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

[suchmoon]

~

I must admit I only skimmed through the thread so feel free to report me for shitposting if this has been already addressed... but those asking for proof from Sportsbet - what exactly are you expecting? Short of doxing the OP (or even then) I don't see how they can definitively prove that the OP is multiaccounting, particularly if we don't trust them and assume that proof can be fabricated.

For the record, I don't like "no multiple accounts" rules, I think such rules can't be fairly enforced leaving all sorts of loopholes, and there are often good reasons to have multiple accounts. Having said that, if you sign up for a service that has such rules you probably don't have much of a case if you get caught.

The other thing I have some concerns about is the amount of 0.373 BTC. Does that include the 0.1 BTC (IIRC) that Sportsbet offered to pay out?

[PrimeNumber7]

Imagine someone plays poker, assuming that the better player won't bluff!

I was under the impression that bluffing is part of a strategy playing poker.

Sportsbet.io is a business, and like all businesses they have the right to refuse service to anyone, without explanation.  They aren't obligated to explain themselves to neymarjr12, or any of us.  They made a business decision, and having taken the time to explain themselves in this thread should have been enough.  They didn't have to do that, and they don't owe anyone any more than that.

From what I can tell, Sportsbet indicated they were accepting the OP's business, and subsequently decided they would not pay out the OP's winnings after the outcome of the bets were determined. To me, this is different than refusing to do business with the OP.

@neymarjr12, I know you've repeatedly said that you've done nothing wrong, but forgive my skepticism.  I couldn't help but notice your English is fairly good.  Are you sure you didn't violate their TOS?  Lets assume your documents are legit, are you from one of the countries highlighted below?

Spotsbet has indicated they believe the OP was using multiple accounts on their platform.

My question for Sportsbet is, what harm did the OP cause in his alleged multiple accounts? Was he receiving some kind of free bets he was not entitled to on some of the accounts? Was he placing opposing bets on the same game on two accounts?

I am also curious as to how Sportsbet is going to handle the OP's alternate accounts? They indicated above they will allow the OP to withdraw the difference between what he deposited and withdrew on the account he won the coin on. Did the OP's other alleged accounts have net losses, or net winnings? Will you allow the whoever has control of the OP's other alleged accounts withdraw the difference between the amount they deposited and withdrew?

I don't know the answers to the above questions, however if Sporsbet is dudecting net winnings, but not crediting net losses back to the OP's various accounts, it would not be a very good look.

[actmyname]

Imagine someone plays poker, assuming that the better player won't bluff!

I was under the impression that bluffing is part of a strategy playing poker.

Sure, but if we want to look upon this situation as a "game" then you would have two options: scam/not scam. By assuming that a reputable player that is known not to scam (i.e. good prisoner/dove) would never scam, you are creating a strategy that is easily exploitable by those players. Now imagine using circular reasoning to posit that a reputable casino would not scam players.

[PrimeNumber7]

Imagine someone plays poker, assuming that the better player won't bluff!

I was under the impression that bluffing is part of a strategy playing poker.

Sure, but if we want to look upon this situation as a "game" then you would have two options: scam/not scam. By assuming that a reputable player that is known not to scam (i.e. good prisoner/dove) would never scam, you are creating a strategy that is easily exploitable by those players. Now imagine using circular reasoning to posit that a reputable casino would not scam players.

Yea, I get your point

An entity who receives blind trust that they will never steal from customers will end up stealing eventually.

[Little Mouse]

The other thing I have some concerns about is the amount of 0.373 BTC. Does that include the 0.1 BTC (IIRC) that Sportsbet offered to pay out?

0.373 was the balance when sportsbet closed OPs account. Sportsbet offered him 102 mBTC. You may want to read sportsbet response here if you did not- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.msg54840690#msg54840690

[suchmoon]

The other thing I have some concerns about is the amount of 0.373 BTC. Does that include the 0.1 BTC (IIRC) that Sportsbet offered to pay out?

0.373 was the balance when sportsbet closed OPs account. Sportsbet offered him 102 mBTC. You may want to read sportsbet response here if you did not- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.msg54840690#msg54840690

I did, thus the question since I couldn't see those amounts put together in a coherent manner to make it clear what we're talking about.

So the flag is basically invalid because the dispute is about 0.271 BTC, not 0.373 BTC as claimed in the OP. I could understand a small discrepancy but I don't think we should be supporting "written contract" flags overstated by 37%. There's probably more reason to oppose the flag than support it based on the amount alone, i.e. the claim is "at least partially false".

[DireWolfM14]

The other thing I have some concerns about is the amount of 0.373 BTC. Does that include the 0.1 BTC (IIRC) that Sportsbet offered to pay out?

0.373 was the balance when sportsbet closed OPs account. Sportsbet offered him 102 mBTC. You may want to read sportsbet response here if you did not- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.msg54840690#msg54840690

I did, thus the question since I couldn't see those amounts put together in a coherent manner to make it clear what we're talking about.

So the flag is basically invalid because the dispute is about 0.271 BTC, not 0.373 BTC as claimed in the OP. I could understand a small discrepancy but I don't think we should be supporting "written contract" flags overstated by 37%. There's probably more reason to oppose the flag than support it based on the amount alone, i.e. the claim is "at least partially false".

That's my understanding as well.  The amount they offered him (which he has until now refused) is the sum of his deposits minus his withdrawals.  In effect he would be getting a full refund, and they would go about their business, quite literally.  Somehow it's not ringing the "scam alarm" to me.

[PrimeNumber7]

The amount they offered him (which he has until now refused) is the sum of his deposits minus his withdrawals.  In effect he would be getting a full refund, and they would go about their business, quite literally.  Somehow it's not ringing the "scam alarm" to me.

This is not my understanding. The OP placed bets with his deposit, that Sportsbet appeared to have accepted that turned out to be winning bets. The net winnings are excluded from what is being offered to the OP.

[DireWolfM14]

The amount they offered him (which he has until now refused) is the sum of his deposits minus his withdrawals.  In effect he would be getting a full refund, and they would go about their business, quite literally.  Somehow it's not ringing the "scam alarm" to me.

This is not my understanding. The OP placed bets with his deposit, that Sportsbet appeared to have accepted that turned out to be winning bets. The net winnings are excluded from what is being offered to the OP.

I understand that philosophy, but we don't know the whole story, and Sportsbet.io isn't obligated to disclose it.  In fact, considering what it would take to prove their suspicions to us, they are very likely obligated NOT to disclose it.

What if the OP is from the US, or another probated location?  Do you suggest they should break the law, and pay the winnings?  We don't know what evidence they have, and I'm not trusting a bitter newbie over an established business.

[notblox1]

However, to be extra sure in this case we also asked this person to undergo KYC, which was not passed.

Steve said that KYC provided by OP was not passed, and he is not willing to share more details.
I wonder if we can share some basic information like OP country of residence and why they refused his KYC application.
Maybe they can have Live video session with him.

For now I will not support or oppose flag as I have my suspicions after reading all and looking at images that OP provided.

[PrimeNumber7]

The amount they offered him (which he has until now refused) is the sum of his deposits minus his withdrawals.  In effect he would be getting a full refund, and they would go about their business, quite literally.  Somehow it's not ringing the "scam alarm" to me.

This is not my understanding. The OP placed bets with his deposit, that Sportsbet appeared to have accepted that turned out to be winning bets. The net winnings are excluded from what is being offered to the OP.

I understand that philosophy, but we don't know the whole story, and Sportsbet.io isn't obligated to disclose it.  In fact, considering what it would take to prove their suspicions to us, they are very likely obligated NOT to disclose it.

What if the OP is from the US, or another probated location?  Do you suggest they should break the law, and pay the winnings?  We don't know what evidence they have, and I'm not trusting a bitter newbie over an established business.

I would be willing to give Sportsbet the benefit of the doubt that the OP was multi-accounting. It is not clear if this was an innocent mistake on the part of the OP (for example creating an account in 2017 when he wanted to bet on the outcome of a game, and forgetting about it), or if the multiple accounts the OP allegedly had actually caused Sportsbet some type of harm. This is why I posed the below questions above:

My question for Sportsbet is, what harm did the OP cause in his alleged multiple accounts? Was he receiving some kind of free bets he was not entitled to on some of the accounts? Was he placing opposing bets on the same game on two accounts?

I am also curious as to how Sportsbet is going to handle the OP's alternate accounts? They indicated above they will allow the OP to withdraw the difference between what he deposited and withdrew on the account he won the coin on. Did the OP's other alleged accounts have net losses, or net winnings? Will you allow the whoever has control of the OP's other alleged accounts withdraw the difference between the amount they deposited and withdrew?

I don't know the answers to the above questions, however if Sporsbet is dudecting net winnings, but not crediting net losses back to the OP's various accounts, it would not be a very good look.

As far as I am aware, Sportsbet has not articulated the harm the OP caused in having alledged multiple accounts.

Sportsbet has not alleged the OP is from a 'prohibited location' and as such, my assumption is this is not the case.

[Little Mouse]

Somehow it's not ringing the "scam alarm" to me.

May be not.
When you join sportsbet(any site), you are making an agreement with the site. You also have some implied agreement.
Direct agreement with the site- Terms and Conditions of sportsbet
Implied agreement- Sportsbet will not scam me, they will be fair, they will send me withdraw as faster as possible etc etc and showing a cause to an accusation against you also because you know sportsbet is not like some other so called casino. So, with many other implied agreement, I would say transparency of the site is another.
If you only being accused of multi accounting but there is no proof of how you are connected to other accounts will be kind of breaking an agreement in my opinion.
Anyway, the scam thing seems to be controversial here. Looking for more explanation from sportsbet. They must be transparent.
Couple of weeks ago when a guy claimed to win 171 BTC in bitcasino, many people supported, congratulated him. But when bitcasino shared all the information with greater transparency, everyone trusted them and there was no more question.

[dragonvslinux]

So the flag is basically invalid because the dispute is about 0.271 BTC, not 0.373 BTC as claimed in the OP. I could understand a small discrepancy but I don't think we should be supporting "written contract" flags overstated by 37%. There's probably more reason to oppose the flag than support it based on the amount alone, i.e. the claim is "at least partially false".

Damn, you're right. Forgot about the offering for a third of it. Point well made, support withdrawn for the type 3 until post is corrected.

I must admit I only skimmed through the thread so feel free to report me for shitposting if this has been already addressed... but those asking for proof from Sportsbet - what exactly are you expecting? Short of doxing the OP (or even then) I don't see how they can definitively prove that the OP is multiaccounting, particularly if we don't trust them and assume that proof can be fabricated.

Sportsbet.io should still privately to the client or even publicly state why the client failed the KYC procedure, while protecting the clients privacy, as they have done so previously:

Why did the Client fail the KYC procedure?
[details]

Let the KYC from third-parties happen. Ideally via PGP though.

[suchmoon]

Sportsbet.io should still privately to the client or even publicly state why the client failed the KYC procedure, while protecting the clients privacy, as they have done so previously:

I don't know if that really can prove or disprove multi-accounting. The client can be a jerk about it and say Sportsbet is lying even if the proof is correct. It's not something that can be verified independently (e.g. on the blockchain) so basically in order to use is as proof you have to trust Sportsbet anyway.

[mindrust]

What is the point of asking for KYC if they are not going to approve them? (Assuming his docs are legit)

The way I see it they couldn't find any other way out and weaponizing KYC which is a flag deserving behavior.

They have the right to refuse service but that's not how you do it. Be straight.

If they had done all those without asking for KYC it would have been ok then. By asking for KYC they gave the OP a false hope. (violated the contract > flag) Because they weren't going to accept his documents anyway. (Again, assuming his docs were real and he is not lying)

Wouldn't you be mad if your own KYC had failed and they refused to tell you why? I would.

*
I have sent my KYC documents to binance before. I scanned them an old ass driving license and they refused. They told me that the guy in my selfie photo and my driving license photo don't look alike.   (many years between the two shots)  Valid reason. I accepted their reasoning even though I think they both me. I don't know what would have happened if I decided to send them my actual passport scan but at least I know where I failed in the first step, because they explained it to me.

[neymarjr12]

This whole business is really silly.  Who's to say the documents aren't stolen and have been passed around?  How would any one on neymarjr12's list be able to determine that?  @Royse777, would you accept this users documents in lieu of collateral for a loan?  If not, then they shouldn't be enough to condemn a legitimate business.

I can do video confirmation, I can get my documents verified by the notary - is good enough for you to determine that my documents are not stolen and not passed around?

@neymarjr12, I know you've repeatedly said that you've done nothing wrong, but forgive my skepticism.  I couldn't help but notice your English is fairly good.  Are you sure you didn't violate their TOS?  Lets assume your documents are legit, are you from one of the countries highlighted below?

No, I am not from a Restricted Jurisdiction, and it is so funny that you base your skepticism (I guess, you can't come up with anything else to support your advertiser) on a level of written English  I'm using a translator if you are interested, so it is not fairly good at all.

[mindrust]

This is livecoin all over again.

[AB de Royse777]

Information about detecting multi-accounts are easily available online. There are no such hidden technology. I have done some study since it seems I am heavily involved in this case.
1. Programmable tools/methods/studies:
- IP Addresses
- HTTP Referrer
- Cookies & Tracking Scripts
- Super Cookies. Example https://samy.pl/evercookie/
- User Agent
- Browser Fingerprinting. Example https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Ref: https://www.howtogeek.com/115483/htg-explains-learn-how-websites-are-tracking-you-online/

But all have their weakness. So one can not be 100% sure if someone is multi-accounting. Here is a good read: https://superuser.com/questions/1036422/how-can-a-website-recognise-a-multiple-account-usage

As you have noted, all of these methods have one main drawback: they are a PITA for people legitimately sharing computers and other devices. If you're designing a service that relies on users having only one account, then instead of preventing multi-accounts, design it in such a way that makes having multiple accounts pointless. This site is one example of such service: people gain reputation for doing things that are beneficial for the community. Newly created account has low reputation and is severely limited. As it gets reputation points, some capabilities are unlocked (eg. commenting everywhere) and user gets some bonuses (limited ads).

I am really interested to know what determines sportsbet that OP is multi accounting, and they are 100% sure. I do not find a rocket science method/study except the above mentioned references.

2. Then we have KYC which needs human involvements (with automated image reading/scanning and cross-checking with the central database provided by the authority like they do when we pass immigration)
An online KYC involves, cross-referencing name, address, city and other details using ID card (driving license, passport), utility bills, bank statements etc.

I am really interested to know which information of the KYC determines that OP is multi accounting and KYC isn't passed?

3. Then we have blockchain evidences and other payment systems. We can track the deposit/withdrawal references for both blockchain and traditional methods.

Weeks ago there was a case against bitcasino and Karl came up with some solid information that was undeniable so it was accepted by most of us without further questioning. What happened in this case?

Sportsbet.io should still privately to the client or even publicly state why the client failed the KYC procedure, while protecting the clients privacy, as they have done so previously:

I don't know if that really can prove or disprove multi-accounting. The client can be a jerk about it and say Sportsbet is lying even if the proof is correct. It's not something that can be verified independently (e.g. on the blockchain) so basically in order to use is as proof you have to trust Sportsbet anyway.

Would we say the same if this was fairly new sportsbook or if the claim came up from a very well established forum member?
What would we do if some reputable members who play poker regularly in SwC files a similar case against a reputable bookie? Which side we will trust?

This is livecoin all over again.

Livecoin failed to be transparent or a user failed to bring enough proof?

[mindrust]

This is livecoin all over again.

Livecoin failed to be transparent or a user failed to bring enough proof?

I believe it was similar. See it yourself if you have free time.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.0
http://archive.is/T2iN8

A tldr-like post of mine from that topic:

I don't understand why is livecoin making a big fuss. Unlock his account, Give his money back, problem solved and everybody is happy. What's so hard about it? Did he steal anything from the exchange? Is his money originating from hackers/terrorists? If that's a "no" then unlock his account.

Also you can't just silence people by weaponizing your ToS, that's not what ToS is for.

I get it, it is there to protect the exchange but what about the customer?

I also must add, livecoin was a fine exchange up until that one incident. Things didn't go well only with one guy and they got painted bloody red all over, flagged, tarred and feathered. We will see how this one will go.
(I removed my support for their flag as soon as they made izoom whole again -they did, didn't they?-, but they still flash red. Apparently, once a criminal always a criminal the others think)


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=462136

[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.

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.

I honestly don't know why you are so sure that I am lying about my betting on this website occasionally since this kind of information is verifiable, and it won't look nice that you were just claiming something with no evidence. So as a matter of fact, I did make deposits there.

I don't think that scamming is okay and would not work for a company that is scamming people. It's just morally wrong. I do continue to support them now because I really don't think that they would scam someone. If this was some huge jackpot, I would understand why a company would want not to pay it out (this happened with Betcoin.ag a while ago). But regardless of moral traits of the owners (I do believe they're good people for my own reasons, but it's important for the sake of the argument to show that even if one is not inclined to believe that, Sportsbet still wouldn't want to scam a person), refusing to pay out such a small (on a scale of a casino's financial operations) amount of money is impractical, as the loss of reputation would result in financial losses that are seriously bigger than less than 0.4 BTC we're talking about here.  So for this reason I think it makes sense to give them the presumption of innocence in this case.