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

[drexlas]

look how much victims this scam bookie make. why are they still here on the forum and active. away with them
every bookie has some problems with customers but sportsbetio and their casino site scams one after another

[1715009588]

1715009588

[yahoo62278]

look how much victims this scam bookie make. why are they still here on the forum and active. away with them
every bookie has some problems with customers but sportsbetio and their casino site scams one after another

I cannot confirm they're actually a scam at this point, but I do think the multi account rule needs some lee way.  Depends on the abuse IMO

[PrimeNumber7]

KYC

IMO, a lot of the time when a bitcoin casino is asking a customer to go through KYC, the purpose is to get their identity so the casino can go to law enforcement about actual cheating, such as hacking, or knowing the 'secret' seed in advance.

SB should disclose why they were asking the OP for his KYC information. They should also clarify as to what basis they are saying that the OP "did not pass" KYC....

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".

SB has not paid the OP the 0.101 BTC they are offering.

Most of the time, with mortgages and with rent, your lender or landlord will not accept less than the total amount due. A tenant or borrower offering a partial payment may be rejected, and this offer will not make a person owe a lower amount. The OP has not accepted a payment in the lower amount that SB is offering, and as such, he is still allegedly owed the full 0.373 BTC.

[asche]

@neymarjr12 do you mind changing the amount scammed to the difference between what they are offering and the full amount? .271 BTC if I'm not mistaken?

I see the multiple accounts rule as a way for casinos to fuck players out of money without any negative repercussion. If the player is abusing giveaways/promotions by creating multiple accounts, then by all means deny his WD and show he done so. If the player has multiple accounts and has not abused anything, just made deposits and had a win, then pay the guy his money and move on.

The multiple account rule is a joke.

100% with you on this.

I hardly see any casino enforce this kind of rule when the player is negative on his accounts. The story changes rather quickly when the gambler is net positive...

[nutildah]

like the rollover requirements that some casinos use to "prevent money-laundering".

That is actually stupidest excuse and rule I have ever heard, only thing which might prevent money laundering is KYC, but not selective KYC which is regular practice around here.

Even casinos that don't require KYC do this... For casinos its usually a 2-3x rollover requirement and for sportsbooks its usually 1x. The only anonymous betting sites that don't are dice sites like Bustadice, etc.. It might be lame but its pretty standard. If they didn't do that, people could just use casinos as a mixer and there's nothing in it for them.

I'd actually be curious to know which sportsbooks don't have this requirement and will let you withdraw without wagering and without KYC.

[actmyname]

If they didn't do that, people could just use casinos as a mixer and there's nothing in it for them.

If people wanted to mix with casinos (for whatever reason) instead of a mixer, they could probably brunt the 1% fee in the form of house edge which I presume would be far less than the amount they are paying an alternative mixer. If it's not less than the amount they are paying, then why have the rule? That would be stopping irrational money launderers - a minority of a minority.

Does it stop money laundering? Kind of... but does it also create a massive benefit for the casino's end, ensuring that they get at least a small percentage of all users' deposits? Yes.A few BTC-based casinos did not have a rollover requirement... I'm not sure if there is a sportsbook out there.

[Get-Paid.com]

It looks like Sportsbet.io directly or indirectly is trying to sweep this issue under the rug!

Example: this user is annoyed that scam accusations are popping in the official thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54878809#msg54878809

And these 2 users blatantly ignore whatever was discussed prior to their messages and post some nonsense about soccer/football:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54879006#msg54879006
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54879504#msg54879504

What kind of feked up business is this?!

We support and promote lots of good businesses incl. gambling sites - but this one is shady as hell.

[nutildah]

If it's not less than the amount they are paying, then why have the rule?

I don't follow what you're saying here. The rule isn't for the would-be launderers. The rule is for the casino.

A couple years back I asked one particular casino about why they had that rule and they said it was one of the requirements according to the terms of their license, which was a Curacao license. I looked for the correspondence but must have deleted it long ago.

A few BTC-based casinos did not have a rollover requirement...

Such as...? Or you mean they didn't in the past and don't exist anymore...

Anyway, we're pretty off-topic now.

And these 2 users blatantly ignore whatever was discussed prior to their messages and post some nonsense about soccer/football:

Meh, just looks like people trying to continue conversation that is normal for that thread. They probably put the accusers on ignore.

[neymarjr12]

@neymarjr12 do you mind changing the amount scammed to the difference between what they are offering and the full amount? .271 BTC if I'm not mistaken?

You mean in the first post?

[asche]

@neymarjr12 do you mind changing the amount scammed to the difference between what they are offering and the full amount? .271 BTC if I'm not mistaken?

You mean in the first post?

I do.

Also a flag type 2 might gain more support since there is no proof of a written contract violation. But that's up to you really.

[neymarjr12]

I messaged Steve & told him he’s going to have to do more to satisfy some people on this by the way.

Edit - Just looked, he hasn’t been online since 7am ish so he won’t have seen my PM yet.

Did you get a reply from Steve? Or they decided to leave all the questions unanswered and admit my points?

[AB de Royse777]

Also a flag type 2 might gain more support since there is no proof of a written contract violation. But that's up to you really.

I am not sure but I think one can not create two flag against same user in 6 months or something. I have not checked the Turst topic for long time but I can recall that I have seen something about not allowing to create multiple flag against same user by a same accuser.

Regarding the amount, I think the following line will be very appropriate:

Amount Scammed: 0.373 BTC

Total amount in question: 0.373 BTC
Wants to offer: x
Amount want to scam: 0.373 BTC - x

I really did not think this amount thing was too hard to figure LOL

Edit: I had to look at the post made my Steve to figure x = 0.102 BTC

[Coin_trader]

This is my first time to see this scam thread and I'm a regular player on sportsbet.io before I stop last month. I don't encounter this kind of holding funds problem even though I withdraw/deposit back and forth many times within a day. I play an amount more than the OP declared amount. So I believe they will not freeze an account if they don't see any suspicious activity on it.

I'm not being paid by sportsbet and I don't have any connection with them.

You can see my withdrawal/deposit history here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54556238#msg54556238

I can show more older transaction if you want.

[asche]

I can show more older transaction if you want.

Not sure why you post here just because you as a person never had an issue. How is that relevant?

It is quite obvious that 99% of the time everything is smooth, otherwise there would be a lot more noise than this.

That doesn't mean that the remaining 1% is all fair and right.

[gosha@e-coin]

I can show more older transaction if you want.

It is quite obvious that 99% of the time everything is smooth, otherwise there would be a lot more noise than this.

What a joke. Read the internet, and Google for sportsbet.io scam. I rather would say that 99% of the time people are scammed, and 1% of the time it is smooth.
Seems that sportsbet.io has found some people who are trying to save their "reputation"

This is my first time to see this scam thread and I'm a regular player on sportsbet.io before I stop last month. I don't encounter this kind of holding funds problem even though I withdraw/deposit back and forth many times within a day. I play an amount more than the OP declared amount. So I believe they will not freeze an account if they don't see any suspicious activity on it.

I'm not being paid by sportsbet and I don't have any connection with them.

You can see my withdrawal/deposit history here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54556238#msg54556238

I can show more older transaction if you want.

Do you think we are stupid? You have an agreement with sportsbet.io
You will deposit funds in your account, and get this funds back after it. Easily to manipulate.
With your message you only proove that you are another employee from their team.

It looks like Sportsbet.io directly or indirectly is trying to sweep this issue under the rug!

Example: this user is annoyed that scam accusations are popping in the official thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54878809#msg54878809

And these 2 users blatantly ignore whatever was discussed prior to their messages and post some nonsense about soccer/football:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54879006#msg54879006
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458034.msg54879504#msg54879504

What kind of feked up business is this?!

We support and promote lots of good businesses incl. gambling sites - but this one is shady as hell.

Yes, that is because these 2 users are working for sportsbet.io
I can provide a list from all the users that are defending sportsbet.io and are just hired to defend them and to push negative posts away.
It is the standard way of working in their procedure. People complain, and Steve comes into the play with a poster/flyer and the shill accounts are talking about games, poker and other nonsene not related stuff.

[Coin_trader]

I can show more older transaction if you want.

Not sure why you post here just because you as a person never had an issue. How is that relevant?

It is quite obvious that 99% of the time everything is smooth, otherwise there would be a lot more noise than this.

That doesn't mean that the remaining 1% is all fair and right.

My point was very simple, if there is really no malicious activity on the account then there will be no problem at all. I'm not here to argue or so. I've been using sportsbet.io more than a year without a problem and seeing this kind of scam accusation will surely bother me because I'm a player on the accused casino. Is it wrong to share experience on the accused casino?



EDIT:

This is my last post on this thread. 

[Pffrt]

I am not sure but I think one can not create two flag against same user in 6 months or something.

Yes, you are correct. Users can create flag on same user once in a 180 days period. But someone else with linking archived proof by creating a thread can create a new flag type if anyone feels the necessity.

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

[AB de Royse777]

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

Thanks for bringing it. It says "each type" which should mean that neymarjr12 can create a type 2 since he has not created a type 2 yet.

~snip~

GP can you stay away from trolling in this thread? You are not helping anyone but annoying.

[suchmoon]

Thanks for bringing it. It says "each type" which should mean that neymarjr12 can create a type 2 since he has not created a type 2 yet.

Yes.

But someone else with linking archived proof by creating a thread can create a new flag type if anyone feels the necessity.

I would advise against that. Type 2/3 flags should be created by someone who is a party to the contract and suffered damages.

[gosha@e-coin]

Somehow I feel personally addressed as a GP. First, I post where I want and when I want.
Second; this is not trolling but I would like to emphasize the facts and put them together clearly. I know much more what's going on than you can even think / imagine.
All I can say at this point is that my investigation is a result of deliberate damage to certain bookmakers. These bookmakers now want to retaliate and resources have been put in from above. So my advice to sportsbet.io: Keep your dogs on a lead on the leash here, they may bark occasionally but keep them on a lead. Otherwise, the consequences are beyond your control.
Let this be a clear signal. I have found all the information I need. If I notice that sportsbet.io is releasing her dogs from other bookmakers, I will be active again immediately.