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

[o_e_l_e_o]

Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?

[1715680809]

1715680809

[1715680809]

1715680809

[1715680809]

1715680809

[1715680809]

1715680809

[1715680809]

1715680809

[JollyGood]

From what I read a list of all participants was not made public.

Having said that I find it extremely peculiar that this type of review/mediation/arbitration is even going on.

Does anybody know of anything like this ever happening before in the forum where a company worth multi-millions of USD$ engaged so deeply with some users to examine various bits of information (without giving away their trade security secrets) to show the alleged victim is actually in breach of their ToS?

It seems the OP (who is the alleged victim) is basically willing to share his KYC and various other information himself because if Sportsbet do it they are in breach of GDPR and various other data protection legislation so could open themselves up for legal action. Part of the claim by Sportsbet is that the OP failed to pass KYC and part of the claim by Sportsbet is the OP had multiple accounts but on both counts they failed to disclose what the reasons for them coming those conclusions were.

Regarding the multiple accounts, Sportsbet claim they applied more of a robust system than just to check the same IP address but for obvious reasons cannot disclose their techniques otherwise fraudsters and scammers will be lining up to sign up and take advantage.

In this post I gave my reasons for not supporting any of the 3 flags against Sportsbet: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.msg54893685#msg54893685

Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?

[PrimeNumber7]

-

I think the issue of alleged multi-accounting is a red herring. Before the issue of possible multi-accounting is addressed, SB needs to articulate how specifically they were harmed by the OP using multiple accounts. They also need to disclose the total deposits, and the total withdrawals they will allow across all of the accounts they are alleging to belong to the OP.

Without the disclosure of the above information, the OP having multiple accounts does not matter, and I would view the situation as SB using a technalicity to arbitrarily confescate user winnings, and as such, SB would be a high risk to trade with.

I reviewed SB's trust page and found this:

<>


Timeline of events

<>
30.03.2017 – The Client was immediately flagged for suspicious gameplay due rapidly changing gameplay dependant on whether the transaction was confirmed in the blockchain or not.
30.03.2017- 02.04.2017 – The Client continues the suspicious gameplay over the course of 4 deposit/withdraw instances.
02.04.2017 – The Client requested a withdrawal in the sum of 20.6 BTC which was declined by the Operator due to suspicious gameplay.
<>

The above is SB saying they decided to ask to verify a customer's KYC due to possible future double spending aginst them. They specifically did not say that their customer even attempted to double spend any of their deposits, but rather that they believed their customer would attempt to double spend a deposit in the future. They ended up confiscating 6.5 BTC (~$50k at the time). I think it is important to note, they did not KYC verify their customer as soon as they discovered the "suspicious" behavior, but rather started KYC verification after their customer was up ~12 BTC.

I thought red notes were only for bad trading experiences?

Red trust is for users who are high-risk in trading. Someone continuing to escalate a dispute after binding mediation - high-risk shithead IMO.

Being a "high risk shithead" is not the same as being "high-risk in trading".

If someone offers to mediate a dispute, and the mediation is unable to offer an explanation that is satisfactory to observers, there is no reason why an observer should be obligated to accept the outcome of said mediation. This is even true for the OP, unless he has explicitly agreed the outcome of the mediation is binding, which I have not seen evidence of. It is not uncommon for parties involved in a dispute to engage in non-binding mediation to try to resolve disputes; sometimes it is successful, but oftentimes it is not.

[Get-Paid.com]

Then why did u support the flag ?
Stop being a Hypocrite. Every forum member has their right to support or oppose according to their opinions.
You did the same, yet u call out others for exercising their right. Insane

If it was 2 individuals arguing about something then you'd be right.
But it's a giant operation against a tiny small ant - so "protecting" the ant is the right thing to do.

They are the ones withholding funds and they are the ones who've done it already twice this week - at least according to what was posted in Bitcointalk (perhaps some other users who experienced the same are not even aware they can post this here).

I have 0 sympathy towards SportsBet.io, zero ... there are other operators like Stake and Roobet who have 0 complaints against them because they simply don't withhold winnings like crooks.

I would view the situation as SB using a technalicity to arbitrarily confescate user winnings, and as such, SB would be a high risk to trade with.

You're right, that's how I view it exactly.
There are too many red flags here.

And you're right about this way of resolving this case - what about the 2nd case that was raised? (some members said they won't have time for another one).

This is unprofessional and uncalled for.

And yet I'm taking the fire for being on the defensive here - I'm defending FUTURE customers that would come here and complain about the same - because it doesn't look like SportsBet.io would change the way they operate.

What kind of casino or gambling website is asking you if you're related to these and these accounts?!?!

If there is FRAUD - block and kick out the user!

If not - then stop being a crook and pay up!

SIMPLE!

[glider101]

I dont believe this is still ongoing now over what.  1/4 a bitcoin?

I have 0 sympathy towards SportsBet.io, zero ... there are other operators like Stake and Roobet who have 0 complaints against them because they simply don't withhold winnings like crooks.

You are truly biased and not making things any better

Unlike Sportsbet.io that has a real and valid accusation against them - Roobet.com is clean and 100% honest.

We are proud promoting Roobet.com in our sites and we are against cheating websites like Sportsbet.io (and their sister site BitCasino.io) - we know how to say kudos to others when it's necessary, and we know when it's time for criticism but Roobet is 100% honest and unlike its competitors it doesn't cheat its users.

All sportsbook have FUD written about them

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stake.com+scam

What about Yahoo's case?  -    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206650.0
That man went though hell and back to get his winningss   Its not just  sportsbet, wake the fuck up alreadsy??

[Get-Paid.com]

What about Yahoo's case?  -    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206650.0
That man went though hell and back to get his winningss   Its not just  sportsbet, wake the fuck up alreadsy??

That wasn't a case of fraud, it was a case where they didn't stipulate the maximum profit properly.
This is understandable and since then Roobet hasn't caused any further issues as far as I know (please don't underestimate I don't read posts in the forum!)

A genuine mistake is not the same as withholding your funds for some clause from the ToS that sounds unscrupulous.

Sorry but you really can't compare between the two.

[glider101]

how do you explain this!
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stake.com+scam
you say its only sportsbet but i am saying its all big casinos

[glider101]

you are clearly accepting money to work for other casinos.  so your words shouldnt be taken with much worth.   
you are biased and only here for your financial reasons.

[Get-Paid.com]

you are clearly accepting money to work for other casinos.  so your words shouldnt be taken with much worth.   
you are biased and only here for your financial reasons.

Wrong!
But it's pointless to continue this ridiculous argument.

You're wrong, 100%.

[glider101]

you are clearly accepting money to work for other casinos.  so your words shouldnt be taken with much worth.   
you are biased and only here for your financial reasons.

Wrong!
But it's pointless to continue this ridiculous argument.

You're wrong, 100%.

How about my Google link-  its wrong too?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stake.com+scam
Nothing against Stake.com I play there, but it's not only SB who gets accused of such things.  Wake up!!

[Get-Paid.com]

How about my Google link-  its wrong too?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stake.com+scam
Nothing against Stake.com I play there, but it's not only SB who gets accused of such things.  Wake up!!

Why do I need to search for results in Google.
Do you have a valid scam accusation from this forum?

And seriously - I don't want to continue the discussion with you.
You're a liar (claiming I work for competitors) and there's no point in talking to liars as you can believe whatever you want to believe.

I work for my businesses and my businesses only and thank god I am not part of the gambling industry, and don't wanna be part of it, ever.

[glider101]

You're a liar (claiming I work for competitors) and there's no point in talking to liars as you can believe whatever you want to believe.

I work for my businesses and my businesses only and thank god I am not part of the gambling industry, and don't wanna be part of it, ever.

We are proud promoting Roobet.com in our sites

You said it not me
So do you promote Roobet on your sites or youre not part of the gambling industry?    Which one cant be both  

[suchmoon]

Being a "high risk shithead" is not the same as being "high-risk in trading".

No, I meant exactly a shithead who is high-risk in trading as evidenced by escalating a dispute after binding mediation. Thanks for trying to explain my words but you're shit at that job so you're fired.

If someone offers to mediate a dispute, and the mediation is unable to offer an explanation that is satisfactory to observers, there is no reason why an observer should be obligated to accept the outcome of said mediation. This is even true for the OP, unless he has explicitly agreed the outcome of the mediation is binding, which I have not seen evidence of. It is not uncommon for parties involved in a dispute to engage in non-binding mediation to try to resolve disputes; sometimes it is successful, but oftentimes it is not.

Some more gobbledygook. Mediation is not for "observers".

[Get-Paid.com]

So do you promote Roobet on your site or youre not part of the gambling industry?    Which one cant be both 

We are promoting them in some of our faucet sites, that's correct.
What's wrong with that?

How's that turning us into ones "who work for them"? We don't work for them, we promote them because they pay us for an ad space. We could care less about all the rest.

How is all this related to SportsBet.io? Are you claiming we want Roobet.com to succeed and SportsBet.io to fail and that's why the posts are made here?
Let's take that theory forward,
If anything, at all - we should be bashing BitCasino.io, the sister website of SportsBet.io - because Roobet is doing casino games only with no sports -

So let's put things straight:

My personal complaint against SportsBet.io is simple - they are withholding user funds and they do it for unscrupulous reasons.
Why do I go against them? Because I don't appreciate what they do to their users, accusing them of multi-account-users and dealing with it unprofessionally.

Do I get any benefit from doing so? No.
In fact I've wasted too much of my precious time on this.

I want people and businesses to play fair, and that's what I fight for...

Here's another example for you:

I had a Skype conversation with George from CloudBet maybe a year ago or so, he asked me to promote their website - initially we did, but when I discovered how CloudBet is scamming their users I asked George for an explanation - when I saw this is not getting resolved I shut the door and told him - no thanks, no more promoting your business.

And if you search the history you can see I made posts in CloudBets threads as well.

I don't like it when people don't play fair, that's all... especially especially when it comes to gambling.

So sorry - whatever theory you wanna come up with is not going to work for you simply because I am telling you the truth who I am and why I do this.

Now,

Can we stop all this nonsense and let's see how this (specific) case gets resolved? I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Get-Paid.com

Bro, it’d be a good idea for you to step away from this now. You’re digging yourself a hole, deeper & deeper. It’s clear what your intentions are as you’ve been caught working for a rival.

Step away from this thread & all discussion about the case (I include myself in that). It’s being dealt with by reputable members & the findings will be revealed in a few days. This saga doesn’t need people like yourself stirring the pot. Leave it to the guys who’ve been chosen to deal with it.

You’re very close to getting red trust from suchmoon. I suggest from now nobody posts in this thread unless you’re directly involved in the investigation because none of the rest of us are going to add anything constructive.


Anybody who responds to this thread who isn’t directly involved in the investigation after my post is at the risk of receiving negative trust

[glider101]

We are proud promoting Roobet.com in our sites

We are promoting them in some of our faucet sites, that's correct.
What's wrong with that?

thank god I am not part of the gambling industry, and don't wanna be part of it, ever.

I made them letters big enough for you and I am done with arguing with a liar  like you.

[suchmoon]

the findings will be revealed in a few days

Or not even that. There is no plausible solution to this debacle that I could imagine satisfying every troll and TBH it's none of anyone's business except neymarjr12 and Sportsbet. If they choose to share any info that's fine, if not - we have to accept that and move on.

[Steamtyme]

Anybody who responds to this thread who isn’t directly involved in the investigation after my post is at the risk of receiving negative trust

Do not do that. That is extremely poor judgement to begin threatening people with Negative feedback for posting/trolling in a thread. Exclude and ignore them all you want... myself included if that's how you feel, but let's not degrade ourselves and the feedback system.

Just to set the expectations clearly:
I'm not as nice as Royse777. Since both neymarjr12 and Sportsbet.io agreed to mediation this dispute is essentially resolved once the mediation concludes, one way or another. So anyone still fanning the flames will probably get a nice red note. Don't be that person.

Come on. You know that's a neutral at best. It's a comment on them as an individual and their posting/trolling. Unless it is Neymarjr. or sportsbet.io you plan to tag for carrying on afterwards. Then it could be seen as a trade dispute and relevant to a warning about transacting with them.

Not going to lie I was pretty opposed to this idea of a "Jury of mediators". Not that I don't trust/respect most of your judgement most of the time, it just seemed like a forced scenario. I had a minor exchange with sportsbet  after the decision had already been made to go ahead with this - I was unaware of that and we started talking about something different - My suggestion was for them to seek out that Askgamblers.com themselves and see if they would hear the case from that point.

I see this as precedent setting where individuals might see this as the new accepted method to demand answers from the backend of a company. Just my opinion. H

[mindrust]

BitcoinTALK-PROTECT

The best investigators money can buy! We will cross examine the shit out of you, the suspect and even each other.

"Don't trust verify."

[JollyGood]

Come on. You know that's a neutral at best. It's a comment on them as an individual and their posting/trolling. Unless it is Neymarjr. or sportsbet.io you plan to tag for carrying on afterwards. Then it could be seen as a trade dispute and relevant to a warning about transacting with them.

Not going to lie I was pretty opposed to this idea of a "Jury of mediators". Not that I don't trust/respect most of your judgement most of the time, it just seemed like a forced scenario. I had a minor exchange with sportsbet  after the decision had already been made to go ahead with this - I was unaware of that and we started talking about something different - My suggestion was for them to seek out that Askgamblers.com themselves and see if they would hear the case from that point.

I cannot advocate for a process such as this where forum members are asked to arbitrate or give a judgement on matters such as these. As the Askgamblers.com website is there to rule on things such as this, why was that route not taken instead?

I see this as precedent setting where individuals might see this as the new accepted method to demand answers from the backend of a company. Just my opinion. H

My sentiments exactly, I already stated that this could be start of a very dangerous precedent where it is the new norm of a route that anybody making an allegation can ask to go down and expect it to happen.