could potentially get that bet refunded, because of their policy of only allowing a certain amount to be won then the gambling site could suggest that you purposely bet over the amount just in case you lost, and have the potential to get a refund, and not lose any money. I'm not suggesting that is/was the intention, but that would have been a moral debate that I think a lot of users would have been split on, because there's two sides of the story.

Roobet have now fixed it according to this discussion so this can't happen in the future so something good has come out of this discussion at least. You have been paid to the maximum win amount, and Roobet have at least honored that where other gambling sites with less integrity would have likely refunded it.

[The-One-Above-All]

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

Get it now?

The fact you are calling your opinion irrefutable is all the proof I need to not discuss this with you any further.

I do not care at all what happens here, I just provided my opinion about a really borderline policy which is shady enough to at least discuss it and make everybody aware of it.

I'm not placing any bets there, period. And that's the last I will say about this topic.

Nice strawman attempt...

Which POINTS do you want to refute ... HE knew the conditions , HE accepted the conditions, HE fucked up and brought into play the conditions HE knew HE agreed to operate under.

All the proof you need hey lol

[suchmoon]

I know a few users have stated that this is a shady practice or borderline. Well, most gambling sites have it in their terms that if a bug has been found whether it is known by them or not that the bet would be refunded, and not paid out. As Suchmoon points out Roobet also has this written in their terms. Gambling websites are perfectly in their right to wave off any bet that was the result of a bug within the system, and refund the initial bet amount. Instead, Roobet actually paid to the maximum win which I think is the best possible scenario in this.

Actually roobet didn't admit it was a bug but fixed the non-existent bug anyway. And the max win was not displayed if you didn't click on an obscure icon, so basically you could enter $500 and click 36x without being aware of any limitations - what would you expect to happen? In case of a win I would expect to get $18k. So I strongly disagree with roobet's attempts to have their cake and eat it too. They need to be either 100% transparent about limits without digging around and without needing a calculator, or have strict limitations in software, or both.

Legally they're right but I don't think yahoo was planning to sue them anyway. Legal doesn't mean honest however.

[Welsh]

Actually roobet didn't admit it was a bug but fixed the non-existent bug anyway. And the max win was not displayed if you didn't click on an obscure icon, so basically you could enter $500 and click 36x without being aware of any limitations - what would you expect to happen? In case of a win I would expect to get $18k. So I strongly disagree with roobet's attempts to have their cake and eat it too. They need to be either 100% transparent about limits without digging around and without needing a calculator, or have strict limitations in software, or both.

Legally they're right but I don't think yahoo was planning to sue them anyway. Legal doesn't mean honest however.

I've not used roobet or any gambling site for that matter for a long time. I've only picked up information from this thread, and some of it was based on my interpretation of that. I was definitely speaking from a more legal point of view, and more objective point of view. Morally, I'd rather not get into it as I don't know the specifics. For example, you mentioned that the icon was small, and looking at the screenshot it is fairly small. However, how are we to determine what would be big enough. Ideally, it needs to be in plain view rather than being hidden behind an icon that you have to click or hover over.

So, my interpretation of this whole scenario was wrong. Let me be clear, the win amount displayed once betting the amount was displaying wins over $2k? I thought it may have been similar to that of skybet (at least how it used to be) in that once betting you could go beyond the maximum return bet, however it would always display the absolute maximum you could earn. If, its the other way around then is it a little more morally misguided.

[suchmoon]

So, my interpretation of this whole scenario was wrong. Let me be clear, the win amount displayed once betting the amount was displaying wins over $2k? I thought it may have been similar to that of skybet (at least how it used to be) in that once betting you could go beyond the maximum return bet, however it would always display the absolute maximum you could earn. If, its the other way around then is it a little more morally misguided.

I'm not sure but I think the max win display would always show $2000 even if you entered a larger bet, and Yahoo never was shown an $11000 win. IMO that's the only technicality that keeps roobet from being an outright scam in this scenario.

correction: yahoo says he was shown the large win so yeah...

In the box I just showed you up above $11,662 and some change was shown won.

[yahoo62278]

So, my interpretation of this whole scenario was wrong. Let me be clear, the win amount displayed once betting the amount was displaying wins over $2k? I thought it may have been similar to that of skybet (at least how it used to be) in that once betting you could go beyond the maximum return bet, however it would always display the absolute maximum you could earn. If, its the other way around then is it a little more morally misguided.

I'm not sure but I think the max win display would always show $2000 even if you entered a larger bet, and Yahoo never was shown an $11000 win. IMO that's the only technicality that keeps roobet from being an outright scam in this scenario.

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

[suchmoon]

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

I was talking (and I think Welsh was too) about the win amount. Were you ever shown that you could or did win $11+ thousand or was it your calculation based on your bet times 36?

[yahoo62278]

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

I was talking (and I think Welsh was too) about the win amount. Were you ever shown that you could or did win $11+ thousand or was it your calculation based on your bet times 36?

In the box I just showed you up above $11,662 and some change was shown won.

[suchmoon]

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

I was talking (and I think Welsh was too) about the win amount. Were you ever shown that you could or did win $11+ thousand or was it your calculation based on your bet times 36?

In the box I just showed you up above $11,662 and some change was shown won.

Ok, I take it back then. That is more fucked up than I thought. I'm starting to think you have grounds for a flag.

[efialtis]

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

I was talking (and I think Welsh was too) about the win amount. Were you ever shown that you could or did win $11+ thousand or was it your calculation based on your bet times 36?

In the box I just showed you up above $11,662 and some change was shown won.

Ok, I take it back then. That is more fucked up than I thought. I'm starting to think you have grounds for a flag.

LOL... that wasnt clear to me either... Man, THEN all this is a big farce really and even though it doesnt change that legal shit, its completely unprofessional, lame and pathetic. How the fuck do you explain a notification that your player won $11k and then say "well, sorry dude, max payout is $2k".  As a side note, this could get interesting even from a legal perspective...

[suchmoon]

LOL... that wasnt clear to me either... Man, THEN all this is a big farce really and even though it doesnt change that legal shit, its completely unprofessional, lame and pathetic. How the fuck do you explain a notification that your player won $11k and then say "well, sorry dude, max payout is $2k".  As a side note, this could get interesting even from a legal perspective...

Unfortunately legally the TOS trumps anything that might or might not be shown on the screen to the player I think. Particularly the clause about software errors. Unless there are laws in their jurisdiction that would invalidate such TOS clauses. But still showing a win and not paying it out is a shitty thing to do regardless of CYA TOS.

[Yabes]

LOL... that wasnt clear to me either... Man, THEN all this is a big farce really and even though it doesnt change that legal shit, its completely unprofessional, lame and pathetic. How the fuck do you explain a notification that your player won $11k and then say "well, sorry dude, max payout is $2k".  As a side note, this could get interesting even from a legal perspective...

Unfortunately legally the TOS trumps anything that might or might not be shown on the screen to the player I think. Particularly the clause about software errors. Unless there are laws in their jurisdiction that would invalidate such TOS clauses. But still showing a win and not paying it out is a shitty thing to do regardless of CYA TOS.

I would have lost the bet and the casino would have smiled.

[yahoo62278]

Let's be rational for a minute, did they accept the bet? Did they show an 11k win? Did they pay the win? Are they still communicating? Have they offered a reasonable solution?

The answers are yes, yes, no, no, no.

They have since fixed the bug that they refuse to call a bug from what they posted in their Announcement thread. I have not played there since they complained that I was still playing there.

When I spoke with another site owner and asked how they would approach a situation like this and their answer was pay up and move on, it really showed me the difference between 1 site vs the other.

When you read over this thread, you have a large group saying pay that man his money. You have a smaller group saying pay that man something. You have an even smaller group saying give him a bounty and be done with it. Then you have the smallest group of all saying ToS say refund the bet and be done.

I could find ways to agree with every single opinion in this thread. So many valid points have been brought up. I would say the best solution would be to offer a bug bounty and move on, but the last bug bounty they offered was a whopping 25$ which is not really a bug bounty at all. It's a cheap thank you. Most sites who are being saved potentially thousands of dollars offer .250-1btc for bug bounties from what I've seen in the past.

These guys are a new site and i'm sure paying out a large sum like that would be a big hit to them. I'm not trying to kill the casino. Any new businesses for BTC are good as long as they operate correctly. For the most part, they have started out ok.

Situation that has been handled poorly from both sides and likely damaged the reputation due to their side trying to ignore the situation. It could have and should have been handled differently by both sides. I'm still here but they decided responding was not an issue.

It's the holidays, the money would be nice to have. I also see their side as well. My initial goal was not to try and ruin the site, I even said the site is fair to play at as long as you pay attention to your bets. Haven't tried calling them an outright scam at all. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I would like to see this resolved but doesn't look like that's going to happen.

[eddie13]

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.

Really?
Polo has screwed me many times lagging closing a margin position when volume hits the fan.. You mean if that didn't sell/buy immediately when I hit the button as usual I should get my BTC back?
As a matter of fact, I think I have been banned from the polo trollbox more than once for merely complaining about these issues..

I have always chalked this up as "That what you get for trading an exchange"..

It happens on many popular exchanges.. I think I recall news stories about everyone bitching about exchanges crashing during the big dump from $20K, and their sells not going through, stoplosses not popping..
I'm pretty sure they all got what they got and that was the end of it..

If you are setting up a limit order on an exchange and screw up in the boxes, miss a decimal anywhere, your bankroll could be by by..
I recall a few sensational obvious misclicks, we could all see low liquidity shitcoins sent to the moon by an order of magnitude on the charts, and I have never seen a misclick trade get rolled back by a legitimate exchange..

What are they going to do? Take back someone else's legitimate order fill because you screwed up?

This is difficult because many say it should not be possible to place a ridiculous order, one obviously insane like betting more than you can win, but their is nothing stopping you on an exchange from slapping the books 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher than you intended because you filled the price boxes out wrong..
Better look twice, like sending a TX..

I don't know much about casinos but I have made my fair share of misclicks on exchanges (filling out the sell side rather than buy side for example), and have ate them all.. If I could have all them misclick losses back, it would be nice..


I think if a casino has a clear disclaimer that "You can bet more than you can win!!", they are not necessarily a scam for allowing you to be an idiot...
Just as on an exchange, all you are doing is taking advantage of the greater idiot..

If I put up a "casino" with the odds of "Bet 1BTC and 1/100 chance you are returned 2BTC", am I a scammer, or are players just idiots?

If I put up a "casino" and say "Bet whatever you want but you can only win 2000", am I a scammer for allowing you to bet like an idiot?

On the exchange market you just thank the lesser idiots for their money..


I do not have a clear opinion on this case because I am not sure to what degree the casino culture etiquette unusually enforces protecting idiots from casinos that allow them to make ridiculous bets, but exchanges I am used to will surely let you make ridiculous trades, misclick or not..

Should a casino not allow you to make an absolutely stupid bet?
Like betting against Trump 2020 for example? (Ha Ha I Joke)

[amishmanish]

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

I was talking (and I think Welsh was too) about the win amount. Were you ever shown that you could or did win $11+ thousand or was it your calculation based on your bet times 36?

In the box I just showed you up above $11,662 and some change was shown won.

Ok, I take it back then. That is more fucked up than I thought. I'm starting to think you have grounds for a flag.

@Suchmoon, sorry to say this but that is just more of your confirmation bias that has been visible in this thread since you first responded. You are hell-bent on the technicality, completely ignoring the fact that OP has said from the beginning that he "knew the limit" but he "misclicked". If it was a misclick, quite clearly he wasn't hoping to get (353 X 36).

I would give the benefit of doubt to a user who was, say, actually hoping to get 11K by risking 353 USD. How does that come into picture when OP has said:

• He knew 2k USD was the max limit
• He misclicked which means he wasn't intending to bet the whole amount in the first place

In my opinion, the grouse is that even though he won, he isn't getting as much money as he possibly can. Either by holding the casino accountable on a technicality, or by them offering to meet him halfway. That is why I see this thread and the flag as little more than "persuasion".

Like someone said in the beginning, INTENT MATTERS. While you want to stick to the technicality, you (and a lot of others) are willing to ignore the grey area of INTENT. This would not have been the case if the tables were turned. If Roobet has been an established Sig campaign payer and a newbie had come up with the same "misclick", everyone would have been telling them "Dude you won 2K USD, Don't get greedy, I am sure that 2K USD is like a 1000 days of lunch-money for you". We would also be having a lot of virtue-signalling and uncomfortable questioning about the circumstances of said misclick.

I am interested to know what you make out from these two statement:

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

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.

If i started a website as a developer with my own time and money in this increasingly getting desolate corner of bitcoin ecosystem (where people seem to think that adoption will come from casinos and mixers), had someone trustworthy know about the max bet, and then have the same person come back and try to extort, I'll be salty as fuck. Especially when i have been respecting the said person because apparently they have a reputation.

OP has pointed out that they are not responding. Well, they have responded initially and its quite possible that they are waiting to see which way the wind blows. Reputations can get shattered in an instant here if you are up against BCT's "Big boy's club".

PS: I have been going on and on about this "INTENT" thing in my previous replies. I have also been pointing out how this space is increasingly getting sycophantic and hierarchic where people don't want to rub the established members the wrong way. Nobody of any reputation seem to want to share thoughts on this. Am i the only one who is feeling this way??? Somebody please let me know if that is the case.

I wish someone like @QuestionAuthority were here. I am glad that at least @TMAN said that its a 50-50.

[suchmoon]

Like someone said in the beginning, INTENT MATTERS. While you want to stick to the technicality, you (and a lot of others) are willing to ignore the grey area of INTENT.

I'm not ignoring the intent but what was the intent really? Do you think yahoo62278 intentionally clicked 36x for a chance to stick it to roobet? That sounds very very unlikely given the probabilities involved.

On the flip side, roobet's admission that the game was broken, the were fixing it, but didn't disable it, sounds quite negligent.

The bottom line for me is that yahoo62278 bet money, was shown an $11k+ win (took me 4 pages to figure that out LOL), but didn't get it. That's somewhere between a shitty and a scammy casino, I'm still deciding which one it's closer to. If he hadn't been shown more than $2k then I'd be leaning towards "shitty".

I don't know why you're so worked up about tangential stuff like "big boys club" or whatever. I don't owe anything to yahoo62278 and he doesn't owe anything to me and it seems that our opinions don't even quite match on this subject. If he gets pissed at me or vice versa we'll be fine I think. Maybe you should leave that out of the discussion and focus on the facts.

Should a casino not allow you to make an absolutely stupid bet?

It would be for casino's own benefit to make sure that the software is bulletproof and doesn't actually allow stupid wins, even if it allows stupid bets.

Like betting against Trump 2020 for example? (Ha Ha I Joke)

We'll see who has the last ha ha

[amishmanish]

Like someone said in the beginning, INTENT MATTERS. While you want to stick to the technicality, you (and a lot of others) are willing to ignore the grey area of INTENT.

I'm not ignoring the intent but what was the intent really? Do you think yahoo62278 intentionally clicked 36x for a chance to stick it to roobet? That sounds very very unlikely given the probabilities involved.

My thinking on this goes something like this. Quoting from another reply:

Imagine if you knew beforehand that the site has a bug whereby it will accept the over bets as well as display the X36 winnings.  (Which yahoo knew). What stops you from deciding to throw in a bunch of calculated risks to "exploit" the bug and then later claim to have been wronged??

The website and yahoo were on very collaborative terms post launch. This could have gone many ways if they had a strategy to mitigate this. Including this being considered a "foul" or "disqualifying" move of some sort and him just getting refunded despite hitting. I said in the first reply itself, that thinking along these lines is a subjective judgement. (Like what if a newbie said the same thing?) Also, thinking from the viewpoint of the developers behind this.

If i started a website as a developer with my own time and money in this increasingly getting desolate corner of bitcoin ecosystem (where people seem to think that adoption will come from casinos and mixers), had someone trustworthy know about the max bet, and then have the same person come back and try to extort, I'll be salty as fuck. Especially when i have been respecting the said person because apparently they have a reputation.

The bottom line for me is that yahoo62278 bet money, was shown an $11k+ win (took me 4 pages to figure that out LOL), but didn't get it.

Doesn't it matter that he already know that the 11K WOULD NOT pay out, Even if it showed that?? Despite that, he raised a flag on them. If its completely about being an upright user and holding the casino to "technical standards" then shouldn't we just rely on the TOS for that?

If he hadn't been shown more than $2k then I'd be leaning towards "shitty".

Its not like the potential win is shown beforehand. I don't know what are the implicit norms when compared with other sites. Max win does show when you hover on that ? symbol beside "bet amount".

I don't know why you're so worked up about tangential stuff like "big boys club" or whatever.

I know its not a popular opinion. Its only natural that there is groupism. Yet, when post after post refuses to acknowledge that Yahoo as a user was well aware of this. He got paid 2K. Good for him. Yet, raising a flag like this isn't entirely justified. And IF it is for the benefit of the community, then he shouldn't make it about him getting paid. On a forum like this, people with influence should be held to better standards and, ideally, vice-versa. I have ranted about this in my earlier replies too and I get it that its more of an ideological debate. And its not just groupism that I mentioned.

[Above-Crypto-Hunter]

Sadly, OP has NO case.

The onus of responsibility rests firmly with the customer to ensure that he/she stays within the limits outlined below.

https://support.paddypower.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/45/~/what-is-the-maximum-payout%3F

What Happens If You Exceed Maximum Payout Limits?
If you place a wager larger than the table's maximum payout limit and the dealer fails to stop you, your winnings will be capped at a certain figure. For example, if you wager 250 C$ on a single number and the maximum payout limit is 7,000 Canadian Dollars that's all you'll receive even though your actual winnings should be 8,750 C$.

Most players would still be over the moon making 7,000 C$ on a single spin, but the point remains that you should watch out for maximum payout limits so you don't end up throwing any of your money away.

https://www.onlineroulette.ca/guides/maximum-payouts.php

IBAS believes that bookmakers could do more to prevent the acceptance of bets where the maximum possible payout is higher than the bookmaker is willing to pay. This could involve using computer software to highlight online bets that exceed the cap or betting shop tills to flag up where a football or other coupon bet risks breaching the company’s limits. However, those requirements are not written into the law and if the bookmaker is acting lawfully our Adjudication Panel may not feel empowered to rule against them.

https://www.ibas-uk.com/examples/betting/maximum-payouts/

You can find more information about cases like this by a simple google search.

where is my long sentence¿

[mosprognoz]

Here are some quotes from their TOS:

CHANGES TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE

We may revise and update these Terms of service from time to time in our sole discretion. All changes are effective immediately when we post them, and apply to all access to and use of the website thereafter. However, any changes to the dispute resolution provisions set forth in Governing Law and Jurisdiction will not apply to any disputes for which the parties have actual notice on or prior to the date the change is posted on the website.

Your continued use of the website following the posting of revised Terms of service means that you accept and agree to the changes. You are expected to check this page from time to time so you are aware of any changes, as they are binding on you.

APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISDICTION

These ToS are governed by the Laws of Curaçao and parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Curaçao courts.

They can do whatever they want and whenever they want. And Laws of Curaçao is a complete joke.

Use reputable bookies.

Pinnacle

Bet365

Williamhill

europebet.com (Only Skrill and netletter payments) There is no way you will have any problems with them and the soccer markets are huge.

NOTE. I am not advertising mentioned bookies in any way.