[SCAM] Sportsbet.io (Withholding funds) [dispute settled]

[neymarjr12]

Flag supported however I would like neymarjr12 to create a flag type 3 since he is the one who lost the money.

https://i.imgur.com/yIXjOIh.png


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;addflag=832366
Flag type 3
Link this thread as reference of the flag. Of course if you wish.

@LFC_Bitcoin, are you really not biased in your justification? You are asking us (everyone) to believe what sportsbet are saying even while we have a question mark on them now. This is not how bitcoin ideology works. #verify

PS: I believed them (sportsbet.io) blindly when there were no question marks on them.

Did that, thanks for advice! Hope it helps...

[1714729356]

1714729356

[1714729356]

1714729356

[1714729356]

1714729356

[1714729356]

1714729356

[efialtis]

Flag supported however I would like neymarjr12 to create a flag type 3 since he is the one who lost the money.




https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;addflag=832366
Flag type 3
Link this thread as reference of the flag. Of course if you wish.

@LFC_Bitcoin, are you really not biased in your justification? You are asking us (everyone) to believe what sportsbet are saying even while we have a question mark on them now. This is not how bitcoin ideology works. #verify

PS: I believed them (sportsbet.io) blindly when there were no question marks on them.

Did that, thanks for advice! Hope it helps...

Supported! It's pretty sad to see (and also not surprising, unfortunately) some people just can't be unbiased and proving this by opposing the flags. Obviously people wearing their signature and what a coincidence it is that we now see "counter feedbacks" on SB's trust page as well... I am expecting that from random users but not from established ones - yes, everyone can and should have his own opinion but this is getting out of hand and if you don't agree - based on the facts here - don't support but opposing is bad judgement.

Edit: I am not sure if calling out all the sb participants and having them post how happy they are is helping - pretty much the opposite and underlying/confirming one of the points I made in some of my previous posts.

[buwaytress]

I'm not very free right now to write this properly but @neymarjr12 I find it quite strange also that AskGamblers rejected your complaint. I'd like to know how your complaint with SBR goes as well, like SyGambler says and I support the view: SBR is also respected in terms of mediating with bookies (although I personally have not actually met anyone who used them). I think in this case, we should accept (if the complaint is registered successfully) any decision that comes from them.

> > > But before you attempt to reopen complaints with AG or SBR, we could perhaps try and help you with wording your complaint (perhaps the wording of the request got you rejected, because from the response, it could be that they don't understand it?) so that it has a higher chance of success on your 2nd attempt? Could you hold off on doing that for now until we get SBR's decision?

@Royse777 thank you for your words and I think many appreciate what you and others are trying to do here. I know you from the Covid campaign (it is still fresh in my memory=) ) so I trust the intentions are similar. I know you named me and others as possible forum users to look into this case but I hope you agree with me as well that we cannot and should not look into this issue. This now deals with someone's (neymar's) identity and we must do all we can not to jeopardise his privacy.

@efialtis I actually agree with you here on some level. We have got to try to be as objective as possible when dealing with all these different cases. I, for one, have always tried to refrain from getting involved (I mean, we all got so much real life crap don't we!), but here I am somehow! Like you, and like others, I guess we are all so busy with real life! In the case for the flag, however, I have decided to oppose it, but not because I oppose your view, but on the very simple grounds that I believe there is at least some doubt on their guilt and there is no concret proof as I can tell on either party's guilt (In the same way I would not support a flag on neymar right now). I also agree on your point, that we, as a forum, do have a [non-obligatory] duty towards our fellow users, and this forum has, on its own, settled many a dispute. However, now we deal with someone's identity and that is something I feel is a line we are not allowed to cross -- not merely on principle but on legal grounds. Which is why I can only say that AG or SBR or some similar recognised industry mediator can settle this. If we, as a forum, have contributed towards both parties reaching a settlement on that recognised platform, then I feel we'd have done our "jobs".

Let's all keep this thread tidy and on topic so we don't derail the effort. I'm keen to see this resolved as I'm gambling there too!

[kryptqnick]

My experience with Sportsbet.io has been positive. Signature campaign payouts are always there, and I've been betting from time to time on their website with no issues. It seems irrational to me that a reputable website would scam someone. Clearly, it is not in their interest to lose reputation, customers and profits. And Sportsbet.io is ready to return the deposit (minus withdrawals) to the person who claims he was scammed. I understand why Sportsbet.io would not share how they linked the accounts as making this info public would help abusers to find new ways of breaking the rules.
It's a difficult case for sure, but it's not clear to me why neymarjr12 refuses to provide the address for the return of the deposit at least.
I also support the idea of buwaytress about using the reputable third party to close the case.

[gosha@e-coin]

My experience with Sportsbet.io has been positive. Signature campaign payouts are always there, and I've been betting from time to time on their website with no issues. It seems irrational to me that a reputable website would scam someone. Clearly, it is not in their interest to lose reputation, customers and profits. And Sportsbet.io is ready to return the deposit (minus withdrawals) to the person who claims he was scammed. I understand why Sportsbet.io would not share how they linked the accounts as making this info public would help abusers to find new ways of breaking the rules.
It's a difficult case for sure, but it's not clear to me why neymarjr12 refuses to provide the address for the return of the deposit at least.
I also support the idea of buwaytress about using the reputable third party to close the case.

You did not make any deposit on their site. You are only here to defend them.
The fact the moderators from the site are supporting sportsbet.io, says enough.

Here is the yellow card from yesterday, which was suddenly wiped away after (I suspect) a phonecall to one of the mods from bitcointalk.

[Rikafip]

Here is the yellow card from yesterday, which was suddenly wiped away after (I suspect) a phonecall to one of the mods from bitcointalk.

Both flags (Type 1 and Type 3) raised against sportsbet.io are inactive at the moment as they don't have sufficient support. That is why you probably can't see  warning anymore, it is not part of some bitcointalk conspiracy that is going on here, that's just how flag system works. If those flags get enough support, warning will be visible once again.

[efialtis]

Here is the yellow card from yesterday, which was suddenly wiped away after (I suspect) a phonecall to one of the mods from bitcointalk.

Both flags raised against sportsbet.io are inactive at the moment (they don't have sufficient support) that's why you probably can't see  warning anymore.

Yep - exactly, not sufficient support due to an army of sheep opposing - I wonder if leaving negative feedback as well as de-trusting for their (more than questionable) judgement would be appropriate?

[mindrust]

My problem is the constant "x casino is reputable" rhetoric that I see not only here but on other, similar threads. The problem with this idea is that it is a form of denying the antecedent: you are changing the principle, "if they have scammed someone, then they will be marked as scammers," to "if they are not marked as scammers, then they have not scammed someone."

It is called "selective scamming". Your playerbase becomes so big, every once in a while you get to scam 1 person and nobody will notice or give a damn about it.

I don't know if sportsbet.io are scammers, yet but If the player didn't pass the KYC test, how can sportsbet.io prove it?

By sharing his KYC documents with us? That doesn't make sense to me.

There is only two things OP can do.

1- Take his initial deposit and move on.
2- Post his KYC documents here so we can check if they are real or not.

If he goes with the option 2, and we figure out that he is the real deal, sportsbet.io would deserve a flag then.
Note to self: Never ever play on a KYC infested casino.

[dragonvslinux]

This looks like an ugly situation. Sportsbet have made it clear they won't provide any evidence of the user multi-accounting, nor will they explain why the user in question failed KYC, only to trust them that this is case. I can also very much understand users here trusting this service, if they have never had an issue with them in the past and if there aren't any other valid claims against them, but personally I prefer to verify than trust when possible, to avoid a dangerous type of precedent being set; that of immunity from providing any evidence.

I do agree it'd be very strange for Sportsbet to be scamming a user out of 0.3 btc, as it makes no sense in the broader picture. It would only be worthwhile if they were scamming small amounts of btc out of hundreds or thousands of users (instead of 30 or 300 btc out of 1 user for example), but if this was the case, you'd expect to hear a dozen complaints about it. This obviously isn't the case.

None of this really adds up and the reasoning makes very little sense, but this isn't relevant to the evidence provided. Therefore until the matter is resolved, I have added my support for the flag type 3 due to the evidence provided of contractual violation. I've however refrained from supporting the flag type 1, as I'm not convinced this means other users are at risk of losing money yet (generally speaking), as I'm willing to believe this could be a "one-off" for unknown reasons. I do however believe that a user has not been made whole. If evidence is provided that this user was multi-accounting, or as to why they failed their KYC (this easily can be done without disclosing personal information), then I will amend my support appropriately.

I'd recommend any users with a conflict of interest (such as promoters of this service) refrain from supporting/opposing this flag, for obvious reasons, mainly to avoid this thread being derailed into accusing certain users as being paid shills supporting a scam service etc. I think people's opinions from this signature campaign are very valid, but they should also abstain from voting. If there is enough opposition from non-bias DT members against this flag, then it will be inactive.  Best of luck to neymarjr12 in being made whole again.

[mindrust]

they won't provide any evidence of the user multi-accounting, nor will they explain why the user in question failed KYC, only to trust them that this is case.

And how can we know if the OP isn't lying?

[tyKiwanuka]

I can neither support nor oppose the flags.

• I don't think Sportsbet will scam anyone for this amount. There is too much at stake reputation-wise and ~0.4 BTC is nothing for such a company, which is a money printing machine in the end.
• By opening an account, you accept the T&C and I don't see where SB has violated their own T&C.
• I do understand why SB does not want to provide any proof in public, if it could harm them down the road dealing with "cheaters".
• If SB makes kind of an exception here after all the turmoil, this will open Pandoras Box, just like Stake did here imo.
• Otoh I also believe neymarjr12, when he says he has done nothing wrong. Has been very transparent and offered to do "anything"; even to have personal information published.
• Sometimes you maybe multi-account unknowingly. Like you made an account years ago, forgot about it and just opened a new one years later. Since he is being linked to 4 different accounts, I doubt this scenario though.
• IP checks or linking BTC addresses is no definite proof of multi-accounting.

I don't think a third party will be able to solve this case - at least not in favour of neymarjr12, because this would embarrass SB and their detection tools (regarding multi-accounting and KYC checks). This is something for a real court in the end, if OP wants to go that route.

[nutildah]

I wonder if leaving negative feedback as well as de-trusting for their (more than questionable) judgement would be appropriate?

Negative feedback: not appropriate.
Trust exclusion: sure, if you feel that way.

I'm not of the opinion that people should be neg trusted for opposing or supporting flags, especially if they are as murky as these ones.

I do agree it'd be very strange for Sportsbet to be scamming a user out of 0.3 btc, as it makes no sense in the broader picture.

That's why I oppose the type 1 flag... I am more ambivalent on the type 3 flag. Its his word vs. their word. Who are you going to believe? I am inclined to believe the long-standing, multi-million dollar operation.

Of course they are not perfect. This may even be a case of them generating a false positive, but they don't seem to think so, and we really don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise (other than reports from the user).

[AB de Royse777]

There is a flag for a case.
There are accusers and accused party.
There are people who are going to support and oppose the flag based on the evidences provided.

Accuser explained as much as he can and provided possible evidences to support his case and will also go further if needed with anything if he has been asked.
On the other hand the accused party is asking everyone to believe them because they have nice past history, and they are giving back (?) to the community.

Isn't this the summary of the case?

Which side you are going to take?
1. The one explained as much as he can, provided possible evidences to support his case and willing to co-operate with everyone if he has been asked
or
2. The one who is asking to believe their words because they were able to build a nice past history by investing a lot of money in this community.

If you can not take a decision from neutral ground then like a lot of the users in here (There are so many active users who are watching this but not taking any action and not even saying a word), don't support of oppose the flag. No one is going to force you to do that.

@Royse777 thank you for your words and I think many appreciate what you and others are trying to do here. I know you from the Covid campaign (it is still fresh in my memory=) ) so I trust the intentions are similar. I know you named me and others as possible forum users to look into this case but I hope you agree with me as well that we cannot and should not look into this issue. This now deals with someone's (neymar's) identity and we must do all we can not to jeopardise his privacy.

I guess we are all so busy with real life! In the case for the flag, however, I have decided to oppose it

Hey buddy, I am glad that you are not opposing nor supporting the flag anymore. I am pretty sure that you have not made up your mind yet and it's understandable.

Let's get back to the privacy thing. If someone comes to me and ask me to see his ID card, NI, passport then do you think it is jeopardizing his privacy? I am not a law student but from common sense I think it's okay as long as the he gives me his permission to look into his documents. From my observation, I think neymarjr12 is not complaining about it.

There is only two things OP can do.

1- Take his initial deposit and move on.
2- Post his KYC documents here so we can check if they are real or not.

If he goes with the option 2, and we figure out that he is the real deal, sportsbet.io would deserve a flag then.

2. I would not feel comfortable to post someone's ID in public but to some selective users. I have already proposed a private group and if this is really happens then I would suggest neymarjr12 and sportsbet.io to pick some users of their choice who they think are neutral in this case but trying to figure out the truth (not those who are blatantly supporting a case without giving any thought in it)

1. How many times we will handle cases like this that move on with the deposit because this is a multi account or any other shit without providing any satisfactory evidences?

Off-topic: When we are seeing users like swogerino, DeathAngel are opposing the flag then it's pretty clear their reasoning. Coming from the trust history page (feedback sent and received), interestingly there are not many involvements in any scam accusation topic from user DeathAngel and user swogerino , not even a word in this topic too, but they have opposed the flag. At least LFC_Bitcoin was fair - he has his opinions and debates and then made a decision. swogerino and DeathAngel do you see your interests are motivated by money here? Tell me a BIG NO!
You should be more reasonable on your supports or opposes since there are peoples who trust you in the DT network

[neymarjr12]

> > > But before you attempt to reopen complaints with AG or SBR, we could perhaps try and help you with wording your complaint (perhaps the wording of the request got you rejected, because from the response, it could be that they don't understand it?) so that it has a higher chance of success on your 2nd attempt? Could you hold off on doing that for now until we get SBR's decision?

Hi @buwaytress,
Please find below screehshots of my page on AskGamblers, I mostly copy-pasted what I wrote in the description of this thread:
https://ibb.co/SsdYnDL
https://ibb.co/bQS4FgK
https://ibb.co/8rKgtBM
https://ibb.co/WsN6gp7
Yes, I agree that it makes sense to wait for SBR's decision first.

[mindrust]

It is settled then. Pick your guys.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

It is settled then. Pick your guys.

Whoever he picks is going to have to liaise with Steve who runs the sportsbet.io account via PM or something to figure out why that KYC was rejected & how alt accounts may have been connected. Two sides to every story & all that otherwise it’s just a couple of rent-a-cops taking one side of the investigation. If it’s going to be a fair investigation you’ve got to do it properly.

Also threats of negative trust are not cool & is trust abuse. If & a big IF sportsbet have done wrong I’d appreciate some advance warning & proofs before being painted red for doing nothing wrong.

I’ve been on this forum for nearly 6 years, never done anything wrong. I will remove my sig & avatar if there is a wrong doing by sportsbet but until then let this investigation continue.

Good luck to all involved.

[neymarjr12]

I can neither support nor oppose the flags.

• I don't think Sportsbet will scam anyone for this amount. There is too much at stake reputation-wise and ~0.4 BTC is nothing for such a company, which is a money printing machine in the end.
• By opening an account, you accept the T&C and I don't see where SB has violated their own T&C.
• I do understand why SB does not want to provide any proof in public, if it could harm them down the road dealing with "cheaters".
• If SB makes kind of an exception here after all the turmoil, this will open Pandoras Box, just like Stake did here imo.
• Otoh I also believe neymarjr12, when he says he has done nothing wrong. Has been very transparent and offered to do "anything"; even to have personal information published.
• Sometimes you maybe multi-account unknowingly. Like you made an account years ago, forgot about it and just opened a new one years later. Since he is being linked to 4 different accounts, I doubt this scenario though.
• IP checks or linking BTC addresses is no definite proof of multi-accounting.

I don't think a third party will be able to solve this case - at least not in favour of neymarjr12, because this would embarrass SB and their detection tools (regarding multi-accounting and KYC checks). This is something for a real court in the end, if OP wants to go that route.

This is the last step, if nothing else works. Have been discussing my case with several lawyers from Curacao, will go that route in the end if needed.

Regarding the 4 accounts, I really saw them for the first time in my life when received an e-mail from Sportsbet, have no clue whatsoever how they "linked" me with those.

I also think that it starts to look that Sportsbet went too far to confirm that they made a mistake: imagine they (some support guy) didn't look into my KYC properly enough, made a mistake and disabled my account, after that this whole thread started and people start to talk and raise flags, I am ready to share my KYC - now they understand that the only option is to say that they are "100% sure", but cannot disclose anything - this way they try to save their reputation I guess...

[mindrust]

Good luck to all involved.

He should pick you too tbh. If his KYC documents are genuine and we all agree that they are, then sportsbet.io should explain which part of his documents isn't valid.

If his KYC documents were valid, then what was the problem?

edit: Btw I don't want to get picked. Don't pick me.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Good luck to all involved.

He should pick you too tbh. If his KYC documents are genuine and we all agree that they are, then sportsbet.io should explain which part of his documents isn't valid.

If his KYC documents were valid, then what was the problem?

edit: Btw I don't want to get picked. Don't pick me.

I would really like sportsbet.io to comment further to be honest. This whole thing is beginning to piss me off. I just don’t know where this goes from here, it looks like one persons word against another's. There isn’t much support on either flag by anybody reputable (aside from Royse & efilitis) so it seems none of the big hitters are siding with the supposed victim.

We’ll see what happens but I’m getting tired of this thread

[efialtis]

It is settled then. Pick your guys.

Whoever he picks is going to have to liaise with Steve who runs the sportsbet.io account via PM or something to figure out why that KYC was rejected & how alt accounts may have been connected. Two sides to every story & all that otherwise it’s just a couple of rent-a-cops taking one side of the investigation. If it’s going to be a fair investigation you’ve got to do it properly.

Also threats of negative trust are not cool. If & a big IF sportsbet have done wrong I’d appreciate some advance warning & proofs before being painted red for doing nothing wrong.

I’ve been on this forum for nearly 6 years, never done anything wrong. I will remove my sig & avatar if there is a wrong doing by sportsbet but until then let this investigation continue.

Good luck to all involved.

Yeah - painting red - as nutildah stated before - would be wrong, agreed. Detrusting people would not and it's common sense when people who never engage (not even in this case) oppose a flag while they (what a coincidence) wear their sigs & avatars.

As already stated multiple times before with Royse777 making it clear as well - there is a BIG WRONG in supporting anyone just because they state they have their valid reason when the other party is totally transparent and ready for anything.

Peanuts for Sportsbet aren't peanuts for everyone - what we have here is a company that is withholding someone's money stating he broke tos (multi-accounting). They ask him to do KYC, he does and that's still not good enough. You can not just take someone's money WITHOUT giving explanation / providing proof - this is no rocket science?!?!?!

Side note: Getting tired of all this mess, too... Ultimately my actions here are based on how I judge this situation - I realize it's hard for me not to get / take it personal with people I generally respect. I am not winning anything here - the opposite is happening actually. LFC_Bitcoin I'd like a beer or two...